I imagine the Archbishop of the Abuja Catholic Archdiocese, Cardinal John Onaiyekan, did some calculations of the results of the last election and these informed his recent public comment. The (May 4, 2023) reported him as saying it “makes no sense” to swear in the winner of the presidential election before the hearing at the tribunal was concluded. Nigerians have since responded, some expressing dismay that the religious leader spoke in the manner he did, and asking why he didn’t say the same thing when similar situations arose in past presidential elections. Generally, Onaiyekan’s intervention provides me with another opportunity to debate issues surrounding how religious leaders make public comments on the polarising matter of politics.
Now, I believe every Nigerian has the right to comment on national issues. I believe religious leaders have the right to comment too. However, when they do they should be conscious that they open a debate, asking for responses from fellow Nigerians. The situation of religious leaders is somewhat complicated because of their diverse congregants and this ordinarily should serve as their reason for exercising some level of self-censorship. For instance, they preside over congregants all of whom don’t have the same political orientation and certainly don’t belong to the same political party. I believe the public expression of partisan views by religious leaders in such an atmosphere is divisive.
When a religious leader speaks in favor of or against a politician and their political party I suppose they do because they believe all their congregants share their view. This is not true and I think there’s oppression of congregants going on here, perpetrated by religious leaders. Now, congregants generally tend to not openly express views that are contrary to those of their religious leaders. So when religious leaders comment against any politician and his party, congregants who’re followers of the politician are displeased but they don’t talk, silently nursing their wounds instead. That’s oppression number one. Congregants who’re followers of the politician or party that’s disliked by a religious leader also bring in their tithe and offering, sometimes earned from the work they do for the disliked politician and party. So a partisan religious leader receives a salary from the contributions of congregants whose political leaders belong to either Party A or Party B. He also collects contributions for projects. But he openly talks against Party A, even though he doesn’t discriminate when he collects the money Party A members bring in. That’s oppression number two.
I recognise that the standpoint of some religious denominations predisposes their religious leaders with regard to whether they talk or don’t talk where politics is concerned. The Catholic Church has a tradition of taking an active interest in state matters, and in fact, at a stage in its history, it was the government for many parts of Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire. Later, the Catholic Church encouraged active interaction between it and the state, and we see this in the activity of Catholic priests in nations where they sometimes lead protests and marches against governments. Against that backdrop, Onaiyekan, in making his comment, was in line with what his denomination permits. The question though is if everything is beneficial even though they’re permissible, considering the situation of the country.
Onaiyekan is a personality I have respect for. It was Onaiyekan, along with a few other religious leaders, who visited former President Umaru Yar’Ádua when he was sick. Fellow journalists went to ask him what transpired in the course of the visit. Onaiyekan said he went to visit his President and owed no one an explanation for visiting his President. That time, I concluded he exercised tact and wisdom. I like tact. I like wisdom. When anyone exercises either, I learn, I respect. Still, Onaiyekan’s comment on the presidential inauguration leaves me concerned.
There’re other aspects to what he said in his TV interview. One of such was in the following comments he made: “I think we need to review our election process, so we do have a winner who will be sworn in and whom everybody would rally around…My problem is that the whole system of our election must be properly reviewed so that it would be easier for winners to emerge according to the wishes of the people.” Question: How did the religious leader arrive at the conclusion that the winner didn’t emerge according to the wishes of the people? Is it because some people go to court, some people say it’s their candidate that should win, or because his preferred candidate doesn’t win? This is a divisive comment, coming from a religious leader. Why? Some members of his congregation also belong to the party he doesn’t like.
Now to the extent that Onaiyekan wanted a review of the electoral process, he spoke as any citizen has the right to. But to the extent that he said it “makes no sense” that a winner would be sworn in when the body saddled with the responsibility of declaring a winner had done its job, I’m baffled. I think by making such a comment he’s creating a wrong impression among very impressionable Nigerians, among whom we have some who advocate the use of extra-legal means to truncate a transition process that’s spelt out in our laws. That is the segment of Nigerians he has further emboldened with his comments and it’s unacceptable.
His comment is more concerning if we consider that some have made efforts to ensure neither the election itself nor May 29 takes place. It’s in the many warnings that security agencies give with regard to elements who’re working against the current transition process. Such elements advocate for Interim Government even when an election has taken place and a winner declared. Onaiyekan’s comment further leads people astray because of his assertion that he’s “still waiting for the court to tell me who won the election.” By our law, it’s the Independent National Electoral Commission that tells Nigerians who has won any contest it organized. What the court does is entertain evidence from whoever wants to prove that the winner is either validly elected or not. If no one comes forward to challenge the winner, it’s whoever INEC declares that’s the winner. Comments in this regard such as the one Onaiyekan makes can confuse people and cause more division, including among Catholics who don’t support whichever candidate and the political party he supports.
What is more concerning here was that there had been a situation in which petitioners went to court in the past to challenge the outcome of the presidential election, and Onaiyekan didn’t make this kind of statement. Yar’Adua’s election was admitted as having serious issues, but the Cardinal didn’t say he shouldn’t have been sworn into office. I don’t want to imagine that the Cardinal has anything personal against the president-elect. If not, consideration for unity among Nigerians and national peace without which Onaiyekan can’t minister to his congregants should have moderated his comment against the inauguration of the president-elect. I think Onaiyekan’s comment should have stopped at where he expressed his view regarding the need to reform the electoral process. He can contribute to that process using both the Catholic Church’s unit responsible for political affairs as well as his personal NGO, Foundation for Peace.
There’s no way one would think of Onaiyekan’s comment and not wonder if he had done some calculations that the rest of us don’t know about. This is inevitable as he never came out at this stage since 1999 to make a no-inauguration comment. And there may be other Nigerians who also think it “makes no sense” to have a new president sworn in; they must believe like Onaiyekan probably does that past contested presidential elections were won by the winners, but in this case, the winner didn’t win. It means such Nigerians too calculated some numbers which make them believe results announced by INEC will be overturned in court. Considering the demographics and the issues that some of us explained before the election as favoring the ruling party, those calculations as they may have will be interesting to see. But I think the right place to submit such is the court of law, rather than call for, as Onaiyekan’s “makes no sense” comment seems to suggest, jettisoning a transition process outlined in our law.
