Onanuga, Atiku’s Aide Trade Words Over ‘Shoot on Sight’ Comment, Grammar, and Public Responsibility

A sharp exchange on social media between a senior aide to President Bola Tinubu and an aide to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has drawn public attention, blending concerns over public safety, governance rhetoric, and an unexpected debate over English usage.

The online clash involved Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Information and Strategy, and Phrank Shaibu, Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. Their disagreement unfolded on X (formerly Twitter) and was triggered by a report alleging vandalism of ongoing rehabilitation work on the Ilesha–Ibadan Expressway.

Reacting to the report, Onanuga expressed outrage over the destruction of public infrastructure, describing the perpetrators in harsh terms and calling for extreme punitive measures. In a post shared via his verified handle, @aoanuga1956, he wrote: “Just shoot these unconscionable vandals/thieves at sight. They are worst species of citizenships.”

The comment quickly gained traction online, prompting a range of reactions from social media users and political observers. While some sympathized with the frustration over vandalism of public assets, others criticized the language used, particularly because it came from a senior government official.

Several hours later, Shaibu responded via his handle, @phrankangel, condemning the statement and questioning its appropriateness. He argued that advocating lethal force against suspects amounted to an endorsement of extrajudicial action and was incompatible with democratic governance.

According to Shaibu, calling for citizens to be “shot at sight” undermines the rule of law and due process. He emphasized that criminal behavior, including vandalism, should be addressed through lawful investigation, arrest, and prosecution, rather than through rhetoric that could be interpreted as encouraging unlawful killings.

Shaibu warned that such statements, when made by high-ranking government officials, could embolden abuse by security agencies and erode public trust in the justice system. He further suggested that individuals who promote such ideas should not hold public office.

The exchange, however, took a different turn later the same day when Shaibu revisited Onanuga’s original post to highlight what he described as a grammatical and idiomatic error. He argued that the correct English expression is “shoot on sight,” a fixed idiom, rather than “shoot at sight,” which he described as incorrect usage.

Onanuga responded the following day, dismissing the criticism in blunt terms. He maintained that both expressions were acceptable in English usage and accused Shaibu of lacking proper grammatical understanding. His reply, which included a personal insult, further fueled the online controversy.

Unrelenting, Shaibu replied with a more detailed explanation, insisting that “shoot on sight” is the standard idiomatic expression in English and that altering it changes its correctness. He framed his argument as a matter of precision in public communication, particularly for individuals occupying sensitive government positions.

The exchange attracted widespread attention from social media users, journalists, and commentators, many of whom weighed in on both the substance and tone of the debate. While some focused on the grammar argument—turning the discussion into a broader conversation about idioms and English usage—others expressed concern over the underlying issue of public officials calling for violence.

Critics argued that beyond grammar, the episode reflected a deeper problem of intemperate language in Nigeria’s political discourse. They noted that statements from government spokespersons carry weight and can shape public perception, influence security behavior, and escalate tensions in an already fragile security environment.

Supporters of Onanuga, on the other hand, contended that his comment was an expression of frustration rather than a literal policy directive, pointing to the widespread public anger over infrastructure vandalism and corruption.

As of the time of filing this report, Onanuga had not responded further to Shaibu’s last explanation, effectively bringing the exchange to a pause. Nevertheless, the incident continues to spark debate about the responsibilities of public communicators, the limits of political rhetoric, and the importance of measured language in governance.

Ultimately, the episode underscored how quickly public discourse can shift from policy concerns to personal attacks—and how, in Nigeria’s highly charged political climate, even grammar can become a battleground.