AN EXPLORATION OF PRAGMATIC ACTS IN THE SELECTED NIGERIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

Vol. 3, No. 1, September, 2024: Language Review: An International Journal of Linguistics (LRIJL) pg. 25 AN EXPLORATION OF PRAGMATIC ACTS IN THE SELECTED NIGERIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS Dr. Esther Olajumoke Adeagbo Ajayi Crowther University, Department of English DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17932866 Abstract In Nigeria’s political environment, the defamatory aspects of hate speech have sparked a variety of discursive responses. Studies that have already been done on hate speech have addressed its moral and semiotic implications with a focus on pragma-stylistic and a lack of sufficient scholary research into the contextual features and pragmatic acts on hate speeches. This study, therefore, explored the pragmatics of hate speeches in selected Nigerian presidential election campaigns of 2015 and 2019, with a view to revealing the contextual features and pragmatic acts in the speeches. Textual aspects of Jacob Mey’s (2001) Pragmatic Act, served as the framework. Data comprising five hate speeches, purposively extracted from presidential campaign speeches of 2015 and 2019 elections were sourced via the Punch Newspaper, and subjected to pragmatic analyses. Findings revealed that the hate speeches manifested different pragmatic acts such as directing, forbidding, condemning, warning, cautioning, commanding, advising, vowing, rebuking, dreading, regretting, threatening, inquiring, judging, reporting, insisting, and declaring that interact with the following contextual features: reference (REF), metaphor (MPH), shared situational knowledge (SSK), relevance (REL) voice (VCE), inference (INF) and metapragmatic joker (M). The 2015 and 2019 Nigeria presidential campaigns predominantly featured pragmatic acts such as condemning, warning and informing. As a proof of a country with social tensions and a nascent democratic experience, various hate speeches and their intrinsic pragmatic acts illustrate various disparaging words used to disdain aand scoff during Nigerian electioneering campaigns. Therefore, this calls for more research to explain the improvement of sick or destructive aspects in hate speeches in the process of building the nation of Nigeria. Keywords: Pragmatic acts, Hate speeches, Nigerian elections, Presidential campaigns, Contextual features Introduction anguage and politics are so dependently intertwined that language has become an essential tool in politics and governance. Language is capable of generating anthropological discourse which can branch to the study of the language of politics since politics is part of human life and activity. Politics is concerned with power; the power to make decisions, to control resources, to control other people's behaviour, and to control their values. Politicians believe in the power of language to influence thought, and also that there is power in linguistics relatively, and perhaps, that is why they choose their words carefully. Political language consists largely of euphemism, implicature, metaphor, presupposition, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness (Orwell, 2002:36). And L aspects of political communication include but not limited to statements made by politicians, writing of politicians, political speeches, election campaigns, parliamentary debates and political interviews. Beard (2002) confirms that political campaigns, speeches, written texts, and broadcasts are meant to inform as well as instruct voters about issues that are considered to be of great importance. Thus, language is the basis of all political activities. Indeed, no matter how good political ideologies are, they can only be made clear, expressed and further translated through language. Recognizing the importance of the language of politics to linguists, Taiwo (2009:4) submits that “the language of politics is studied within the framework of political rhetoric, pragmatics, discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, and linguistic style”. This shows that the language of politics was, is, will always be a subject of interest to linguists. The language of politics has an important role in the exchange of values in social life, and in converting authority into authority and obedience into duty. It provides space for politicians to manipulate words to suit their intentions to locate the resources available through language (Taiwo, 2009). Political speeches are the crucial activity that links the different parts of society together and allows them to be united as a whole. The core of political speech is the ability of the politician to use language and symbols that wake latent tendencies among the masses. The main objective of political speech is to get the corresponding effect through persuasion. Politicians wish to increase people's interest and strengthen their own image, make people share their opinions and agree with their ideas, and inform the general public of their ideology and message. Making speeches is a vital part of the politicians’ means of announcing policy and persuading people to agree with their ideas and to inform the general public of their ideology and message. During the election period, political parties try to reach out and please as many people as possible to show what each politician stands for and what they plan to do and to make improvements. It is, therefore, possible to conclude that the success of a political speech can be determined by how effectively and efficiently politicians use the conduit channeled by the language (Taiwo, 2009). A political campaign is seen as a systematised attempt at seeking to influence the opinions and possible decisions of a particular group of people (Side, 2018). Hate speech exemplifies rhetorical strategies that drive some people to a level of hostility in which they openly inflict physical harm on others or political leaders, violating important norms that enable a democratic government to function (Chaken and Eagle, 1978). Against this background, the study seeks to analyse pragmatic acts, and contextual features deployed in the hate speeches of selected Nigerian presidential election campaigns. 