A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Mustapha Bulama’s Political Cartoons

By

Idris Ishaka Maikwai
Department of English, Zamfara State University Talata-Mafara
Zamfara State, Nigeria

And

Aondover Theophilus Kaan PhD
Department of English, Federal University Dutsin Ma
Katsina State, Nigeria

Corresponding Author’s email & Phone nos: ishaka.idris@zamsut.edu.ng, 08060032162

Abstract

This study attempts a multimodal discourse analysis of Mustapha Bulama’s political cartoons to uncover how visual semiotics is deployed to articulate and critique socio-political issues, with particular emphasis on armed banditry in northern Nigeria and other socio-political issues. Although multimodal discourse analysis has attracted considerable scholarly interest, Bulama’s cartoons, despite their prominence in northern Nigerian public discourse, have received limited academic attention. This is a gap that the research seeks to address. Using a purposive sampling technique, six cartoons were selected and examined through the lens of Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen’s Visual Grammar, focusing on representational, interactive, and compositional meanings as analytical categories. Findings reveal that Bulama serves not only as a cartoonist but also as a social critic and political commentator whose visual narratives stimulate public engagement with pressing national issues. The analysis also reveals how Bulama deploys symbolism, contrast, gaze, salience, framing, satire and spatial arrangement to critique insecurity, corruption, leadership failure, economic hardship and socio-economic inequality in the region. The study concludes that visual communication, particularly political cartoons, constitutes a powerful medium through which Nigerians interpret and negotiate socio-economic and political realities. By examining Bulama’s nuanced visual strategies, the research underscores the broader significance of multimodal texts in shaping public understanding and discourse.

Key words: Cartoons, Context in Multimodality, Mustapha Bulama’s Cartoons, Political Cartoons

Introduction

Cartoons are typically featured in periodicals and often focus on political or public matters. However, they also sometimes tackle social issues. For instance, cartoons in various publications may critique everyday lifestyles, comment on sports, or explore individual personalities. Essentially, cartoons function as visual metaphors that reflect and interpret the socio-political realities experienced by the artist or creator. Cartoonists usually select a significant topic from current events and craft a caricature around it. These illustrations can be blunt, sharp, and straightforward, often infused with humour. Regardless of the medium, cartoons tend to capture the reader's attention and are designed to provoke thought about current local or global affairs. While cartoons may not explicitly persuade or influence readers, they aim to present a particular perspective on an ongoing issue. As such, cartoons possess the potential to shape or shift a reader’s opinion.

Despite numerous scholarly contributions in the areas of multimodal discourse analysis, little scholarly attention has been placed on the multimodal discourse analysis of Bulama’s political cartoons, particularly through the works of Abdulkadir et al and few others. As a northern Nigerian cartoonist, Bulama has been consistently amplifying the socio-political realities of northern Nigeria and even beyond through his cartoons. This study is therefore aimed at exploring how Bulama often deploys visual semiotics to articulate and critique socio-political issues, especially on armed banditry and other socio-economic issues in northern Nigeria. It highlights the communicative value of editorial cartoons as an effective medium for conveying messages.

Multimodality

Multimodality, also referred to as Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MDA) has been widely theorised and examined across disciplines, with its foundations traceable to the works of Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen. As noted by many scholars, Kress and van Leeuwen’s pioneering text “Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design” advances the systematic study of multimodality, though its intellectual roots lie in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) developed by M.A.K. Halliday in the late twentieth century. Halliday’s framework underscores language as one element in a broader semiotic process, recognising that meaning can also be structured through images, sounds, gestures, and other non-linguistic resources. This perspective provides the theoretical underpinnings for the development of MDA, situating it within a broader semiotic paradigm where meaning is constructed through signs and symbols.

The concept of multimodality has gained increasing prominence across communication studies, linguistics, semiotics, and Education. It provides a theoretical framework for understanding how meaning is constructed not only through language but also through multiple semiotic resources such as images, gestures, sound, colour, spatial organisation, and digital affordances. Kress and van Leeuwen observe that all forms of communication are inherently multimodal because meaning is “rarely conveyed through language alone” (1). This assertion underscores the idea that communication involves orchestrating multiple modes to produce coherent and socially meaningful messages.

In its broadest sense, multimodality refers to the simultaneous use of multiple modes of communication, such as spoken and written language, images, sounds, gestures, and spatial arrangements to construct meaning and shape social interaction. As a conceptual category, it has been defined and interpreted differently by scholars across disciplines. Kress for example, defines multimodality as a constellation of communicative modes, each being “a socially and culturally shaped resource for meaning making” (79). Elsewhere, he identifies multimodality as “the field in which semiotic work takes place,” encompassing both the resources and the contexts in which meaning is produced (46).

The term multimodality operates on two interconnected levels. First, it describes a communicative phenomenon; the integration of various semiotic resources such as still and moving images, speech, writing, layout, gesture, and proxemics within texts and communicative practices. Secondly, it signifies a methodological approach within linguistics and communication studies. This approach seeks to uncover how meaning is jointly constructed through the interaction of these resources.

Closely related to multimodality is the notion of mode, sometimes described as “semiotic resources” (van Leeuwen 25). Within multimodal theory, mode is any “socially and culturally shaped resource used for representation and communication” (26). According to Carey

Jewitt and Kress, modes have been classified as “linguistic” (spoken or written language) or “non-linguistic” (visual, aural, or gestural) (15). Examples include written text, speech, images, videos, layout, gestures, and soundtracks. Van Leeuwen expands this classification by including material and technological tools such as “pens, ink, and computer software or hardware as resources that mediate meaning” (26).

