By Idowu Akinlotan
No
matter how much gloss anyone would like to put on the recent views of Bishop
Matthew Kukah, especially his opinion on former president Goodluck Jonathan, it
is undeniable that he has not shown enough discretion in many of the interviews
he has granted the media. Some of the views were indeed incendiary, going both
the mood of the country and the horrifying tales of graft perpetrated by
officials of the last government. Given all he has had to say on the matter,
the Bishop of Sokoto Diocese seems to have sympathy for Dr Jonathan, and
appears to prefer that the man be left alone. Unfortunately for the bishop, no
one wants to leave the former president alone, a baying for blood that is
exacerbated by the worsening state of the economy, the hunger in the land, and
the continuing constriction of the political space due to stalled appointments
and lack of opportunities.
Press
interviews, by nature, do not afford the interviewee the luxury of long pauses
and reflections. Even the best of politicians and officials, lay and
ecclesiastical, are prone to gaffes, hyperboles and incendiary statements. To
survive and flourish, therefore, media workers, particularly the broadcast
media, prefer direct, live interviews where the true man often manifests in all
his volatile and ugly colours, without garnishments, and with all his faults,
warts and demons. In such interviews, the real, prejudiced, intemperate and
maudlin man is often coaxed out, to the entertainment of the public, the dismay
of the interviewee’s supporters, and sometimes the grief and humiliation of his
family.
In
the now widely quoted Channels Television interview, Bishop Kukah let off a
firestorm that may affect his image for a while longer than he would hope. He
was absolutely himself — no pretences, no dissembling, no fear. But was he wise
in his answers? It is hard to judge, for, sometimes, it is not so much wisdom
that makes a man, but courage. In the interview, the bishop was doubtless
courageous and brilliant, and he managed to say what he wanted to say, even if
it rubbed the public the wrong way. In parts, he struggled to give the
impression he was a patriot with a sound and unquestionable view of crime and
punishment; but in other parts, he also laboured to prove that patriotism must
be without hysteria, especially mass hysteria, and be balanced with the
long-term interest of the country.
For
speaking his mind courageously on Jonathan and corruption, Bishop Kukah will in
the foreseeable future continue to draw the ire of the public. The Channels
interview was not his first on Jonathan and the corruption investigations. But
he apparently felt the need to explain himself, and, forsaking the admonition
to let bad enough alone, as the wise always say, he managed to worsen the
situation by revealing his innermost thoughts on the matter. He had initially responded
to allegations that the National Peace Committee sought audience with President
Buhari to plead for Dr Jonathan in regard to the ongoing frenzy over the
anti-corruption war. The public felt uncomfortable with his answer. Now,
Channels Television asked why he thought it was a distraction to emphasise the
investigation of corruption cases. His answer this time was even more
provocative.
Predicating
his intervention on his priestly duties, a responsibility he insinuates is
apparently answerable to heaven rather than to public opinion, Bishop Kukah
defended his right to intervene on anybody’s behalf. Then, out of the blue, the
bishop exploded: “And please let us not lose sight of what has happened in this
country. Jonathan said it and I am sure Nigerians have heard it, that when we
met with the Board of Trustees of the Peoples Democratic Party, they also made
it very clear that not all of them were in support of the singular decision
that Jonathan took (conceding electoral defeat) and I think that as Nigerians,
we must become sufficiently serious and realise that that singular act is what
has kept us as a nation. With all the billions and trillions in the world
coming from the outer space, we would need to have a nation first. So, I think
that even for that singular act alone, Nigerians must be appreciative of what
President Jonathan did.”
It
was this response that infuriated many Nigerians. Their belief that Bishop
Kukah and the peace committee had unpopular and unhealthy opinion of the hated
Dr Jonathan was reinforced. They suggested it was perhaps true that the
committee had soft spot for Dr Jonathan, a feeling that might have been caused
by a deal reached between Candidate Jonathan and Candidate Buhari before the
polls, a deal that was probably cemented shortly before Dr Jonathan’s famous
concession. Whatever the case, it is no longer speculation that Bishop Kukah
and the peace committee think exceedingly highly of Dr Jonathan’s magnanimity
in conceding defeat, and in addition think that that singular act is unexampled
and expiatory. Said the bishop: “Even if you are going to go into a
probe, it is not a substitute for governance and we are interested in the fact
that every sane Nigerian must be conscious of the fact that it might be another
person today and might be you tomorrow. And I think that we should not become
so preoccupied with Jonathan to the extent that we forget the spectacular
benefit that we gained under his presidency. Politics has ended, and now is the
time for governance.”
Bishop
Kukah’s controversial but honest opinion is undoubtedly unpopular. While it is
difficult for him and the peace committee to disguise their respect and
possibly love for Dr Jonathan, a sentiment that may be unhelpful in fostering
economic and political development of the country, not to say public morality,
their view on the skewed focus of the government on ‘probes’, or what some have
described as ‘public lynching of Dr Jonathan’, is no doubt a timely and
critical observation. This incidentally is also the view of Anthony Olubunmi
Cardinal Okogie, former Catholic Archbishop of Lagos. In the opinion of the
cardinal, bishop and peace committee, while corruption investigations should go
on in the background, the shape and structure of governance must come to the
fore. The former must not be a substitute for the latter, they argue, and the
latter must receive priority. Even if Bishop Kukah and the peace committee
wrongly felt obliged to rescue Dr Jonathan from public lynching, their
observations on the diminution of governance seems beyond cavil.
Without
saying it directly, perhaps because they feared it might be misinterpreted, the
peace committee also tried to suggest that the peaceful change from one
government and party to another is a salutary development that must be nurtured
as much as the desire to recover looted state funds. Bishop Kukah advances two
main reasons for this conclusion. One is that the committee fears that if the
dynamics of calling to account a successor government is not well managed, the
incentive for peaceful handover of power may be eroded, with all the
deleterious consequences. Two is that if the process of calling a
preceding government to account is not handled with all the dignity and
solemnity it requires, it may set a bad inquisitorial precedence for future
governments, with no one sure who’ll be next. In other words, for Bishop Kukah,
it is not everything that is right that is expedient. And when the bishop
further suggested that the ruling party needed to be faithful over little
things in order to deserve bigger responsibilities, he appeared to hint that a
gentleman’s agreement was in place, and that that deal was probably being
violated.
Two
weeks ago, in this place, this column suggested it was urgent and crucial for
President Buhari to unveil his economic blueprint in order to dispel the
feeling of tentativeness and ad hocism enveloping the country and the economy.
It suggested that the president’s American trip should have been delayed until
that blueprint was published, scrutinised and fine-tuned, and a cabinet put in
place. The column concluded by suggesting that the Buhari government seemed to
have placed undue emphasis on winning office than on preparing for office. In
some ways, both Bishop Kukah and Cardinal Okogie are also saying that the
unending and almost titillating talk of probe is caviar to the general. It is
important to call the last government to account, given the huge amount of
stealing that went on under Dr Jonathan, but it is even more crucial for the
Buhari presidency to manage the process with all the solemnity, gravity, order
and brilliance it deserves.
This column may not exactly
agree with the peace committee and Bishop Kukah on why the previous government
should be scrupulously investigated, or whether the investigations should be
conducted in a way that does not reek of witch-hunting, but there is no dispute
on why it is urgent for the Buhari government to enunciate its economic,
political and social manifestos, and elevate governance above the frenzied
blood sport that the probes are threatening to become. President Buhari must
strive for balance in everything, learn to discriminate between various public
opinions and the many publics, and have the good judgement to set the
foundation for how the Nigerian presidency should be perceived and judged both
locally and internationally.
No comments:
Post a Comment