1. Statement of the problem Previous studies on political speeches have been carried out using different linguistic framework. For instance, Christoforou (2014) examined hate speech in social media platform of Twitter. The researcher explored the ways Twitter enables hate speeches to be perpetrated. The study attempted to obtain a first impression of the occurrence of hate speech within the Greek Twitter sector and to demonstrate what types of hate speech were being produced as well as the characteristics of hate speech messages. The focus of that paper was on the case of the murder of a leftist rapper Pavlos Fyssas by a member of Golden Dawn, a right-wing political party in Greece and the tweets that were produced within 24 hours after this incident. The paper reported that hate speech on Twitter could potentially hinder the creative process of deliberation, and put democracy at risk. Wangatiah, Ongaroga and Matu (2016), examined the role of context in the interpretation of political statements on hate speech in Kenya. The study analysed selective political statements on hate speech in order to demonstrate that Kenyan politicians rely heavily on context to encode hate speech messages in their political statements. The paper attempted to show how context is central Vol. 3, No. 1, September, 2024: Language Review: An International Journal of Linguistics (LRIJL) pg. 27 to the practical interpretation of political statements on hate speech, and how context is central to the practical interpretation of political statements on hate speech. In accomplishing these objectives, the paper applied relevance theory of Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson (1985, 1996 and 2004) in the practical interpretation of political statements on hate speech. Content analytical procedures were used in the selection of relevant data from pre-election campaign speeches delivered during the 2013 general elections in Kenya. The paper argues that political statements on hate speech in Kenya potentially depend on context to generate the intended hate speech message. It further suggests that politicians in Kenya have been able to deny some interpretations of the meaning assigned to their statements, on hate speech, because the context surrounding such statements obscures the pronunciation meaning of such speeches. Data for this is on political statement on hate speech in Kenya while the present study is carried out in Nigeria. Therefore that study appears to be different from the present study. Stephen (2017) studied hate speech as a threat to Nigerian democracy, and observed that hate speech in Nigeria has been pre-independence and post-independence. He submits that some Nigerian politicians used hate speech during elections as a tactical way to gain an advantage over their political opponents, and that such action had increased electoral violence, political tension and instability. Meanwhile, Adisa et al (2017) examined the relationship between media, politics, and hate speech. The research analysed the spread of hate speech in Nigeria, particularly in Nigeria's 2015 general election. The study reported that the floating of hate speech in several newspapers revealed that the media was used by politicians to promote hatred and encourage violence during election periods, as well as between ethnic and political groups in daily life. Also, Fashakin et al (2017) worked on the topic of hate speech in Nigeria particularly 2015 general elections. The study assessed the extent to which hate speech was used during the 2015 general elections in Nigeria. It was based on the Social Responsibility Theory, which states how the media should ideally function in a society given social values. The paper concluded that during the 2015 general elections in Nigeria, several hate speeches were used in all mass media, but none of these people that used hate speech were penalised. The newspaper recommended that political actors using hate speech during election campaigns should be punished as per the country's electoral laws. And also stringent punitive measures should be taken for media outlets that publish or broadcast hate speech as a deterrent to the growth of democracy in Nigeria. The study is perhaps differs from the present study, as it examined only general election, whereas the present study investigated 2015 and 2019 Presidential election campaign speeches. Therefore, it is evident that insufficient scholarly attention has been paid to the political campaign 2015 and 2019 especially that of Nigeria presidential election from pragmatic perspective. However, none of these studies has significantly explored the combination of contextual features, and pragmatic acts used in hate speeches. This is the gap this study intends to fill. 2. Aim and Objectives of the Study This study thus aims at investigating language use in hate speeches in selected presidential election campaign