There is an old political instinct common to insecure governments. When confronted with uncomfortable truths, they do not answer the argument. They attack the messenger. It is a tactic as old as power itself, employed by administrations that have exhausted persuasion and now depend on intimidation to protect carefully constructed narratives.
Temitope Ajayi, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, recently demonstrated this instinct in spectacular fashion. His lengthy broadside accusing our respected Catholic Cardinal John Onaiyekan of “abuse of clerical privilege,” eagerly amplified by the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, was not a defence of government policy. It was an attempt to delegitimise one of Nigeria’s most respected moral voices for committing the unforgivable offence of telling the truth.
In trying to discredit Cardinal Onaiyekan, the Presidency exposed something far more disturbing than anything the Cardinal said. It revealed an administration increasingly intolerant of independent criticism and increasingly convinced that controlling public perception is an acceptable substitute for solving national problems.
The Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria requested an audience with the President. The meeting was granted. The Bishop’s fulfilled the responsibility expected of them, not as politicians seeking electoral advantage or contracts, but as Spiritual Leaders representing millions of Nigerians whose life experiences bear little resemblance to the optimistic reports often presented from within the corridors of power.
Their message was neither partisan nor revolutionary. It was painfully simple: *Nigerians are suffering.*
Cardinal Onaiyekan merely repeated publicly what was reportedly said privately, that the country is under immense economic and social strain, that insecurity continues to threaten communities, that inflation has devastated household incomes, and that there is an alarming disconnect between official optimism and the realities confronting ordinary citizens.
Rather than respond with humility and introspection, the Presidency responded with outrage. That reaction speaks volumes. _Governments secure in their performance welcome criticism because they understand that accountability strengthens legitimacy._ Governments plagued by insecurity perceive every dissenting voice as an existential threat.
History teaches an enduring lesson. *Every healthy society depends upon institutions capable of speaking truth to power. The Church has performed precisely that function for centuries, confronting monarchs, military rulers, dictators and democratic governments alike whenever justice, human dignity and the common good were endangered.* To accuse a Catholic Cardinal of abusing clerical privilege simply because he articulated the anguish of millions of Nigerians is to misunderstand both the constitutional role of religious institutions and the moral vocation of religious leadership.
A bishop is not ordained to flatter presidents. He is called to defend conscience.
Ajayi insists that President Tinubu addressed every issue raised by the Bishops and that disagreement over facts should not be mistaken for arrogance. Yet facts possess an inconvenient characteristic. They exist independently of official statements.
Millions of Nigerians continue to endure one of the most severe cost-of-living crises in recent history. Families struggle to afford food that was once considered basic. Businesses collapse beneath escalating operating costs. Young graduates wander without meaningful employment. Farmers remain fearful of returning to their farmlands or ancestry homes. Communities continue to live under the shadow of violent criminality. Parents are forced to choose between paying exorbitant school fees, buying medicine or simply putting food on the table.
_These are not opposition slogans. They are everyday realities experienced by citizens across the country._
No carefully crafted press statement can erase those realities. No communications strategy can persuade hungry Nigerians that prosperity has arrived. No amount of official optimism can invalidate lived experience.
Cardinal Onaiyekan’s observation that those surrounding the President may be shielding him from the full extent of the nation’s suffering therefore deserves careful reflection rather than angry dismissal. History is littered with leaders imprisoned inside echo chambers, protected from inconvenient truths by advisers whose greatest talent was telling their principals precisely what they wished to hear. Such governments rarely recognise decline until decline has become a national crisis.
Equally unconvincing is the Presidency’s complaint that the meeting should have remained confidential. Governments routinely release carefully curated accounts of private engagements whenever those accounts serve political interests. They cannot selectively publicise favourable versions of events while insisting that everyone else remain permanently silent. Confidentiality cannot become a one-way instrument of political convenience.
If the Presidency reserves the right to present its account of the meeting, Cardinal Onaiyekan possesses exactly the same democratic right to present his.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Ajayi’s intervention is the underlying suggestion that moral criticism requires presidential approval before entering the public square. That proposition is fundamentally incompatible with constitutional democracy. Public officials are accountable to citizens, not the other way around. Religious leaders, journalists, academics and civil society organisations neither seek nor require permission from presidential spokespersons before expressing legitimate concerns about the direction of their country.
*Strong governments answer criticism with evidence. Weak governments answer criticism with insults. Confident leaders engage opposing views with reason. Insecure administrations personalise disagreement because they have run out of convincing arguments.*
The attack on Cardinal Onaiyekan therefore says far less about the Cardinal than it does about the Tinubu Presidency. Rather than confront difficult questions about economic hardship, insecurity, governance and growing public anxiety over Nigeria’s democratic future, the President’s media team has chosen to wage war against a Respected Cleric whose only offence was refusing to sanitise reality.
That is not strategic communication. It is political insecurity dressed up as public relations.
The tragedy is that no government benefits from surrounding itself with applause instead of honest counsel. Propaganda may dominate headlines for a day, but it cannot lower the price of food. Carefully choreographed media offensives cannot restore purchasing power, create jobs or secure vulnerable communities. Political spin has never solved an economic crisis, and no administration has ever communicated its way out of poor governance.
Eventually, reality defeats rhetoric.
Cardinal John Onaiyekan’s moral authority has not been diminished by this orchestrated attack. If anything, the Presidency has reinforced the very point he sought to make. A government that chooses to discredit the messenger rather than confront the message reveals far more about its own disposition than it does about the integrity of its critics.
Nigeria deserves leadership that is confident enough to listen, humble enough to accept criticism and courageous enough to correct its mistakes. Democracies do not collapse because citizens speak uncomfortable truths. They begin to erode when those entrusted with power become convinced that criticism is treachery and that propaganda can replace performance.
History has never been kind to governments that wage war against the truth. It rarely remembers the propagandists. It remembers those who had the courage to speak when silence would have been more convenient.
Good morning Everyone, and Happy New Month.