In sum, multimodality is both a phenomenon of human communication and a methodological approach to studying meaning-making. As a phenomenon, it describes how multiple semiotic resources combine in everyday communicative events. As a methodological approach, it provides analytical tools for examining how these resources interact to construct meaning across contexts. Despite differences in categorisation and theoretical orientation, scholars agree that meaning emerges from the interplay of multiple modes rather than from any single mode in isolation. This consensus reinforces the inherently multimodal nature of human communication.

Context in Multimodality

Kress and van Leeuwen conceptualise context as the socially organised environment within which signs gain meaning. In Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, they argue that every semiotic act is “a motivated choice, shaped by the social, cultural, and material context in which it occurs” (36). This implies that context is not a static backdrop but a dynamic network of social practices, Power relations, and communicative goals. Similarly, Jewitt observes that multimodal studies must situate each mode “in relation to the social actors, cultural histories, and technologies that mediate communication” (12).

Machin and Mayr extend this line of thought by suggesting that context functions as the ideological framework that regulates how multimodal signs are produced and received. According to them, semiotic resources are “always contextually bound to social institutions and Power structures” (17). From this perspective, context is not only descriptive but also critical; it reveals how visual, verbal, and spatial modes reproduce or contest dominant ideologies.

Scholars have identified multiple layers of contextuality in multimodal discourse. At the situational or interactional level, context refers to the immediate participants, goals, and physical settings that shape meaning in real-time interactions. Goodwin and Schegloff have shown how gesture, gaze, and body orientation are temporally coordinated with speech to produce situated meaning (Goodwin; Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson). This micro-context is crucial in multimodal transcription, where analysts must capture not only words but also gesture timing, image placement, and other embodied cues.

At the cultural and social level, context includes ideological norms, genre conventions, and institutional expectations that inform how audiences interpret multimodal texts. Machin and van Leeuwen argue that visual choices such as colour, framing, and composition are deeply “culture-specific semiotic resources” that rely on shared interpretive repertoires (4). Wodak and Norman Fairclough further stress that contexts embed Power relations, making multimodal texts both reflections and enactments of socio-political hierarchies (Fairclough; Wodak and Meyer).

A semiotic or modal context also operates within the multimodal ensemble itself. Meaning arises not from isolated modes but from their interaction. O’Halloran explains that the arrangement of image, text, and typography creates a network of “semiotic cues that guide audience interpretation” (112). For example, the same visual can signal irony or solidarity depending on its linguistic co-text and spatial positioning.

Furthermore, a material and spatial context influences perception. Jewitt and Bezemer point out that “physical affordances” such as size, spatial layout and tactile experience, alter how viewers engage with multimodal artefacts. A poster, a digital meme, and a newspaper cartoon each generate distinct interpretive experiences because material scale shapes salience and reading paths (67).

Cartoons

According to Stöckl, cartoons are “social artefacts” constructed in response to specific social events and “guided by socially determined intentions” (204). They are typically characterised as “non- or semi-realistic drawings”, usually designed for humorous purposes (206). These twin definitions have critically exposed two important aspects of cartoon. One, is the nature of cartoon as a social artefact which clearly shows how cartoons are often used to documents social events and different perspectives of people about socio-political issue in a society. The second aspect of these definitions is the purpose of designing the cartoon. One of the definitions above described cartoon as a ‘non- or semi-realistic drawing’ designed for humorous purposes. This further demonstrates the fact that cartoon are often designed to invoke thought or public discussion on realistic issues in a non-realistic form or semi-realistic form. Through humour, cartoons convey messages coded in images for the audience to decipher.

Michael, and Medhurst describe cartoons as “rhetorical tools” capable of simplifying and clarifying complex political messages, thereby amplifying their persuasive appeal (202). In this sense, they are not only satirical or humorous drawings but can also take the form of sequential illustrations or animated films. This perspective views cartoon as a weapon of rhetoric used to demystify complex messages, messages that could be too weighty or controversial to convey in words, into less controversial form. It is viewed as a method used to evade any form of political witch-hunt or persecution especially from people in power.

As Ingutia, Achieng’ Atieno, and Matu observe, cartoons achieve their communicative Power primarily through the “deliberate use of visual elements and characterisations” (543). This observation further exposes how cartoons are developed through the use of visual elements and characterisation. Images of fictitious characters are deliberately used to represent real actors in socio-political stages. This also shows how cartoons go beyond using linguistic elements to include visual element in conveying meanings. In the same vein, Macková points out that the “textual and visual components” of comics are closely interwoven in cartooning, with each contributing indispensably to the overall communicative effect (20). This further underscores the pertinent role of both linguistic and visual elements in conveying meaning through cartoons.

The cartoon industry is particularly renowned for its strips in newspapers and magazines, which have become an established medium of entertainment and commentary. More than just humorous illustrations, cartoons function as coded systems of visual communication, carefully designed to convey socio-cultural meanings within broader interpretive and critical contexts. They reflect the global shift from primarily verbal to increasingly visual modes of communication. Scholars often analyse cartoons for their discursive implications, examining how they deploy irony, parody, exaggeration, and satire to interrogate or reinforce dominant narratives.

When combined with written language, cartoons create a distinctly multimodal communicative environment in which several semiotic systems interact to produce layered and nuanced meanings. Newspaper cartoons, in particular, are an important source of both information and entertainment. They communicate complex issues in creative ways, serving as tools of sociological significance and as vehicles of visual rhetoric. Beyond their informational role, they offer insights into popular culture and political life, while at times sidestepping the constraints of political correctness. Newspapers also utilise cartoons as subtle instruments of agenda-setting, influencing how readers perceive pressing social and political issues.

Political Cartoons

Political cartoons occupy a distinctive place at the intersection of art, journalism, and political discourse. Douglas and Malti-Douglas define political cartoons as “an image, usually combined with words … (and is) generally a direct commentary on current events” (60). This definition underscores the immediacy and topical nature of political cartoons as visual texts that respond to current social and political realities. In a similar context, Xose describes political cartoons as a distinct form of “humorous, multimodal communication” whose function transcends mere entertainment to achieve persuasion. He further asserts that cartoonists employ various techniques to articulate their opinions in ways that are “disguised and persuasive” (68).