speeches in Nigeria. The specific objectives are to: 1.explore the actual pragmatic acts used in the hate speeches; 2. discuss the contextual features of the particular pragmatic acts in the speeches 3. Significance of the Study . The present study is expected to add to the knowledge of the relevance and application of the theory of pragmatic acts in the analysis of selected 2015 and 2019 Nigerian presidential campaigns. This helps to reveal the contextual features, and pragmatic acts that appear in the hate speeches. The study equally adds to the existing literature in political, and media discourses as well. The study may be of prodigious advantage to teachers, learners and researchers as it advances knowledge on the application of theory to the context and practical work theory of political communication, in linguistic scholarship in Nigeria. The study may also help in the proper orientation of the Nigerian population to be aware of hate speech, and to avoid its use. It would shed more light on the use of hate speech for political communication, and how Nigerian presidential candidates use it to communicate politically-sensitive topical issues. It will also help the media to be properly aware of the inherent nature of hate speech, in communication, so that media practitioners can expurgate hate speech when it is encountered. 4. The concept of hate speech Adisa, Patrick, Abubakar and La’aro (2017) submit that Hate speech is a communication of antagonism towards individuals or social groups based on their professed group membership, which echoes their race, culture, ethnic group, faith, frailty, sexual category or alignment. It is a cautious means of a campaign by politicians to gain power. The Council of Europe defines hate speech as all forms of expression that spur, incite, promote or validate ethnic hatred, chauvinism, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance (Europarate Ministerkomiti, 1997). It is words defined by a national, racial, religious group or their ethnic origin against a group, incites hatred against certain parts of the population or individuals because they belong to one of the above groups or segments of the population or makes violent calls or arbitrary measures against them; hate speech is the word that is used to insult others. Odongo (2010) observed that there is no universally agreed definition of what the term hate speech means, in contrast to the examples of most internationally recognized crimes. However, she adds that hate speech refers to inciting and hate words against people who share certain group characteristics based on their own. This includes speech that advocates or encourages violent acts against a specific group, and creates an atmosphere of hatred or prejudice which in turn may promote hate crimes. This includes speech that advocates or encourages violent acts against a specific group, and creates an atmosphere of hatred or prejudice which in turn may promote hate crimes. Perlmutter (1999) has described hate speech as speech that consists of verbal and non-verbal expression, which causes violence, repression against someone based on their membership in a social or ethnic group. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe states that hate speech includes all expressions that spread, incite, promote racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance or justification. As a result, it generates stigma, stereotypes, prejudices and discriminatory practices against those who are created by being different (ICIR, 2015). Similarly, Kukah (2015) sees hate speech as any communication that defames a particular person or group based on race, colour, ethnicity, gender, disability, orientation, nationality, religion, or other feature. It can be in the form of any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or performance and usually refers to provocation, violence, or prejudice against an individual or group. It is a speech that employs discriminatory adjectives to insult and stigmatize others based on their race, ethnicity, gender, orientation or other forms of group membership (Adibe, 2015). In the Nigerian context, hate speech includes insulting people for their religion; abusing people for their ethnic or linguistic affiliations; expressing contempt towards people because of their place of origin; abusing or insulting symbols of cultural or religious practices; defame or ridicule other Vol. 3, No. 1, September, 2024: Language Review: An International Journal of Linguistics (LRIJL) pg. 29 people's traditional or cultural institutions, and intentionally spread lies or rumours that demean or defames other people based on religion and ethnicity, gender or place of origin (Omar, 2015). From the foregoing definitions, this suffices to align with the view of Jidofor Adobe, a political scientist and media commentator, that hate speech is a catalyst for violence, and that it is highly doubtful if violence is anywhere without hate speech. There will be violent assault and the hate that it spreads (ICIR, 2015). Hate speech is on the rise in Nigeria, and finds expressions in two major factors that nurture and sustain its continuous existence, namely politics and ethno-religious conflicts. Ethno-religious conflicts have become so pervasive, most of which are politically motivated (Orounye, 2012). The outcome of most of them is wide-scale violence that often results in scores of deaths, destruction of lives and property worth millions of naira, intimidation and displacements of residents etc. Outbreaks of these conflicts often open the window for dissemination of injurious, hate, dangerous and vituperative speeches that have the capacity of accelerating the conflicts. The psychological effects of hate speech can be listed as a feeling of injustice, helplessness, anxiety and anger. Since being targeted with prejudice is in itself a source of significant distress, the decision to directly confront instances of hateful behaviour may be too much of an emotional effort for members of the target population to endure (Orounye, 2012). 