Nigeria's Politicians Increasingly Attack Critics Instead of Addressing Issues

A troubling shift in Nigeria's political culture sees leaders prioritizing the interrogation of critics over substantive engagement with their concerns. This tendency was recently underscored by the reactions to Archbishop Emeritus John Cardinal Onaiyekan's visit to President Bola Tinubu.

“

Since when did the perceived political preference of the messenger become sufficient grounds for ignoring the message?

Onaiyekan voiced worries regarding Nigeria's economic hardship, escalating insecurity, and an excessive focus on future elections. However, the ensuing public discourse largely veered away from these critical issues. Instead, attention fixated on the cleric's perceived political neutrality and whether his pastoral intervention had overstepped into political commentary.

Figures like former Governor Rotimi Amaechi argued that religious leaders have a moral duty to speak truth to power. Conversely, FCT Minister Nyesom Wike contended that Onaiyekan had lost impartiality and thus lacked the moral standing to act as a national arbiter. While both viewpoints hold some merit, the fundamental question of whether a messenger's political leanings should invalidate their message was lost in the ensuing debate.

“

religious leaders have every moral obligation to speak truth to power.

This pattern extends beyond the clergy, permeating various sectors of society. Journalists uncovering difficult truths face questions about their sponsors, academics critiquing policy are scrutinized for party affiliations, and labor leaders protesting economic woes are accused of harboring political ambitions. Even judges delivering unpopular rulings are met with conspiracy theories. This pervasive discomfort with criticism, the article contends, is an unhealthy evolution that stifles necessary dialogue and dissent in a democracy.

“

the Cardinal had long abandoned impartiality and therefore lacked the moral authority to play national umpire.