Juxtaposing the two definitions reveals a convergence in the recognition of political cartoons as communicative tools that merge verbal and visual elements to comment on societal issues. However, while Douglas and Malti-Douglas focus primarily on their role as direct commentaries on current events, Xose broadens the scope by emphasising their persuasive and rhetorical potential. This extension situates political cartoons not only as mirrors reflecting political realities but also as instruments that subtly shape public opinion.

The salient point emerging from both perspectives is that political cartoons convey layered meanings through the interplay of image and language to convey layered meanings. They harness humour, satire, and exaggeration to engage audiences emotionally while embedding critical messages about governance, leadership, and social justice. Consequently, political cartoons function as potent vehicles for political communication, capable of provoking reflection, debate, and even social transformation.

Moreover, Janis and Winkler conceptualise political cartoons as a “barometer of public sentiment,” suggesting that these visual texts possess the dual capacity to reflect and shape public perceptions of political realities (289). This description implies that political cartoons serve as more than mere humorous illustrations; they function as cultural and ideological instruments that both register and influence the mood of the polity. Through figurative tones and striking graphic imagery, cartoonists dramatise political misconduct, hypocrisy, and social injustice, thereby raising public consciousness about pressing societal issues.

From this perspective, political cartoons can be viewed as a specialised form of political reporting that operates within a visual-verbal framework. Janis and Winkler’s position underscores the journalistic dimension of the genre, which cartoons interpret events from distinct ideological standpoints rather than offering neutral commentary. The use of exaggeration, symbolism, and satire enables cartoonists to encode complex arguments within seemingly simple images, making their critiques accessible yet deeply resonant.

Mustapha Bulama’s Cartoons

Mustapha Bulama stands is one of the most prominent political cartoonists from northern Nigeria. His creative work bridges the domains of journalism, visual art, and social commentary. As an award-winning cartoonist, Bulama has gained wide recognition for his expertise in political cartoons and children’s book illustrations. His artistic practice extends beyond cartooning into graphic design and visual facilitation, reflecting a multifaceted engagement with communication and creativity. According to Abdulkadir, Baraya, and Saleh, Bulama began his professional journey at the Daily Trust Newspaper in 2000 as “a comic strip artist” before transitioning to “political cartooning in 2008” (48). His editorial cartoons and illustrations now appear in the Saturday and Sunday editions of Daily Trust, while his comic strips feature in its weekday publications and his personal Facebook handle (New Bulam’s Cartoons).

Bulama’s artistic development demonstrates a synthesis of local and international influences. As Abdulkadir et al. note, he drew his “inspirations from a number of international and African artists on his craft”, naming Albert Uderzo, Zapiro, Gado, Jason Seiler, and Xose Tomas as his favourites (48). This eclectic mix of European, African, and global artists reflects Bulama’s cross-cultural sensibility, an aesthetic that merges Western visual conventions with distinctly Nigerian socio-political realities. Such hybridity resonates with Tsakona’s argument that political cartoons constitute “hybrid multimodal genres” that integrate “local communicative practices” with “globally recognisable conventions of humour and irony” (1183). Through this fusion, Bulama achieves a style that is simultaneously accessible to Nigerian audiences and intelligible within broader global traditions of political satire.

Beyond political commentary, Bulama has also made significant contributions to children’s literature, having illustrated “over twenty books since 2008”. His notable works include “Zahra and Coco Alphabets, (a Moonbeam Award-winning book), Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, The Empty Calabash (published by NAPTIP), and Buhari of the People, a children’s biography of President Muhammadu Buhari” (Abdulkadir et al. 49). His success in both political and children’s illustration underscores what Maidment terms the “dual cultural role” of illustrators who “mediate between the world of politics and that of education” (112). Bulama’s versatility thus enhances his authority as a visual communicator and underscores the educational dimension of his art.

Despite his prominence particularly in the northern region, there is, to date, little or no comprehensive multimodal discourse analysis devoted specifically to Bulama’s political cartoons. This absence offers a compelling rationale for the present study, given the widespread appeal and socio-political resonance of his work. His cartoons seamlessly combine linguistic and visual resources to express complex judgments about politics, security, economy, and morality in Nigeria. This communicative strategy aligns with Forceville’s assertion that visual metaphors in cartoons “enable the condensation of complex socio-political arguments into a single persuasive frame” (377). In Bulama’s case, this compression allows him to articulate commentary that resonates across linguistic and educational divides, echoing Luca’s finding that cartoons “transmit ideas effectively because they are not dependent on literacy and can be consumed rapidly” (74).

Bulama’s position as a northern-based cartoonist further amplifies his significance in Nigerian political communication. Working from a region often perceived as politically conservative, his willingness to critique both regional and national authorities reflects what Edwards and Winkler describe as the “counter-hegemonic function of political satire”, its capacity to “mirror, contest, and reshape public sentiment” (289). Abdulkadir et al. also underscore that Bulama’s work represents “a consistent visual interrogation of Power structures within and beyond northern Nigeria” (49). Through this lens, Bulama’s cartoons can be seen as acts of visual dissent, performing what Greenberg calls a “meta-discursive function” by providing “a language for public debate about the social order” (81).

Review of Related Literature

Previous studies have shown how scholars were interested in exploring political cartoons and their relation to multimodal discourse analysis and how they are used to critique governance. In the Nigerian context for example, cartoonists often use satire to challenge corruption, mis-governance, and social inequality, thereby asserting the role of the press as a guardian of democracy. Scholars suggest that political cartoons are not merely artistic expressions but dynamic communicative tools and visual commentaries that both critique and construct political discourse.