5. The Context of Nigeria’s Presidential Election The electoral process in Nigeria is now more dynamic than in the earlier years of independence due to the nature of competitions among politicians. To sell candidates and woo voters, political parties engage in election campaigns during which statements are made. Campaigns must address issues of public importance, but in some instances, the comments are merely expressions of personal feelings. The press is not only the fourth asset of the region but also the voice of the people to report issues to the knowledge of voters. Elections take place in a politically charged environment where citizens prepare themselves to play their constitutional role by voting (Musbeh, 2018). Political parties have been described as indispensable tools for representative democracies (Pippa, 2005), bearing in mind that the democratic system is composed of agencies such as political parties that make democracy viable as a loop for governance (IDEA, 2017). It is therefore necessary to strengthen political parties in every society (Sete, 2018). Given that democracy is a ground order of political legitimacy in society, politicians make every attempt to sway voters (Held, 2006; Adeleke, 2006) during electioneering campaigns. Electioneering campaigns in Nigeria democratisation process have been turned into a theatre of abhorrent utterances and disrespect for political oppositions. Election campaigns in the country have always been uneasy, and sometimes laced with violence and killings in the different parts of the country. The 2015 general elections witnessed series of hate speeches being used by politicians against opponents. The election witnessed huge speech attacks against individuals and groups through statements. These statements are often aimed at galvanising support. The 2019 general elections in Nigeria witnessed another round of political campaigns which availed politicians the opportunity to inform the electorate what they would do if voted into power. Unlike the 2015 general elections when there were only 14 presidential candidates, the last (2019) election had 73 of them vying for the exalted seat of President of Nigeria. But the contest was basically between the All Progressive Congress and Peoples’ Democratic Party. Among the issues that faced the nation and demanded attention were those of security, anti-corruption fight, economic crisis, unemployment, electricity issue, job creation, and restructuring. It is believed that the ability to address these could influence voting (Egburonu and Odufowokan, 2018; Unah, 2019). 6. Theoretical Framework: Pragmatics acts The theory considered appropriate for this study is Jacob Mey's pragmatic acts theory. The Progenitor of Pragmatic Act Theory (PAT) is Jacob Lee Mey (2001). Mey propounded this theory to fill a gap in speech act theory. In other words, the theory addresses the shortcomings that underpin classical pragmatic theories, especially the speech act theory propounded by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969). Mey (2001) maintains that: 'Speech act theory is individual-oriented rather than social-centred'. In pragmatic act theory, Mey speculates that the importance of situation, environment, and additional linguistic factors in meaning formation and comprehension should be emphasised. Pragmatic act theory is a strange approach to explain the way pragmatics is represented in speech situations. Mey's criticism against speech act theory is that for speech to be effective, it must be situated (Kecskes, 2010). Both Pragmeme and Speech Act are dependent on the situation in which they are realised. Pragmatic acts theory is an attempt to explain the way pragmemes are represented in pragmatic acts in relation to speech situations. Following the tradition of adopting familiar linguistic vocabulary words, such as a phoneme, morpheme, etc., Mey coined the term pragmeme. To Mey, a speech act never comes alone, but always carries with it some other act(s) that inevitably depends on its success. These inclusive acts include a pool of member resources of the activity part and the text part of a pragmeme and are known as pragmatic acts. Mey (2001) presents the channel, which is at the pinnacle of pragmatic act theory, anchoring the 'activity' and 'text' aspects of communication. The activity part shows the roles of the participants in the discourse. 