A fervent on-air clash unfolded on ARISE TV’s The Morning Show as journalist Rufai Oseni staunchly defended his colleague, Dr. Reuben Abati, against accusations leveled by political commentator and former Ekiti State spokesperson, Lere Olayinka.

Commencing the segment with a clarification, Oseni addressed the online conjecture surrounding Abati’s absence from the day’s broadcast. He said that Abati was unwell and had reported his illness, refuting claims that his absence was linked to Olayinka’s appearance on the program.

“Dr. Reuben Adeleye Abati did not vacate the show because ARISE TV instructed him to do so. He was ill and called in sick. The notion that he stayed away due to your presence is entirely unfounded,” Oseni declared emphatically.

Oseni further underscored that the allegations against Abati were baseless and reminded viewers of the former presidential spokesperson’s right to a personal rebuttal.

Tensions escalated when Olayinka, defending his prior assertions, questioned why Abati had previously criticized Nyesom Wike without Wike being present to respond. He then addressed Oseni, stating, “Rufai, stop acting as if you possess omniscience. You are not omnipotent.”

The exchange swiftly devolved into personal affronts, with Oseni asserting his prerogative to defend a colleague and urging Olayinka to focus on the pivotal issue—the right of reply in the dispute between Rotimi Amaechi and Nyesom Wike.

“You’re disparaging someone who isn’t here to defend himself. That’s neither equitable nor professional. The matter at hand concerns your principal and Amaechi,” Oseni insisted.

In retaliation, Olayinka unleashed a tirade of personal insults, alluding to Oseni’s educational background and prior traffic infractions, while defending his own record concerning a ₦20 million fraud allegation, which he asserted had been dismissed in court.

“If I anticipated this would arise, I’d have brought the court’s judgment,” Olayinka retorted. “Go and enroll in a journalism course so you’ll understand this isn’t a courtroom.”

Efforts by other journalists to pacify the dialogue met with limited success, as both parties continued their verbal sparring.

The segment concluded in a charged atmosphere, prompting broader concerns about decorum and professionalism in live political discourse.