At almost 80 years of age, with a life steeped in the sacrificial vows of a Catholic priest and the princely confines of a bishop’s station, John Cardinal Onaiyekan, Emeritus Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Abuja, is far set in his ways to change. Indeed, room for drastic change in either the mindset or the principles of a bishop hardly exist.
The life of a Catholic bishop is, to a reasonable extent, captured in the introductory testimony by late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, about his autobiography, Treasure in Clay. According to the archbishop, the account of his life as captured in the book, did not actually represent his true life, in a certain profound sense. His real autobiography, he said, “was written twenty-one centuries ago…. The ink used was blood, the parchment was skin, the pen was a spear…That autobiography is the crucifix – the inside story of my life, not in the way it walks the stage of time, but how it was recorded, taped and written in the Book of Life….” It is most unlikely that any life set on such foundation will permit any action without conviction, or worse still, keep quiet in the face of wrong.
For Cardinal Onaiyekan, the stake has been known to be tricky, made so by the choice he made for himself. His commitment to Nigeria has been quite remarkable, even if his interpretation of that love for country has made even his flock uncomfortable, at times.
In his pursuit of inter-religious harmony and over-arching peace in Nigeria, Cardinal Onaiyekan has been a pacifist of an uncommon kind, in many instances, to the discomfort of his flock. He does appear ever ready to bend backward doubly over, in promoting peace. Many of his colleagues and followers are known to have come to the brinks of exasperation at his pacifism. There is no slight indication that he is about to change.
In the months leading to the 2015 general elections, Cardinal Onaiyekan was in the fore line of personalities who consistently excoriated President Goodluck Jonathan and his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) -led government for poor performance. Onaiyekan became something of a Prophet Samuel, virtually marching on to relay the devastating message to Jonathan (who in that instance swapped position and fate with his father, Saul), that the mantle had departed from him.
Many among the Cardinal’s flock and in the wider Christian community across the country, were not happy at his lead role against President Jonathan, not so much because the man he endorsed, Muhammadu Buhari was a Muslim, but in the main, because the man in question was a source of discomfort to many, Christians especially, but even Muslims, as well. The general had been trailed for most of his public life with charges of extremism, fundamentalism and parochialism. Eventually the election came and Buhari and his All Progressives Congress (APC) prevailed. The rest has been a painful history.
Last week, obviously uncomfortable, as many other Nigerians, about the prevailing uncertainty that has pervaded the country since the February 25 2023 presidential election, Cardinal Onaiyekan made a comment which every reasonable person can easily identify with, or understand. With May 29th, the date a new president is expected to be inaugurated drawing nigh, the Cardinal expressed discomfort at what seems to be in the offing.
Speaking to a television network programme, Onaiyekan had said that “It doesn’t make sense to be swearing in people when they are still in court…I am still waiting for the court to tell me who won the election…. 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…”
He also expressed displeasure at those who distort the electoral process through undermining the will of the people. The man of God, assured that God is watching the bad guys.
The reaction of Festus Keyamo, the junior minister of Labour, who doubles as one of the spokespersons for Senator Bola Tinubu, who the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared winner of the presidential election, was characteristic. Even at that, the response to the Cardinal’s comment was loathsome. While it appears that Mr. Keyamo courts and savours a reputation as an irreverent gadfly, ever ready to profane, his response to the Cardinal’s comment left many wondering what his grouse exactly was.
What is not reasonable in the view that the Nigerian political process will be tidier, if it is reformed to ensure that contestation of election results is resolved before one of the contenders is sworn in? The primary plank of Keyamo’s antagonism to the Cardinal’s views, seems to be that there were precedents of a president or two sworn-in in the past while the contest of the election result continued at the tribunal. While, he could very well make his case without unnecessary belligerence and irreverence, it is sad to note that what he is saying, without qualms, is that because a dubious system prevailed in the past and some people possibly benefitted from it, the country must remain tethered to such obviously wrong process, so that he too and the interest he represents, will also benefit from the same inequity. That sounds immoral, even in politics.
There is no point going into the reality of the uniqueness of the 2023 presidential election. It bears noting, though, that at no other presidential election in memory had any of those who challenged the outcome of a presidential election laid claim so stoutly, with such conviction and paper trails, however disputed, that they actually won and that the person declared did not actually win. That is a part of the problem the country is grappling with in this instance.
Instructively, it does seem that Keyamo does not even approve of the suggestion in some quarters that the Supreme Court can and should work expeditiously to ensure the completion of the matter four or five days before May 29th. As tight as that schedule may be, it will still be better than inaugurating a president with a heavy question mark over his crown.
It may not matter, eventually, where the dice falls. The kernel of Cardinal Onaiyekan’s submission, which makes every sense, is that proceeding to inaugurate someone as president, against the backdrop of the unresolved disputation over the declared outcome of the election, is not just awkward, but immoral. A country cannot place its leadership stool on such a nefarious foundation and expect law and order to prevail. It is difficult to see why any of the parties should feel undone by any initiative to resolve the disputes as quickly as possible.
Keyamo said the Cardinal’s comment was unstatesmanlike. If the line of reasoning in the Cardinal’s comment is not fitting for a statesman, then the quality of statesmen of Keyamo’s reckoning need to be feared.
John Cardinal Onaiyekan has nothing more to prove about his love and commitment to Nigeria. If the party that he stuck his neck out to help to bring to power can so easily turn round to traduce him for telling them the truth, that may be further ground for him to reflect more about his position in 2015.