'Practice' initiates pragmatic work to realise a success. The 'pract' initiates a pragmatic act to realise a pragmeme. Each pract is at the same time an 'allopract' that is, a specific production of a definite pragmeme. During communication, participants simultaneously produce speech acts, conversational acts, psychological acts, physical acts, and prosaic acts which manifest in varied contexts: INF (inference); REF (reference); VCE (Voice); SSK(Shared Situational Knowledge); MPH (Metaphor); and M (Metapragmatic Joker). According to Mey, pragmatic acts are situation-derived and situation-constrained. There is no oneto-one relationship between speech acts, and pragmatic acts, because the latter does not necessarily include specific acts of speech. Besides, the role of context is also inevitable. With Mey’s words, “...No conversational contribution at all can be understood properly unless it is situated within the environment in which it was meant to be understood” (Mey, 2001:217). Mey also explains the dynamic and dialectical nature of conversation when he states the fact that our acting is determined by what the scene can afford, and by what we can afford on the scene; that is to say, the scene not only determines our actions but also our actions determine and reaffirm the existing scene (Mey, 2001:218). Mey's critique of the speech act theory is on the insistence on the abstract organisation of the intentional speaker and hearer, and not on social reality (Omolabi, 2016) Mey (2006) affirms that the speaker/writer and listener/ reader cannot be isolated from social reality. Odebunmi (2006) holds the similar opinion that in pragmatic acts, the emphasis is on a general situation prototype for identifying acts performed in speech and not on rules for individual speech acts. He argued that the problem with the speech act theory is that it lacks a theory of action, and even if it does have such a theory it is individual rather than societal-centred (Mey, 2001). In Mey's opinion, human activity is not the privilege of the individual. Individuals are located in society, and this society determines Vol. 3, No. 1, September, 2024: Language Review: An International Journal of Linguistics (LRIJL) pg. 31 language usage and how the deployment of linguistic resources is used to mean. The theory, therefore, pays particular attention to the use, users, and the context of speech events. In other words, Pragmatic act refers to acts that work not just by their words but also by their being rooted in a situation in which human’s act, with everything that humans bring to their interactional forum. Mey’s pragmatic acts theory is an approach to explain the way pragmemes are represented in pragmatic acts in speech situations. Pragmeme is a situated speech act in which the rules of language and that of society combine to give meaning. Mey's major criticism about speech act is that for speech acts to be effective they have to be situated: ‘‘they both rely on, and actively create, the situation in which they are realized” (Mey, 2001:218). A particular pragmeme can be substantiated and realised through individual pragmatic acts. In other words, a pragmatic act is an instance of adapting oneself to a context, as well as adapting the context to oneself. There are two parts to this theory; the activity part and the textual part. The activity part contains the following: indirect speech acts, conversational ('dialogue') acts, psychological acts, prosodic acts and physical acts which the interactants rely on for meaningful communication, while the textual part contains the contextual features within which the pragmeme operates, which include INF representing "inference"; REF, "relevance"; VCE, "voice"; SSK, "shared situation knowledge"; MPH, "metaphor"; and M "metapragramatic joker" (Mey, 2001). 7. Research Methodology This research seeks to adopt a qualitative method in the analysis. A perceptual analytic approach (primarily informed by the oral nature of the research), is used as a qualitative strategy to investigate the discursive issues and actual hate speech in selected Presidential election campaign speeches. The qualitative method enhances the content analysis of the data for adequate interpretation, description and presentation of selected hate speeches. The content categories for this study are calumny, abusive, vituperation and name-calling hatespeeches, while the unit of analysis is the Punch News paper . The methodology adopted fed on Jacob Mey’s Pragmatic acts theory, in order to provide systemic descriptions of the influence of pragmatic resources in the analysis of hate speeches found in the data of this study. The sampling technique for this study is the purposive sampling technique. Data used in this study were drawn from the Punch Newspaper. Five hate speeches were purposively extracted from Presidential campaign speeches of 2015 and 2019. The purposive sampling technique is a convenient sampling method that enables researchers to use what is readily available to them and appropriate for their study. The convenience of the researcher in accessing these publications was also a factor considered in making the purposive selection.. The basis for the selection of Punch newspaer is that they prominently displayed more reports on political issues related to hate speech. The selection of this medium is done based on its national outlook and nationwide circulation. Any issue involving individuals at the top hierarchy of government in federalism, such as Nigeria’s, will have implications for national development (Popoola, 2014). Thus, channel of communication chosen in this respect has to be national in its spread and circulation. The above points informed the selection of the punch newspaper for the study. In light of the above, reporting hate speech, therefore, falls within the arena of its interest. The analysis of these speeches is done using Pragmatic act theory explicated by Jacob mey. 8. Data Analysis Pragmatic acts and contextual features in the speeches Speech 1: By their fruit, you shall know them. We don’t want a koboko Government (Source: Youtube Video, January 30, 2015. a. Pragmatic acts: The utterance is an instantiated pragmatic act of insisting and affirming. b. Pragmatic act features: There are six