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