Last week, certainly, was not a good one for the presidency and the federal government. This is especially so because a little circumspection could have totally prevented the faux pas.
Recall that Dr. Reuben Abati had written immediately after leaving government in 2015 that the Aso Rock Villa is jinxed.
His immediate successor as media aide to the President, Femi Adesina, laughed at him with scorn, dismissing Abati’s observations as a product of his own imagination.
What was the crux of Abati’s submission? He simply said unseen forces are haunting the villa.
According to him, the forces are responsible for the occupants of that presidency always ending up doing the unintended in office.
Adesina laughed it off and told us that he had been sleeping as a baby at the villa and that those allusions by Abati were his own imagination.
However, after eight years of being in office, we all knew better. Adesina and his principal were so disoriented and disorganised that virtually every foot they put forward was wrong. Almost all the statements or reactions to issues from the presidential aides at that time were in staccato.
Everyone who took a contrary stand was an enemy and a wailer. They reserved the roughest edges of their tongues for such an individual, irrespective of the person’s status or age. For them, it’s either their way or the highway.
Much as I do not have any reason to believe Abati’s submission on the villa and its occupants, one is, however, at a loss to explain the frequent unforced errors or why our presidential media aides are totally convinced that for every comment, even if it is straight from the beer parlour on the presidency, there must be a reaction?
Is there anything that says there must be an insult or attempt to ridicule everyone for suggestions contrary to those from the presidency? Is it possible for everyone to agree with the presidency? Shouldn’t superior arguments suffice rather than abuses and insults?
Are they doing these in the interests of the president or for self-preservation? How is it that they do not understand that every time they rush to the media for every comment, no matter how inconsequential, they expose themselves inadvertently to missteps?
Last week, the social media was abuzz and literally up in flames as a result of the fallouts of the visit of Catholic Bishops to President Bola Tinubu at the villa.
After the visit, the Presidency released reports of the visit that essentially reflected less of the proceedings at the meeting. Thereafter, His Eminence, John Cardinal Onaiyekan, had a media chat where he spoke about their visit and the presidency, threw caution to the wind, and descended on the revered cleric.
In doing this, they paid little attention to the veracity of what he said or disputed his claims but were dissipating energy on the propriety and why he revealed the outcome of the meeting.
In the first place, did the presidency not do a little research on the Catholic Bishop Conference or Catholic Bishops to have expected anything else? Why invite or accept the request of the Bishops for the visit when you know that you might not be comfortable with what they would say? Have these bishops acted any differently in the past? Are their antecedents not in the public domain?
One point we must not dispute is that it’s not only those who tell political office holders what they like to hear that love them. In fact, it is those who tell them what will make them uncomfortable that are more patriotic because it will mean that they would be challenged to address the issues raised.
It’s inconceivable to expect all to stand on the President’s mandate at all times. Would it be in the interest of the president if the Bishops only came to him to speak on his achievements in office alone?
For me, the takeaway from that encounter is that the president and his team must realise that there is a huge task ahead of them and that whatever they do or say must be properly thought out before pushing it out.
It’s preposterous for anyone to accuse Cardinal Onaiyekan of partisanship. It only reveals the ignorance or a lack of rigour in the person’s thought process or assimilation of issues. How can those e-rats on social media accuse Onaiyekan of being a member of the NDC? How ridiculous!
How again can Daniel Bwala claim that Onaiyekan was speaking only for Catholics? Was that intended to set the Catholics up against other denominations? Does hunger discriminate between religion, tribes and party affiliations?
Even if that assertion is true, can Bwala and APC ignore the demography that the Catholic population represents in the country’s democracy?
Also, last week, Wednesday precisely, the governor of Osun State, Ademola Adeleke, addressed a press conference where he lamented the decision of the EFCC to freeze the state government’s account, barely a few days to the state’s governorship election. Again, the condemnation was instantaneous and spontaneous. The president felt embarrassed and expressed surprise, just as he ordered that the EFCC should unfreeze the account.
Even when the EFCC was still labouring to rationalise its action, Bayo Onanuga had assumed the job of EFCC’s spokesman, tweeting EFCC’s reason for the restriction.
What the presidency did has inadvertently given vent to the conclusion by many that the EFCC has from inception remained a tool for the presidency to persecute the opposition.
The president ordering EFCC to vacate the order only confirms that the anti-graft agency is anything but independent.
When you recall that Governor Adeleke had for a long time alleged that federal power was being used to undermine his government through withholding of LG allocations because it belongs to a different party from the ruling party, then you will realise why if the witch cries in the night and the baby dies in the morning, it’s a no-brainer.
