All through those years of both Obasanjo’s and Jonathan’s respective presidencies, Kukah was largely silent over their “public lynching” of opponents, disregard for due process and the rule of law. With the political fall from power of the deeply corrupt and unpopular PDP and barely two months after the emergence of President Buhari’s government with a mission to fight corruption in the country, Kukah suddenly wakes up to notice “public lynching” of people accused of corruption, recognize the imperatives for the respect for due process and rule of law in the fight as to caution Buhari, according to Kukah, for disregarding this imperatives.
On a different matter but arising from the same Kukah’s political mind-set and double-standard approach to politics, one recalls his denouncement of one Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor and his leadership of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN). The denouncement was with special reference to his “perceived closeness” to President Jonathan and his government, leading to the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigerian (CBCN) – to which Kukah belongs – withdrawing its membership from the association. Oritsejafor would again be denounced, following the case of his alleged involvement in the controversial $9.3 million arms deal in South Africa for the then President Jonathan’s government, leading Kukah to advise his fellow Church leaders to so distance themselves from “the corridors of power” that they “should not be seen as playing the praying wing of the party in power.” As Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama – Kukah’s fellow bishop and President of the Catholic Bishop Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) – puts it while chiding Oritsejafor: “It is not acceptable for a Christian leader to be seen always with the President.”
It is not our intention here to argue for or against Oritsejafor whose own record of church leadership vis-a-vis church-state political relationship obviously and rightly deserves a separate treatment. What is of interest to us here is this: excepting Oritsejafor’s alleged involvement in the arms deal, what Kukah and his fellow Catholic bishops condemned Oritsejafor of doing with regards to his closeness with President Jonathan and his family as well as political party (PDP) is more or less similar to what Kukah himself did in the eight years Obasanjo was President. Thus, Kukah was to Obasanjo what Oritsejafor was to President Jonathan and both Kukah and Oritsejafor were obviously sympathetic towards their respective friend’s political party (PDP). Just as Oritsejafor was Jonathan’s spiritual adviser, so too was Kukah, as we noted earlier, invited by the PDP to its retreats for spiritual counselling. Such is the case that one can validly argue that the writing of the history of Obasanjo’s Presidency will not be complete without a generous mention of the role the then Rev. Fr. and now Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah played in that governance.
Thus, Kukah seems to betray a political mentality that is best described, for want of a better expression, as politics of convenience and self-interest; that is a politics largely pursued on the basis of its accruing benefits to the individual. On this note, keep in mind our earlier observation of Kukah’s rise to a high profile status in the nation and within Christian circles. Juxtapose this with his fraternization with Pastor Oritsejafor who is a member of the National Peace Committee on whose behalf Kukah has privately and publicly been chiding President Buhari. In one of his public statements, Kukah had vouched for the personal integrity of the members of the Committee among whom is Oritsejafor. Yet, this same individual, as we noted earlier, had been castigated and vilified by Kukah. Apart from Kukah’s obvious double-speak here, one wonders why, in a country like Nigeria with so many pastors of Oritsejafor’s stature to choose from, Kukah found him a more convenient and suitable choice to work with. Perhaps it is because of Oritsejafor’s position as the President of Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN); but this is an association on which Kukah had passed similar judgment as he did on its leader, leading to CBCN – to which Kukah belongs – withdrawing from its membership, even if temporarily. By virtue of the withdrawal and as a matter of principle, Kukah was not supposed to be doing business with Oritsejafor and, by extension CAN. That the contrary was the case lends credence to the speculation that Kukah would have no qualms in disregarding this principle if only to satisfy his interest in keeping alive his noted status on the national scene. We may never know the real and subterranean reason for his action here. But one thing is sure and certain: by pontificating good political behaviour to a no-nonsense President Buhari of anti-corruption fame through the mediation of a National Peace Committee whose membership is ethically tainted, Kukah unknowingly and circumstantially compromised the good intention he professes to be behind the Committee’s visit to and admonition of Buhari. Besides, it would appear that between the choice to uphold the fight for the common good – the war against corruption – in the country and that of protecting President Jonathan’s interest and, by extension, the PDP for which he and Oritsejafor hold common sympathy, Kukah chose the latter. In the end, the entire mediation is either self-serving or suspect at best.
It is in the context of the foregoing that many Nigerians are rightly or wrongly criticizing Bishop Kukah. Some of us believe that he and his co-travellers compromised their integrity and moral right to criticize or caution President Buhari. To say this, by the way, is not to suggest that Buhari himself is a saint. On the contrary he is not; and who among us is? What is not beyond doubt, however, is this: to many Nigerians, between him and former President Jonathan, Buhari was the lesser evil of the two.
And his probing Jonathan’s administration is a good omen and precedent for the country to find its political good health. This is because by the probe, Buhari is directly or indirectly setting himself and his administration up to face the same treatment from the government that hopefully will succeed him. The country will, indeed, be the richer for this development! As a matter of fact, it could very well be a necessary component to the overall tool towards the eventual realization of Kukah’s dream of the country’s progress towards finding its soul.
On and above this component, it worth adding that unless and until socio-political activists – be they secular or religious – not only distance themselves from the corridors of power but also be willing to pay whatever the price for their outspokenness against the injustice and impunity of those in power the sweet talks or dream of the country finding its soul will remain a mirage. Besides, any meaningful and effective talk or activism for Nigeria to “find its soul” must begin from bottom-up, NOT top-down as Kukah’s style of political activism seems to advance. In other words, any political activism for social change in Nigeria or anywhere else, to be meaningful and effective, must not only be necessarily rooted in a grassroots-based socio-political conscientization of the people but also lived out practically through an on-going solidarity and interaction with them within the context of their experience and interest.
The preceding remarks do not take away Bishop Kukah’s outspokenness and brand of political activism; but in whose ultimate interest? We ask this question because Kukah has been heard speaking in favour of church leaders distancing themselves from the corridors of power, believing that “we cannot speak the truth to power” or “hear the wails of the poor and the truth” as long as we have closeness with such powers. But as we have noted above, the same Kukah who makes and believes this statement does not seem disposed or prepared to walk his talk – to live out his talk in practice! Thus his kind of politics is principally elitist and, therefore, out to serve elitist interests. Besides, its practical expression in a manner that exhibits double standard, double-talk and self-interest together not only portrays it as unprincipled but also lacking of the political integrity and moral justification to challenge the opposing grassroots politics. Furthermore, that brand of politics does not have the socio-political disposition and capacity to midwife the long overdue needed socio-political conscientisation necessary for Nigeria to truly “find its soul.”
Is Kukah still popular? I say “yes”! But for goodness sake, he is not in the ranks of the likes of the Oscar Romeros and Desmond Tutus of the world that people like John Allen seem to place him. Of course, in a place like Nigeria where there is a dearth of people-oriented political activism among the rank and file of the religious leadership, Christians and Muslims alike, John Allen’s picture of Kukah could easily but wrongly be seen as true. For, as the saying goes: in the land of the blind the one-eyed is the king!
Leave a Reply