Furthermore, numerous scholars have explored multimodal discourse and its application to visual media from different analytical standpoints. Abdulkadir et al. conducted a critical multimodal discourse analysis of Mustapha Bulama’s cartoons on armed banditry. Their study attempted to provide insights into the manner in which newspaper cartoons project the points of view of newspapers on Nigeria’s security challenges and to also explore Daily Trust’s use of modes other than verbal text to relay news events among others. Also, the analytical tool used in this study was Critical Multimodal Discourse Analysis, a merger of critical discourse analysis and multimodal discourse analysis. While the method was qualitative, the data were selected using a purposive sampling technique to explore the embedded meaning attached to the selected cartoons. The study focused on political cartoons of Bulama as in the case of the current study. The only area of divergence is in the choice of thematic area (armed banditry) and the analytical tool used. While this research is peculiar to Bulama’s cartoons on armed banditry, the areas of focus for the current research encompass politics, economy, security and social issues. Thus, the research is more holistic and all-encompassing compared to that of Abdulkadir et al.

In a related study, Ohaja and Momoh conducted a multimodal study on Aesthetic Appeals of Cartoons in Select Nigerian National Dailies. The aim was to identify both the literary and visual elements deployed by cartoonists to achieve aesthetic effect, analyse the use of emphasis and under-emphasis (contrast) in both the literary and non-literary contents of the cartoons to intensify the aesthetic appeals and establish how the visual and non-visual aesthetic elements in the cartoons blend to create overall meanings within the Nigerian socio-cultural context. Through the use of visual grammar and qualitative analysis of selected newspaper cartoons, it was discovered that Nigerian newspaper cartoonists use metaphor, word and image contrast, colour contrast, dress contrast, irony, sarcasm, exaggeration, symbolism and class solidarity to achieve aesthetic effect. The findings also showed the underlying meanings of the aesthetic effect, which include elitist solidarity against the poor, entitlement mentality among the elite, oppression, deprivation and leadership aloofness.

Adeagbo and Oyindamola also undertook a study of multimodal discourse features in selected Nigerian political cartoons, with the aim of investigating the socio-political impact of visual and linguistic strategies, exploring how these cartoons communicate complex political realities, and influencing public perception. In their study, they employed Kress and van Leeuwen’s Grammar of Visual Design and Roland Barthes’ Semiotic Theory to analyse seven selected political cartoons. Their findings revealed that Nigerian political cartoons employ a sophisticated blend of visual and linguistic strategies to convey powerful socio-political messages. The analysis demonstrated that these cartoons effectively highlight issues such as corruption, economic hardship, political neglect, and the disparity between the ruling elites and the suffering masses. This was achieved by employing salience, framing, modality, denotation, connotation, and myth to engage and challenge public perception. Although, this study aligns with the current study in terms of the thematic area and key objectives, it differs in the analytical tools and the number of cartoons to be analysed.

Chukwuokoro, Ononye and Ngene conducted a multimodal discourse analysis of editorial cartoons on insecurity in Nigeria’s 2023 general elections. The aim was to examine the semiotic elements that serve as Represented Participants (RPs) in the cartoons, how such discourse participants are represented in their relations and the multimodal discourse elements utilized to construct meaning in the cartoons. They also adopted Kress and van Leeuwen’s Grammar of Visual Design as their theoretical framework. The study identified bandits, assassins, terrorists, the 1999 constitution, President Buhari, Independent Oil Marketers, Mr Godwin Emefiele, Lady Justice, and party presidential candidates as the Represented Participants. Some RPs in their relations were represented as initiators of activities that aggravated insecurity while some semiotic elements were discovered to have caused tension which is an index of insecurity. Also, colour, positioning, font size (for salience), information value, and image size were discovered as multimodal elements whose communicative affordances enhanced meaning construction in the context of insecurity during the build-up to the 2023 general elections in Nigeria. This study further demonstrated the relevance of visual grammar as an effective analytical tool for multimodal study of political cartoons. The work only varies with the current study for being specifically concerned with one of the semiotic resources (RPs).

Makinde also conducted a study titled: A Multimodal Metaphorical Representation of Selected Political Cartoons in Nigeria. The aim was to investigate how cartoonists employed metaphors to represent the current political situation in the country. The study adopted Kress and Leuween’s approach to multimodality and Forceville’s view of visual realizations of conceptual metaphor as its analytical tools and drew ten political cartoons from three cartoonists: Mike Asukwo (@Asukwoeb), Bennett Omeke and Moses Okpara; who were known to be prominent in their satirical cartoon depictions that speak to political, economic and social situations in Nigeria. The results of the study suggested that Nigerian political cartoons rely mainly on visual metaphors as a means of communicating their messages. In addition, the metaphors used often rely on comic, exaggerated and simplistic depictions to convey their meaning effectively and to stir a strong emotional reaction from the readers.

In view of the above, Makinde has shown that a multimodal discourse analysis of political cartoons can be carried out by exclusively paying attention to the cartoonists and their socio-political viewpoints. This is evident in the way he pulled out all his data from the Facebook handles of the cartoonists, not from any notable online newspaper. This has further underscored the resolve of the current study to explore how Mustapha Bulama, as a well-known cartoonist, especially in northern Nigeria, embeds meanings in his cartoons, comment and trigger social discourse with his editorial cartoons. However, the variance detected is on the choice of analytical tools for the study. In this study, Makinde decided to employ two theories so to say in order to achieve the objectives of the study while the present employs one theory to achieve its stated objectives.

In their 2016 study, Ademilokun and Olateju conducted a multimodal discourse analysis of visual images used during the 2011 electioneering campaigns in South-western Nigeria. Their work adopted Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistic meta-functions and Roland Barthes’ concepts of anchorage and relay as its theoretical grounding. Through these frameworks, Ademilokun and Olateju demonstrate how semiotic artefacts such as vests, caps, Ankara fabrics, and surrogate linguistic symbols function as visual markers of political identity and group allegiance. Their analysis highlights that campaign vests serve as the dominant signifying artefact, complemented by other visual materials that collectively operate to produce meaning within the political rally environment.

