Kukah

[Toyin Falola]

https://www.channelstv.com/2020/12/30/muric-asks-bishop-kukah-to-resign-from-national-peace-committee/


Sent from my iPhone

[Jimoh Oriyomi]

Prof. Akintola is Muric, Muric is Prof. Akintola.

On 30 Dec 2020 1:36 p.m., "Toyin Falola" <toyin...@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:

https://www.channelstv.com/2020/12/30/muric-asks-bishop-kukah-to-resign-from-national-peace-committee/


Sent from my iPhone

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com 
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/72A98885-0D6D-4AE8-BB57-D16C38FF550F%40austin.utexas.edu.

[Jibrin Ibrahim]

Bishop Matthew Kukah: Can a Partisan Tell Truth to Power?

 

Jibrin Ibrahim, Friday Column, Daily Trust, 1^st January 2021

 

This week, the major controversy in the country has been Bishop Kukah’s Christmas message for 2020 which has divided the country right down the middle. While one side says the message is appropriate and he is keeping to his tradition of telling truth to power the other feels strongly that the message is from a bigot that has committed sedition against his country and should be arrested and jailed. The problem with the divide is that it follows Nigeria’s religious Faultline with his supporters coming largely from the Christian community and the accusers from the Muslim community. This is a sad situation because what it tells us is the difficulty of an objective assessment of the Bishop.

 

Bishop Kukah is a good friend of mine that I have related with over the decades. I know him to be very committed to advancing the cause of the Nigerian Nation and to have no ill will towards any religious group. He is somebody who will always say what he thinks in a clear and often confrontational manner and his area of academic interest cannot but draw him into controversy in a permanent manner and that has been the situation since the 1980s when he was writing his “Mustard Seed” column in the New Nigerian. 

 

His doctoral thesis at SOAS in London was on the theme of “Religion, Power and Politics in Northern Nigeria” and this theme has been the essence of Northern politics and maybe precisely because of that very contentious. In the two decades before independence, the distribution of power in Northern Nigeria was largely in the hands of the Emirate system leading to contestation by the Northern Christian community organised in the Non-Muslim League and subsequently the United Middle Belt Congress. A lot of the agitations of the time were submitted to the Willinks Commission of Inquiry in 1958 with demands for the creation of the Middle Belt which the British rejected. In his academic work and writings, Bishop Kukah has taken on the mantle of this advocacy and very few in the North are neutral on the issue so over the years people have lined up for or against Kukah. For his part, the Bishop has been proud to take up the mantle of port parole for one side in this debate and in this context gets a lot of the bullets flying in relation to the theme. I do not think Bishop Kukah sets out to be controversial, it is just that his area of interest and commitment has been controversial over the past eighty years so he finds himself in the centre. As a Nigerian citizen and political scientist, he cannot really be queried for engaging such a contentious subject but others might say that as a Bishop, he should leave the field to others and seek for less divisive issues.   

 

As he has been mired in controversy for decades, people have made up their minds about him and I suspect many do not read what he writes but jump to conclusions on the basis of headlines. I saw many reactions to his Christmas message claiming that he had called for a coup against President Buhari. What he said actually was that: “Every honest Nigerian knows that there is no way any non-Northern Muslim President could have done a fraction of what President Buhari has done by his nepotism and gotten away with it. There would have been a military coup a long time ago or we would have been at war.” This is an assessment of possible hypothetical outcomes he is making and not a call for a coup. I think this statement is wrong and should not have been made. First, on the empirical level, the Goodluck Jonathan Government was generally considered to have been as nepotistic and no coup against it happened. Secondly, Nigerians have suffered from almost 30 years of military rule and any suggestion of a possible coup could be read as an invitation for one and should be avoided by democrats.  

 

A lot of the opposition to Bishop Kukah is based on the reading that he is not just partisan on the Christian/Muslim divide but also on the party-political front. Some of the people I have discussed with point out that he was neither critical of the Obasanjo nor Jonathan Governments and that the virulence of his attacks on the Buhari Government is exceptionally high. For example, Bishop Kukah, speaking at a lecture organized by the members of the Pyrates Confraternity to mark the 80th Birthday anniversary of Nigeria’s Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka in 2014 complained that: “Nigerians love to criticize their country perhaps far more than any nation I know of in the world. Yes, we have all earned the right to be cynical and even contemptible about the way we have been governed, and about how the resources of our nation have been frittered away mindlessly.” He added that: “…The President and the security agencies have become the objects of attacks and vilification and yet, there is very little that is being done to point at the way forward. I know that as day follows night, we shall pull out of this tragedy that we face as a nation. But the least we can do is to stand in the comforts of highways and homes that someone else constructed and thrown stones at ourselves and our people simply because we are living off someone else’s sweat.” The reality is that this language of understanding he offered to the Jonathan Administration he does not offer to his successor Buhari. It is therefore legitimate to accuse him of political partisanship in this regard. My good friend the Bishop therefore needs to reflect on his own relationships with previous governments and assess the validity of the claims of partisanship.  

