NEWSCOUNT Editorial

There is something fundamentally wrong with the way we increasingly treat criticism of people in authority in Nigeria. The moment a respected person questions government, some supporters immediately assume that the person must be an enemy. The question is no longer whether what was said is correct or incorrect. The focus shifts to who said it, why the person said it and whether the person is politically aligned with the government. That is a dangerous way to run a democracy.

The recent controversy surrounding the remarks of John Cardinal Onaiyekan, Archbishop Emeritus of Abuja, is a good example. John Cardinal Onaiyekan is not a young politician searching for relevance, neither is he someone who suddenly discovered the pulpit because President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is in office. He has spent decades speaking about faith, morality, justice, peace, governance and the condition of ordinary Nigerians. He has criticised governments before this administration and he will certainly not be the last religious leader to tell those in authority what they may not want to hear.

His meeting with President Tinubu alongside other Catholic bishops should not be interpreted as an invitation to surrender their conscience. Religious leaders who meet the President are not expected to return from the Presidential Villa and become praise singers. They went there to engage the government, and engagement means that there must be room for frankness.

So, John Cardinal Onaiyekan and the other bishops went to a coven and therefore they should not speak? Is that what some people are suggesting? What exactly is the argument? That because they met the President, they were expected to see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing? That is unreasonable. If something happened at that meeting, Nigerians are entitled to know what the bishops thought about it. If they heard concerns from the government, they can speak about them. If they had concerns of their own, they have every right to raise them.

John Cardinal Onaiyekan is a global figure whose public life and standing cannot be reduced to whether somebody in government likes what he says. He cannot be gagged simply because his words make some people uncomfortable. He has lived this long, to have seen enough and acquired enough experience to understand the responsibility that comes with speaking publicly. He is also not known to be a man whose primary concern is accumulating material things. His intervention is therefore better understood as the voice of an elder speaking about the condition of the country and the people he believes are suffering.

Even when you believe you are brilliant and doing well academically and regularly come third or fourth in your class, your father can still charge you to aim for first position. There is nothing wrong with that. The fact that a child is doing well does not mean the father cannot demand something better. The same thing applies to government. An administration can point to achievements and still be told that it must do more.

We should therefore stop celebrating the mountain heap of excuses offered by elected officials who constantly remind Nigerians that they met poverty, insecurity, unemployment, poor infrastructure and other difficulties when they assumed office. Yes, every government inherits problems. But leadership is about improving what you inherit. It is not about keeping the inherited problems as a permanent explanation for every failure.

If a student takes over a school where the previous administration performed badly, the new student leaders are expected to improve the situation. They cannot spend their entire tenure explaining how bad things were before they arrived. The same standard should apply to political leadership. Nigerians are entitled to ask whether their lives are improving, whether insecurity is declining, whether jobs are being created and whether government policies are producing the results promised. Those questions are not hatred.

Unfortunately, there will always be people who cannot separate political loyalty from objective judgment. Some defend government because they genuinely believe in its policies. Others have personal or political interests. Some are motivated by tribal considerations, while others have simply become so partisan that they no longer see anything wrong with the side they support. The result is the same: anybody who raises an uncomfortable question is attacked.

If John Cardinal Onaiyekan had come out to flatter Mr President, many of those attacking him today would probably have been applauding him. They would have described him as a wise elder and a patriotic church leader. But because he said something they did not like, they have suddenly discovered reasons why he should not have spoken.

That is not leadership and it is not democracy.

Criticism is not automatically correct, but neither is it automatically wrong. If John Cardinal Onaiyekan has made an incorrect assessment, those who disagree with him should say so and provide facts. They should explain where his argument is wrong. They should not resort to insults, insinuations or attempts to question his right to speak.

The Bible itself is filled with examples of God’s servants speaking truth to those in authority. In 2 Samuel 12:7, Prophet Nathan confronted King David with the words, “Thou art the man.” He did not stand before the king merely to praise him. He confronted him over wrongdoing.

Prophet Elijah similarly confronted King Ahab over the injustice surrounding Naboth’s vineyard. In 1 Kings 21, Elijah did not calculate the political consequences before speaking. He confronted the king because he believed that power could not place a person above accountability.

John the Baptist also spoke against King Herod’s unlawful conduct. His message was not softened simply because Herod was king. Mark 6:17–29 records the consequences that followed, but John the Baptist’s example remains one of speaking truth even when doing so carries a price.

The Bible further says in Proverbs 31:8–9: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” That is not a call to praise those in authority. It is a call to give voice to people whose circumstances may prevent them from speaking for themselves. That principle remains relevant today.

The poor Nigerian does not have direct access to the Presidency. The trader struggling with rising costs cannot simply walk into Aso Rock and explain what the economy means to her daily survival. The farmer worried about insecurity cannot demand an appointment with the President. The unemployed graduate cannot easily sit across the table from those making economic decisions and explain the frustration of having no opportunity. Those who have access to platforms and those whose voices carry weight therefore have a responsibility to speak when they believe something is wrong.

Government should not be afraid of such voices. A strong leader does not need everybody around him to agree with him. Leaders are better served by people who are prepared to tell them the truth than by people who constantly tell them what they want to hear. The danger begins when praise becomes the only acceptable response and criticism is treated as betrayal.

President Tinubu and his supporters should therefore look beyond the personality of the critic and examine the substance of the criticism. If the criticism is wrong, disprove it. If it contains exaggeration, correct it. If it identifies a genuine problem, address it. That is how serious governments respond.

The same standard should apply to the opposition. Criticising government does not mean every action of government is bad. Where government does well, it should be acknowledged. Where it fails, it should be challenged. Nigeria cannot afford a situation where political parties determine what citizens are allowed to see as good or bad.

What happened between John Cardinal Onaiyekan, the other bishops and the President should therefore not be reduced to a quarrel between supporters and opponents of the administration. It should be seen as part of the larger question of what kind of relationship should exist between those who govern and those who have a moral responsibility to speak to them.

A religious leader who meets the President does not become a government spokesman. A journalist who interviews the President does not lose the right to criticise government. A traditional ruler who visits the Presidency does not surrender his voice. Engagement with authority should not mean surrender to authority.

So, if John Cardinal Onaiyekan and other bishops went to meet the President, should they have come back silent? Should they have seen nothing, heard nothing and said nothing? Certainly not.

John Cardinal Onaiyekan is too big, too experienced and too exposed to be gagged by political pressure or the anger of government supporters. He has spent a lifetime preaching and speaking his mind without looking at faces. He did not start doing so because of President Tinubu, and he will not stop because some people are uncomfortable with his message.

Nigeria needs leaders who can take criticism without seeing every critic as an enemy. It needs supporters who can defend their government without losing their ability to reason. It needs citizens who can demand better without being branded unpatriotic.

Leadership is not about receiving only praise and applause. Anyone seeking public office must understand that criticism comes with the territory. Sometimes it will be gentle. Sometimes it will be harsh. Sometimes it will be uncomfortable. But the responsibility of leadership is to listen, separate truth from falsehood and act where necessary.

A government that is doing well should have nothing to fear from an honest critic.

And a leader who truly believes he is doing the right thing should be confident enough to hear voices that disagree with him.

That is not an attack on leadership. That is simply accountability.