FACE-THREATENING ACTS AND (IN)CIVILITY IN NIGERIAN POLITICAL EXCHANGES A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL EXECUTIVE RESPONSES TO CRITICISM

Abstract

This paper examines how Nigerian federal executive spokespersons respond to opposition criticism through face-threatening acts and (in)civil linguistic strategies. Focusing on two high-profile exchanges (between Atiku Abubakar and Bayo Onanuga, and between Osita Chidoka and Festus Keyamo) the study analyzes public statements sourced from X (Twitter) and online media using a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) framework combined with the notion of face and face-threatening acts. The analysis identifies recurrent grammatical and discursive features such as complex sentence structures, rhetorical questions, evaluative and pejorative lexis (e.g. “fallacy packaged as truth,” “warped statement,” “desperate attempt”), and accusations of hypocrisy and lack of patriotism. These features perform direct and indirect threats to the critics’ positive face (their desire to be respected and seen as credible) and, at times, to their identity as patriots. While the responses maintain a formal tone and institutional register, they are underpinned by hostility and adversarial positioning that foreground personal attacks over substantive policy engagement. The paper argues that these patterns exemplify a form of “formalised incivility,” where official discourse retains surface politeness while normalising antagonistic and delegitimising moves. It concludes that such discursive practices erode democratic civility, deepen polarization, and calls on public office holders to re-centre their responses on issues and evidence rather than ad hominem attacks.