THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE

A recent exchange between Nigerian President Bola Tinubu and a delegation of Catholic Bishops has brought to the forefront a fundamental disagreement about the country's direction and the public's perception of its leadership. The core of the dispute lies in the notion that public policy critics should be above reproach, a concept challenged by the presidency.

“

The notion that public policy critics cannot be wrong is misconceived

Cardinal John Onaiyekan, a respected clergyman, initiated the public discussion following a meeting with the president. He portrayed President Tinubu as detached from the severe hardships faced by most Nigerians. The Cardinal also expressed concern over the president's focus on macroeconomic stability, arguing it has not improved living standards, and questioned the integrity of the electoral process ahead of the 2027 general election.

“

The recent disagreement between President Bola Tinubu and a delegation of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria on the country’s state of affairs ought to be normal in a democratic setting, but for the misconceived notion that public policy critics cannot be wrong.

The presidency's response, articulated by its spokespersons, suggested that Cardinal Onaiyekan's public account of the meeting was inappropriate and one-sided, casting their principal in a negative light. This rebuttal was particularly firm given the absence of an official communique that could have provided a balanced public perspective. The presidency argued that public policy analysts and critics must base their assessments on factual knowledge, rejecting the idea that such critics are infallible.

“

He thought the president was arrogant for insisting on macroeconomic stability brought about by his reforms, which has not translated into improved living standards for the people.

Opinions are divided, with critics, often opposition politicians, supporting the Cardinal's stance as speaking truth to power and condemning the presidential response as insensitive. Conversely, the presidency and its allies maintain that public policy critiques must be grounded in verifiable facts. Both sides acknowledge disagreements on key issues such as the economy, security, and the electoral process, with the president admitting challenges while highlighting improvements, and the clergy expressing deep concern over the nation's trajectory.

“

Whilst the status of the presidential audience is unclear, the responses from the president’s minders suggest that the presidency considered the clergyman’s action inappropriate, given the one-sided presentation of the encounter, which portrayed their principal in a bad light.