While the study offers a valuable contribution to understanding visual political communication in Nigerian campaign contexts, the analysis tends to emphasize descriptive categorization of artefacts more than the ideological implications of their deployment. The work would have benefitted from a deeper interrogation of how these visual elements contribute to power positioning, political persuasion, or socio-cultural identity construction beyond their semiotic roles. The present research diverges from that of Ademilokun and Olateju in both its theoretical approach and dataset. Whereas their study draws from political rally discourse and employs Halliday and Barthes as analytical frameworks, the current work utilizes Kress and van Leeuwen’s Visual Grammar theory alone, focusing on static political cartoons on Daily Trust newspaper rather than live political performance contexts. This shift in framework and data type enables a more concentrated focus on visual composition, semiotic design, and representational strategies within printed media, as opposed to the performative and socially co-constructed meaning-making typical of rally environments.

The aforementioned studies have further corroborated the earlier assertion that despite many scholarly contributions to the multimodal discourse analysis of cartoons and other phenomena, little scholarly attention has been given to the multimodal discourse analysis of Bulama’s political cartoons. This study is therefore aimed at filling this gap.

Theoretical Framework

This study adopts Kress and van Leeuwen’s Visual Grammar Design Theory, which provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the construction and communication of meaning in images. As cited by Attah et al., Kress and van Leeuwen pioneered the field of Visual Grammar in the late 1990s, building on the traditions of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) developed by Halliday. Kress and van Leeuwen argue that images are not merely decorative or supplementary elements; rather, they operate as social symbols that can be systematically analysed using Halliday’s social semiotic theory. By extending Halliday’s concept of the three meta-functions of language, they developed a visual counterpart (Visual Grammar) which has since become a foundational tool in multimodal discourse analysis.

The choice of Kress and van Leeuwen’s framework in the present study is deliberate. Their theory provides a systematic and multimodal approach that enables the researcher to analyse how different semiotic resources (verbal, visual, and spatial) work together to generate meaning. Specifically, it accounts for the ways in which images are used to structure knowledge, construct relationships, and position readers or viewers within communicative events. The framework is centred on three interrelated dimensions of meaning: representational, interactive, and compositional dimensions.

Representational meaning refers to the image’s ability to depict entities and the relationships among them in the external world. This dimension concerns how images depict the world, including people, places, things, and events. Kress and van Leeuwen distinguish between “narrative representations”, which show actions and processes through vectors such as gaze, gesture, or movement, and “conceptual representations”, which present participants in terms of classification, identity, or symbolic meaning (Kress and van Leeuwen 59–79).

Interactive meaning addresses the relationship between the image creator and the viewer. In other words, the interactive dimension focuses on the relationship between the image, its producers, and its viewers. It examines “gaze” (demand versus offer), “social distance” (close-up, medium, long shots), and “angle” (high, low, eye-level), which together construct power relations and emotional involvement (Kress and van Leeuwen 114–153).

The compositional dimension examines how visual elements are arranged into a coherent whole. It operates through “information value” (left/right, top/bottom, centre/margin), “salience” (size, colour, focus), and “framing” (connection or separation of elements) (Kress and van Leeuwen 177–214). This dimension explains how images guide viewers’ reading paths and prioritise meaning. For instance, elements placed at the top are often associated with ideal or abstract meanings, while those at the bottom convey practical or real information.

Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative research design anchored in Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MDA). The design is intentionally aligned with the objectives of the study, which seek to examine how visual and linguistic elements co-articulate meaning in Mustapha Bulama’s political cartoons. Qualitative research is most appropriate here because the study is interpretive, exploratory, and context-driven, focusing on meaning-making rather than on numerical measurement.  The decision to adopt a qualitative design over a quantitative one is also grounded in the nature of the research problem and the type of data under investigation. Political cartoons are inherently multimodal, symbolic, and context-dependent. Their communicative value lies in nuance, connotation, intertextuality, humour, and socio-political commentary, all of which require subjective interpretation rather than statistical representation.

Thus, a quantitative design, which typically focuses on numerical variables, measurement, and hypothesis testing, would be insufficient for uncovering the layered meanings, ideological positions, and semiotic choices employed by the cartoonist. To this end, the study utilizes six (6) political cartoons from the pools of Bulama’s cartoons published by Daily Trust in 2025 and sourced from his official Facebook page (New Bulama’s Cartoons). The cartoons were selected based on their relevance to insecurity and other socio-political issues in northern Nigeria.

Data Analysis and Discussion

Cartoon 1: The Political Economy of Insecurity

The cartoon exposes the political economy of insecurity in Nigeria through the interplay of representational, interactive, and compositional meanings. Representationally, the image adopts a narrative structure in which a Represented Participant identified as President Tinubu pours money from the second Represented Participant, a sack labelled “SECURITY BUDGET” into a pipe (third Represented Participant) marked “INSECURITY,” which in turn leaks through another Represented Participant, an outlet labelled “LEAKAGES” and ultimately spills blood. This transactional action process symbolically frames insecurity as an engineered system rather than an accidental occurrence, with blood signifying the human cost and financial flows representing the economic interests embedded within the conflict. The presence of additional sacks labelled “BUHARI WAS HERE” and “GEJ” extends culpability to previous administrations headed by Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, highlighting continuity in mismanagement. Interactive meaning is realised through the absence of gaze from the central figure, positioning the viewer as an observer and transforming the image into an “offer” that encourages reflection rather than direct engagement. The medium-long social distance underscores the institutional scale of the issue, while the eye-level angle constructs a sense of transparency, suggesting that citizens can clearly perceive governmental failures. Compositional meaning is achieved through deliberate information value: the centre foregrounds the political actor and the security budget as the ideological core, the left presents corruption as “Given” information, and the right displays the aftermath of past administrations as “New” information. Salience is reinforced through the stark contrast of green currency and deep red blood, visually prioritising corruption and loss of life. Framing is tightened through the continuous pipe structure, which links security spending, systemic leakages, and civilian casualties into a unified visual narrative that denies any sense of separation or isolated failure. Overall, the cartoon conveys an ideological argument that insecurity is sustained not by weakness but by vested economic interests within successive governments, and that official rhetoric on security is contradicted by persistent exploitation and human suffering.

