The Cardinal Onaiyekan debate: Can Nigerians ever be satisfied?

By Matthew Ma

Do Nigerians truly deserve voices like Cardinal Onaiyekan’s? Judging by the reactions to his recent comments, one might be inclined to answer in the negative. We often demand honesty from our religious leaders, yet too often reject uncomfortable truths when they are voiced. We call on them to denounce injustice, corruption, insecurity, and economic hardship. However, when they answer that call, we tend to question their motives, accuse them of bias, or dismiss their messages without engaging with their substance.

In Nigeria, it is rare for a week to pass without calls for religious leaders to take a definitive stance on the nation’s most pressing issues. Whenever crises unfold—be it the alarming rise in insecurity leading to tragic losses, an economic downturn that impacts the livelihoods of countless citizens, or public policies that spark widespread controversy—many Nigerians grow increasingly frustrated by the perceived silence or inadequate response from religious leaders. They turn to social media to ask questions such as “Why are they quiet?” “Are they afraid?” or “Why won’t they defend the people?” This frustration often stems from the belief that religious leaders, wielding significant moral authority, can play a vital role in guiding public discourse, fostering unity, and providing comfort during turbulent times. However, when some of these leaders respond, a contrasting narrative emerges. Their statements are scrutinized, politicized, and frequently misrepresented. This paradox raises a pressing and uncomfortable question: Can Nigerians ever be satisfied?

The recent appearance of John Cardinal Onaiyekan on Arise TV has sparked a contentious debate, particularly over his discussion of the meeting between the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Rather than engaging in a meaningful dialogue about the economic improvements claimed under this administration, the presidential media aides resorted to disparaging the Cardinal for stating what is undeniably apparent. A more constructive response would have been to address the Cardinal’s observations with verifiable facts, evidence, and well-reasoned arguments. If the economy is indeed improving, if security concerns are being effectively managed, and if government policies are yielding tangible benefits for ordinary Nigerians, these accomplishments should be substantiated with clear evidence, rather than by undermining the credibility or intentions of a respected religious figure. This reaction prompts a fundamental question: When did the meeting between the Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the President become a secret? Was this a secret cult meeting in the first place?

The meeting was conducted openly and transparently, with all details readily available in public records and widely covered by the media. Such interactions are not unusual; they have occurred even during periods of military rule, underscoring the importance of dialogue in governance. For instance, during President Ibrahim Babangida’s administration, the Bishops frequently discussed national issues, demonstrating their commitment to the country’s moral and ethical discourse. Likewise, General Sanni Abacha, despite the controversies surrounding his regime, met with the Bishops on multiple occasions, especially in the lead-up to significant events such as Pope John Paul II’s second visit to Nigeria in 1998. We all remember what happened after that visit.

Furthermore, the Bishops have upheld this tradition by engaging with other political leaders, including Presidents Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari, to discuss the nation’s challenges. Their recent meeting with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu fits within this historical context, reinforcing the idea that such engagements are a fundamental aspect of the relationship between the Church and the State in Nigeria.

Anyone familiar with John Cardinal Onaiyekan will readily affirm his integrity, independence, and forthrightness. Over the years, he has openly challenged successive governments on issues such as corruption, insecurity, bad governance, electoral integrity, religious freedom, and social justice. His critiques have focused not on individuals based on their political affiliations but on the policies and actions that, in his view, undermine the common good. Whether under military rule or civilian administrations, his message has remained steadfast: those entrusted with public office must govern with justice, accountability, and a commitment to respecting the dignity of every Nigerian. For instance, during his tenure as President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) around Nigeria’s return to democracy, Onaiyekan took a firm stand on political neutrality. When President Obasanjo sought to amend the constitution to extend his term, Onaiyekan and the Catholic episcopacy unlawfully played a pivotal role in opposing the attempt, calling it a direct assault on democracy.

When the Boko Haram insurgency intensified during the Goodluck Jonathan Administration (2010–2015), Onaiyekan did not shield the administration from criticism, even though he maintained a positive personal rapport with the President. He consistently condemned systemic corruption that left Nigerian soldiers inadequately equipped to combat terrorism, characterizing the misappropriation of security funds as a profound betrayal of public trust. During the Muhammadu Buhari Administration (2015–2023), while many religious leaders chose to tread lightly, Cardinal Onaiyekan consistently highlighted the government’s failures, particularly regarding insecurity and accountability. In 2018, during a homily in Kwara State, he publicly declared that Nigeria’s Catholic bishops had completely lost faith in the Buhari administration because of rampant killings and poor governance.

These examples make it clear that Cardinal Onaiyekan has a long history of speaking truth to power. It would be unjust to characterize his recent comments as politically motivated or partisan. His reputation for applying consistent moral standards across all governments remains intact. His credibility rests on this unwavering consistency. Rather than altering his principles to align with the current administration, he has remained true to the Church’s enduring mission to advocate for the voiceless, defend the vulnerable, and remind those in power that leadership is a sacred trust, not a mere license for authority.

In established democracies like the United States, it is common for governments to engage with faith leaders on matters of national importance. Similarly, religious institutions—including the Catholic bishops of America—often issue public statements urging the US President and other elected officials to uphold justice, protect human dignity, defend the vulnerable, and govern in accordance with the Constitution and the common good. Such interventions are not always universally welcomed and are sometimes criticized for the positions they take. However, their participation in public debate is generally regarded as a legitimate contribution to democratic discourse rather than an improper intrusion into politics. They are criticized for the substance of their views, not merely for speaking.

Rev. Ma, S.J., is a Jesuit priest and public policy analyst. He currently writes from Abuja, Nigeria.