“They apologised to me privately. I said they should put it on social media. They said they will not put it on social media, it will affect their credibility, because it’s not just them, but their other programmers at the Al Jazeera network too.”
These were the words of Daniel Bwala, while giving further insight into what has transpired along the line since his controversial interview with Mehdi Hasan of Al Jazeera, a global television network in March 2026, stating that the station privately apologised to him.
Bwala, who appeared on The Morayo Show, a private talk-show programme, hosted by Morayo Afolabi-Brown, a popular television presenter, however said because both Mehdi and Al Jazeera, refused to make the apology public, he was prompted him to instruct his lawyers in England to sue for defamation.
Clips on the controversial outing in which Bwala, spokesman for the campaign of Atiku Abubakar during his presidential bid in 2023, were in the public domain for several weeks after where a groundswell of commentators believed his performance was not only underwhelming, but he was outrightly disgraced.
He added: “The substance of the apology was that they should have told me that part of what they discussed with me was a talking point, that they were also going to interrogate me on my credibility for supporting the person I had attacked before.
“By their own ethics, they ought to have told me that, but they said they were sorry they didn’t. If you’re bold, if you call yourself a journalist, a fact-checker, you run your programme live and let people judge live.
“If you’re thinking straight, that’s what you’d do. You took creative control of the programme. You made a recorded programme. Ethics demanded you publish it exactly as it was recorded.”
Informing that the programme ran for one hour and 30 minutes but Al Jazeera published only 49 minutes, he accused the network of skewing the footage in Hasan’s favour, adding: “The deeper point is that they cut out the parts where I was fact-checking him and the crowd was clapping for me, and instead kept the parts where he was speaking and people were clapping for him. He’d ask me a question, I’d deny it, then he’d play the old clip. We call that ‘cut and joined’ in media. After doing that, which amounts to a smear campaign, he didn’t give me the chance to react to it.
“Instead, he let it appear that I was simply asked a question, denied it, was shown the clip, denied it again, was shown another clip, and denied it again. He removed that part, because if he’d left it in, anyone watching would understand that I had already answered the question upfront, and that my later denials were a response to his repeated bringing it up. That’s where the unethical conduct of a professional issue arose.
“When they apologised, I said no, put it on social media. They refused. So, I instructed my lawyers in England to go to court. The case is currently in court. Because my advisers in England said it’s defamation of character.”