pragmatic act features employed in the speech, they are: i. Voice (V): The voice (VCE) in the text is Godswill Akpabio (the then Governor of Akwa Ibom State and a member of PDP). ii. Reference (REF): The perceived referent is the then presidential aspirant of APC, ‘Mohammadu Buhari’. Iii Shared Situational Knowledege (SSK): Nigerians have a shared situational knowledge (SSK) of past administration, where people suffered. Iv Inference (INF): The word ‘koboko’ infers (INF) administration that will inflict pain on the masses. v. Relevance (REL): The encoder’s information is optimally relevant to the decoders . iii. Metapragmatic Joker (M): The Yoruba word ‘Koboko’ which foreground Buhari’s regime is topicalised. c. Pragmeme message: ‘Vote wisely’ Speech 1 manifests pragmatic acts of insisting and affirming. To project the intended meaning in the hate speech, the encoder employed some contextual variables of the textual part of the pragmeme namely shared situational knowledge (SSK), (VCE), (REF), INF and Metapragmatic joker. The perceived referent is Mohammadu Buhari, the then presidential aspirant of APC. With an informative pitch, Godswill Akpabio (the then Governor of Akwa Ibom State and a member of PDP), informs Nigerians (implicitly) not to vote a government tagged ‘koboko’ which infers (INF) administration that will inflict pain on masses. Koboko refers to Buhari’s government between 1981-1983 where military flogged civilians for refusing to obey the law of the land. The text also employed shared situational knowledge (SSK) of past administration, where people suffered. With the expression ‘by their fruit you shall know’ people will have to reflect back to the past administration, to decode information disseminated by the encoder. This is a reference to Buhari’s government as the military head of government. The use of metapragmatic joker is also exhibited in the speech. This is observed in the voice of the speaker explicated in the Yoruba word ‘koboko’, which means pain or suffering. This expression is used to lay emphasis on the intended meaning expressed in the text. The voice expresses the pragmeme ‘Vote wisely’. Speech 2: Buhari was not and will never be a good administrator (Source: Punch, March 10, 2015) a. Pragmatic acts: The excerpt is an instantiated pragmatic act of informing, affirming and judging. b. Pragmatic act features: There are five practs features employed in the speech, they are: i. Voice (V): The voice (VCE) in the text is ‘General Ibrahim Babangida’ the Nigeria’s former military Head of State. Vol. 3, No. 1, September, 2024: Language Review: An International Journal of Linguistics (LRIJL) pg. 33 ii. Reference (REF): The perceived referent is ‘Mohammadu Buhari’ the then Presidential aspirant of the APC, iii. Shared Situational Knowledge (SSK): Nigerians have a shared situational Knowledge of Buhari’s administration. iv. Inference (INF): The speaker implicitly advising audience not to vote for Buhari v. Relevance (REL): Level of mutual understanding is shared between the interlocutors, thereby, making the information consequential, weighty, and relevant to the listeners. c. Pragmeme message: Buhari is not the best presidential option for Nigeria. The excerpt is undergirded by instantiated verdictive pragmatic acts of informing, affirming and judging. To discern the perceived interpretation of the speech, some contextual elements of the textual part of Mey’s Pragmeme is implicitly deployed. Hence, the pragmatic acts are linked with contextual attributes namely Voice (VCE), Shared Situational Knowledge (SSK), Relevance (REL) and inference (INF).The voice in the hate speech is ‘General Ibrahim Babangida’ the Nigeria’s former military Head of State., whereas, the definite referent is ‘Buhari’ the then presidential aspirant of APC. On relevance, level of mutual understanding is shared between the interlocutors, thusly, making the information consequential, weighty, and relevant to the listeners. With the above speech, Babangida conveys to audience an assumption of optimal relevance capable of producing a positive cognitive effect. Taking a cue from the shared situational knowledge of the past administration, of the referent, which is perceived to be filled with oddities, the encoder concludes with a verdictive pragmatic act of judging ‘…will never be a good administrator’. Based on inference (INF), the speaker is implicitly advising audience not to vote Buhari. The text expresses the pragmeme ‘Buhari is not the best presidential option for Nigeria’. Thus, speech 2 is characterised by pragmatic acts of informing, affirming and judging. Speech 3: Seventy-two year old man, sick and old. Buhari is old model. (Source: Punch, January 21, 2015) a. Pragmatic acts: The utterance is an instantiated pragmatic act of warning and condemning. b. Pragmatic act features: There are five pragmatic act features employed in the speech, these are: i. Voice (V): The voice (VCE) in the text is the then Ekiti State Governor and Chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party‘, Ayodele Fayose’ ii. Reference (REF): The referent is the then presidential aspirant of APC, ‘Mohammadu Buhari’. iii. Inference (INF): Buhari may not be able to steer the ship of Nigeria if elected. iv. Relevance (REL): There is a level of cognitive environment shared between the encoder and the decoder making the text fathomable and relevant (REL) to the audience. v. Metapragmatic Joker (M): ‘sick and old’ are topicalised. c. Pragmeme message: ‘Mohammadu Buhari does not have the required liveliness to be Nigeria’s president.