Cartoon 2: State of the North

The cartoon serves as a commentary on Nigeria’s cyclical insecurity and the imbalance of power between state authority and criminal actors. Representationally, the image presents two represented participants: an armed bandit symbolising kidnapping and pervasive insecurity, and a political leader embodying the Nigerian government. The seesaw serves as the central vector that links them, forming a narrative process that visually establishes cause-and-effect relations. The bandit’s grounded stability contrasts with the leader’s elevation and instability, symbolising weakened state control and the disproportionate strength of non-state actors. Symbolic elements such as the gun highlight violence and dominance, while the caption reinforces the perpetual cycle of rescue efforts followed by renewed kidnappings. Interactive meaning emerges as neither figure gazes at the viewer, positioning the image as an “offer” that invites critical observation rather than direct engagement. The medium social distance situates the scene within a familiar social space, implying that insecurity is part of everyday Nigerian experience, while the eye-level angle suggests viewer equality even as internal power dynamics favour the bandit. Compositional structures support this reading: the bandit is placed on the left as “Given” information, an already recognised problem while the government figure appears on the right as “New,” indicating ongoing but unstable responses. Salience is achieved through the exaggerated, unbalanced posture of the leader and the central prominence of the seesaw, which draws attention to systemic instability. Framing is maintained through the seesaw’s continuous structure, emphasising interdependence between state action and criminal reaction rather than isolating either element. Overall, the ideological message conveyed is that Nigeria’s security efforts remain inconsistent and reactionary, with progress in one area continually offset by setbacks in another, sustaining insecurity as a recurring national challenge.

Cartoon 3: Northern Oblivion

The cartoon illustrates the contrast between social distraction and looming danger in northern Nigeria. Representationally, there are three Represented Participants (RPs): the three youths standing in a boat represent the northern youth populace; the boat labelled “AREWA,” represents the northern Nigerian region as the context of illustration; and the shark fins symbolize numerous societal problems bedevilling the region. The three youth, fixated on their mobile phones, can be seen discussing celebrity trends and material achievements. Vectors created by their body orientation and the speech bubbles guide attention toward trivial matters, while the turbulent water and shark fins which is symbolically labelled “Insecurity, Poverty, Poor Education, Religious Tension, and Climate Change” represent existential threats that encircle the region. Symbolically, the boat signifies Northern Nigeria, the water reflects instability, and the phones denote distraction and misplaced priorities. Interactive meaning is shaped by the absence of gaze toward the viewer, transforming the scene into an “offer” that invites critical reflection, while the medium-long social distance and eye-level angle situate the viewer within a shared societal space, implying collective responsibility. Compositional meaning reinforces the message: the boat and youths occupy the centre as the core problem as “Given” information, the threats surround them at the margins serve as the “New” information, while the speech bubbles float above represent idealised distractions contrasted with the deadly realities below. Salience is achieved through the bold labelling of threats and the central positioning of the phones, which draws attention to the imbalance between perceived and actual dangers. Minimal framing separation between the characters and the shark fins highlights their proximity to crisis and the interconnectedness of the issues. Ideologically, the cartoon argues that Northern Nigeria faces severe systemic challenges even as its youth remain absorbed in superficial concerns, a disconnect that endangers collective survival.

Cartoon 4: Bello Matawalle’s Allegations

The cartoon above constructs a narrative that critiques government priorities in Nigeria. Representationally, it features three Represented Participants (RPs): a government figure, identified as the Minister of State Defence wielding an axe; a bound hand labelled “ALLEGATIONS,” signifying corruption accusations and suppressed criticism; and a looming monstrous figure labelled “INSECURITY,” representing the escalating national crisis. The action vector created by the swinging axe foregrounds the government's forceful effort to attack allegations, while the threatening posture of insecurity behind the minister reveals a neglected but more urgent danger. Symbolically, the axe embodies intimidation and misuse of power, the bound hand reflects silencing or unresolved controversies, and the dark monstrous form of insecurity conveys its uncontrollable and growing nature. Interactive meaning is shaped by the absence of direct gaze, positioning the scene as an “offer” that invites viewers to judge the imbalance, while the medium-to-close social distance heightens emotional tension. Although the eye-level angle creates equality with the viewer, the visual dominance of insecurity asserts its greater power relative to the state. Compositional structures reinforce this interpretation: “ALLEGATIONS” appears on the left as “Given” information, while “INSECURITY” occupies the right as “New” and pressing, with the minister centrally caught between both. Salience is created through the size, dark colouring, and aggressive posture of insecurity, alongside the minister’s tense stance and raised axe. Minimal framing separation underscores the interconnectedness of these crises. Overall, the ideological message conveyed is that the government prioritises suppressing allegations over addressing the more dangerous and expanding threat of insecurity, revealing misplaced focus and weak governance.

Carton 5: Dangote, NUPENG Deal Collapse

The cartoon portrays the breakdown of negotiations between Dangote Group and NUPENG within Nigeria’s fuel-distribution and labour-relations context. Representationally, the image projects four Represented Participants: two elephants labelled “DANGOTE” and “NUPENG” clash head-on, their tusks locked to signify conflict, power struggle, and stalemate; the torn “AGREEMENT” beneath them represents failed negotiation; the political figure behind one of the elephants representing the Nigerian government; another individual behind one of the elephants representing the black market vendors; and the common man labelled as ‘Nigerian’ representing the disgruntled citizen. Symbolically, the elephants function as emblems of institutional might, contrasted with a small, central human figure labelled “NIGERIAN,” who is physically crushed between them and embodies the helpless citizen caught in elite disputes; his distressed posture highlights vulnerability and lack of agency. Secondary figures, a “BLACK MARKET” profiteer and an indifferent government representative; reinforce how systemic collapse benefits illegal actors while official institutions remain passive. Interactive meaning emerges through the lack of direct gaze, producing an “offer” that invites viewers to observe the self-absorbed confrontation between the elephants, while the citizen’s upward gaze indirectly appeals for empathy. The medium-long social distance encourages analytical observation, and although the eye-level angle positions the viewer as equal, the exaggerated scale of the elephants encodes stark power imbalance. Compositional structures place the Nigerian citizen at the centre as the key concern as the ‘Given’ information, flanked by Dangote and NUPENG whose positioning traps him visually and symbolically, while the marginal figures frame the broader socio-economic environment as ‘New’ information. Salience is achieved through the sheer size of the elephants, bold labelling, and the contrasting colour of the citizen’s clothing, which draws attention to his suffering. Framing is reinforced by the torn agreement documents that anchor the conflict and emphasise themes of broken promises and institutional failure. Overall, the cartoon critiques elite power struggles that ignore the public good, highlighting how ordinary Nigerians bear the consequences of labour-industry conflicts and governance failures.

Cartoon 6: Tinubu directs agric ministry to further crash food price

The cartoon depicts a dynamic conflict between government policy, insecurity, and agricultural livelihood in Nigeria. Representationally, it features three Represented Participants (RPs): a fleeing farmer holding a hoe, an armed bandit pointing a gun at him, and a political figure carrying a placard labelled “Govt Policies.” Vectors created by running legs, a raised placard, and a pointed gun show coordinated pressure on the farmer, who becomes the victim of both policy enforcement and insecurity. Symbolically, the hoe stands for agriculture and rural survival, the gun denotes fear and violence, and the placard represents top-down decisions, while the farmer’s cry: “I’m a Nigerian farmer!” emphasises identity and innocence, suggesting that the people who are meant to be supported by policies are instead endangered by it. Interactive meaning emerges through the absence of gaze toward the viewer, creating an “offer” that invites critical interpretation, supported by a medium-long social distance that frames the issue as societal rather than personal and an eye-level angle that positions viewers as equals capable of judgment. Compositional meaning reinforces this reading: the government and bandit on the left represent “given” authority and insecurity, while the farmer on the right embodies “new” vulnerability; the headline above presents policy idealism, contrasting with the chase below that reveals harsher consequences. Salience is established through the raised gun, bold “Govt Policies” label, and the farmer’s expressive speech bubble, drawing attention to fear and motion. Minimal framing separation between figures signals the unavoidable tension between policy, insecurity, and livelihood. Ideologically, the cartoon critiques government attempts to reduce food prices as coercive and misdirected, portraying farmers as victims rather than beneficiaries and implying that such approaches risk worsening food insecurity.

Discussion of Findings

The analysis above demonstrates a strategic deployment of representational, interactive, and compositional modes to construct a visually persuasive critique of governance in Nigeria. Through these multimodal resources, Bulama translates political grievances into accessible visual narratives that expose, interrogate, and dramatize the failures of leadership.

First, the representational meanings in the cartoons reveal a consistent pattern in Bulama’s depiction of political actors, especially those associated with governance failures. Leaders are typically illustrated as oversized, indifferent, or physically detached from the surrounding socio-economic realities. Such exaggeration functions as a symbolic exposure of corruption, irresponsibility, and elite insulation. Citizens, on the other hand, are rendered smaller, vulnerable, or burdened by the consequences of political decisions. This contrast foregrounds a structural imbalance between the ruling class and the populace, reinforcing the disparity that underpins Nigeria’s governance challenges.

Secondly, Bulama relies on symbolic contrasts to highlight systemic inequality. The recurring placement of leaders above others, whether through elevated posture, exaggerated scale, or spatial separation, acts as a visual metaphor for dominance, privilege, and social distance. These symbolic cues do more than caricature leaders; they frame political inequality as an entrenched feature of the socio-political system in Nigeria. The heightened visibility of corrupt or negligent actors becomes a visual indictment, compelling viewers to reflect on the institutional mechanisms that allow such disparities to persist.

Finally, the cartoons’ interactive and compositional elements shape the viewer’s engagement as an active moral interpreter. Through foregrounding, gaze structures, salience, and framing, Bulama guides readers toward recognising injustice and questioning political authority. The imbalance in visual weight frequently directs attention to the excesses of leadership, while compressed or fragmented frames depicting ordinary citizens evoke empathy and concern.

Consequently, viewers are not passive consumers of imagery; they are positioned to evaluate, judge, and emotionally respond to the political situations portrayed. Overall, the findings indicate that Bulama’s visual discourse not only critiques individual leaders but also interrogates broader systemic failures. His multimodal strategies transform political commentary into a compelling visual narrative that challenges viewers to reassess governance, accountability, and national priorities.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that Mustapha Bulama’s political cartoons function as powerful multimodal artefacts that critique Nigeria’s socio-political landscape. Using visual grammar, particularly symbolism, gaze, salience, framing and spatial arrangement, Bulama effectively articulates narratives about insecurity, corruption, and leadership failure with clarity and potency. His work mirrors and shapes public sentiment, serving as both a democratic watchdog and a pedagogical tool. By focusing on a northern Nigerian cartoonist seldom explored in scholarly research, the study fills a knowledge gap in multimodal discourse analysis and highlights the necessity of examining visual political communication as part of Nigeria’s contemporary media scholarship.

Work Cited

Abdulkadir, Aliyu Yakubu, Mohammed Baraya, and Aminu Saleh. “A Critical Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Mustapha Bulama’s Cartoons on Armed Banditry.” University of Nigeria Journal of Language and Literary Studies, vol. 21, 2023, pp. 46–62. Web.

Abdulkadir, Aliyu Yakubu, Mohammed Baraya, and Aminu Saleh. “Political Cartoons and Visual Communication in Nigeria.” Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 2021, pp. 45–52.

Adeagbo, Esther Olajumoke, and Abiade Ayomide Oyindamola. “Multimodal Discourse Features in Selected Nigerian Political Cartoons.” Àgídìgbo: ABUAD Journal of the Humanities, vol. 12, no. 1, 2024, pp. 141–160.

Ademilokun, Moyosore, and Moji Olateju. “A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Some Visual Images in the Political Rally Discourse of 2011 Electioneering Campaigns in South-western Nigeria.” British Journal of English Linguistics, vol. 4, no. 3, 2016, pp. 1–15.

Ariyo, Kayode Samuel. “The Relevance of Political Cartoons in Nigerian Newspapers.” Media and Society Review, vol. 8, no. 1, 2019, pp. 20–32.

Bulama, Mustapha. “Dangote, NUPENG Deal Collapses.” Facebook, 2025, https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Cgv4k4Cbw/. Accessed 15 Feb. 2026.

Bulama, Mustapha. “Matawalle’s Allegation.” Facebook, 2025, https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AZBgooNvC/. Accessed 5 Jan. 2026.

Bulama, Mustapha. “The Nigerian Farmer.” Facebook, 2025, https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02B9WFLaJyMzhCwgiVB3YKPGgboC2Sf37rzqGvdZVD9QnYHMRmqLJ3cxkrG3hQfELPl&id=100046946863735&mibextid=Nif5oz. Accessed 6 Feb. 2026.

Bulama, Mustapha. “The Northern Oblivion.” Facebook, 2025, https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02uXVkgnVQLgXFMs4fckiN5t3cavWsGU1EpS9xEfLLGoRdmRkpT57RQLfUDr2t3aVMl&id=100046946863735&mibextid=Nif5oz. Accessed 15 Feb. 2026.

Bulama, Mustapha. “The Political Economy of Insecurity.” Facebook, 2025, https://www.facebook.com/share/p/187CtpaPys/. Accessed 15 Feb. 2026.

Bulama, Mustapha. “State of the Northern.” Facebook, 2025, https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CFnARJDEL/.  Accessed 15 Feb. 2026.

Conners, Joan L. “Visual Representations of the 2004 Presidential Campaign: Political Cartoons and Popular Culture References.” American Behavioural Scientist, vol. 49, no. 3, 2005, pp. 479–487.

Cervantes-Altamirano, Ernesto. “Marta ‘Cartoonised: Depictions of First Lady Marta Sahagún in Mexican Political Cartoons.” 2012.

DeSousa, Michael, and Martin Medhurst. “Political Cartoons and American Culture: Significant Symbols of Campaign 1980.” Studies in Visual Communication, vol. 8, 1982, pp. 84–97.

Douglas, Allen, and Fedwa Malti-Douglas. Arab Comic Strips: Politics of an Emerging Mass Culture. Indiana UP, 1994.

Edwards, Janis L., and Carol K. Winkler. “Representative Form and the Visual Ideograph: The Iwo Jima Image in Editorial Cartoons.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 83, no. 3, 1997, pp. 289–310.

Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power. 2nd ed., Longman, 2001.

Jabbar, Abdul. “Exaggeration and Humour in Political Cartooning.” Journal of Media Semiotics, vol. 3, no. 1, 2017, pp. 51–60.

Jewitt, Carey, editor. The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Routledge, 2009.

Kress, Gunther. “Multimodal Discourse Analysis.” The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited by James Paul Gee and Michael Handford, Routledge, 2011.

Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Arnold Publishers, 2001.

Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2006.

Machin, David. Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. 2nd ed., Bloomsbury, 2016.

Maidment, Brian. Reading Popular Prints 1790–1870. Manchester UP, 1996.

Mateus, Samuel. “Political Cartoons as Communicative Weapons…” Estudos em Comunicação, no. 23, 2016, pp. 195–221.

O’Halloran, Kay Lily, Sabine Tan, Bradley Andrew Smith, and Alexey Podlasov. “Multimodal Analysis within an Interactive Software Environment.” Critical Discourse Studies, vol. 2, 2011, pp. 109–125.

Oluremi, Timothy, and Idowu Ajepe. “Signifying Cartoons: A Pragmatic Reading of Nigeria’s 2015 Political Cartoons.” Ibadan Journal of Humanistic Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, 2016, pp. 101–123.

Palmeri, Frank. “The Cartoon: Image as Critique.” History beyond the Text, edited by Sarah Barber and Corinna Peniston-Bird, Routledge, 2009, p. 46.

Saygın, Ömer. “Migration and Refugee Representation in Political Cartoons.” The Migration Conference 2017 Proceedings, edited by F. Tilbe, E. Iskender, and I. Sirkeci, Transnational Press London, 2017.

Stöckl, Hartmut. “In Between Modes: Language and Image in Printed Media.” Perspectives on Multimodality, edited by Eija Ventola, Cassily Charles, and Martin Kaltenbacher, John Benjamins, 2004, pp. 9–30.

Tsakona, Villy. “Language and Humour in Political Cartoons.” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 41, no. 7, 2009, pp. 1171–1188.

Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer, editors. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage, 2001.

This article is published in ALQALAM: A Journal of Language and Literary Studies, FUGUS, Volume 1, Issue 2 - June 2026