Much of the text of his Christmas message massage is a blunt attack about the nepotism of the Buhari Administration. The Bishop is right when he points out that increasingly, the people of Northern Nigeria, Muslim leaders inclusive, have been coming out to criticize the Government: “For a long time, beyond the pall of politics, very prominent northerners with a conscience have raised the red flag, pointing out the consequences of President Buhari’s nepotism on national cohesion and trust. With time, as hunger, poverty, insecurity engulfed the north, the President’s own supporters began to despair and lament about the state of their collective degradation. Was this not supposed to be their song? The north that the President sought to privilege has become a cauldron of pain and a valley of dry bones. Today, the north itself is crying the most and why not? No one has suffered as much as they have and continue to. The helplessness is palpable and the logic is incomprehensible.” This message was however lost because to many see the Lord Bishop as a partisan himself. The messages of hope interspersed in the speech were therefore largely lost except to his fan club.

Bishop Kukah is a very intelligent and sincere man and should spend time this Christmas season to reflect on how he could most effectively articulate his message so that less noise is created and more people are able to accept to actually read what he writes and engage with him in a manner that can promote greater understanding. 

 

 

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

[Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju]

you say only kukah's  fan club got his message.

really?

you are suggesting there is too much noise in his  message.

really?

''the Goodluck Jonathan Government was generally considered to have been as nepotistic''

really?

GEJ was a Nigerian President.

Buhari is a sectional leader who has enabled the nation become a haven for terrorisms largely from his natal base. 

all indices of development in buhari's time are many times lower than in GEJ's time.

brother, Kukah is in the North with you.

he is saying something you need to amplify, not dilute.

i add to that message-

when boko haram focused on bombing churches and fighting the gej govt, the northern muslim  intelligentsia - the group whose orientations you share, whether or not you are a muslim- were largely silent were . boko haram were even called freedom fighters by  a very high ranking member of this demographic in the gej govt.  

we know the eventual outcome.

when fulani herdsmen terrorists serially massacred people in the middle belt and occupied  their lands, even massacred in nimbo in Enugu state, killed and  raped, caused mayhem and made life very hard for people in the south, this demographic was  either silent or chose to speak euphemistically and largely non-truthfully of ''farmer-herdsmen clashes'' in the face of Fulani herdsmen militia terrorism,  chose to ignore the public self designation of itself as a terrorist mastermind by  miyetti allah led by the nations most elite fulani, such as the sultan of sokoto and the ex cbn governor, by justifying these massacres.

as it is, the chaos orchestrated overtly and covertly from that zone is now eating up the region.

wont it be more helpful to help your fellow northern largely muslim demographic to appreciate the gravity of this situation instead of helping them amplify their rather sectionalist perspective as you have done?

toyin

--

Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin

To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@googlegroups.com

Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAPWX8rUzXn49aWALSX%2Bpb%2BXxik04YmFuRDR3Ga064bQWU15DTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Toyin Falola]

Great Jibrin:

 

Questions and more questions for you:

 

1. The Bishop is not just critical of Islam, but he is also critical of Christianity. Many may not know this. If I were to write an essay on his views on Pentecostalism, Jesus-entrepreneurship, money-seeking prophets, etc., you would think that the Bishop is a Muslim! Are you aware of this? How, then, do you evaluate such a critic? He is critical of all politicians, all elite—this you see in his writings.
2. How do we protect a critic in a democracy? That I am critical of a government may mean that I love Nigeria far more than I love the politicians. Some people like politicians because they are always looking for resources—that is their problem. A critic may be a fierce nationalist. I cannot be in the same room and speak the way Femi Adeshina will express—his job is to present the government's achievements, and my job is to evaluate that achievement. When we blend both, we produce a better country. Adeshina can say that Nigeria did well in 2020, and I can say the government has not done well. Does it mean that Adeshina loves Nigeria more than I? No.
3. How do we evaluate a government? Is doing so via Kukah’s methodology not better than the youth's violent option on the streets? Is Kukah’s method not better than that of the Boko Haram? Is Kukah’s methodology not better than that of Kanu and Biafraism? Is Kukah’s strategy not better than that of the Yoruba secessionists and the Oduduwa Republic?
4. Who creates the conditions that the critic analyzes? Kukah did not create the poverty, the kidnapping, the insecurity, the violence, etc. He is commenting on them. He is not even the one to fix the problems.

Stay well, my brother.

TF

--

[Moses Ebe Ochonu]

'the Goodluck Jonathan Government was generally considered to have been as nepotistic''

Jibo lost me with the above statement. This is so far from the truth that one does not even know where to begin to refute it, or whether one even needs to dignify it with a refutation, given that the difference is so glaring that even Buhari's most committed supporters can no longer defend his nepotism and provincialism while some supporters with a conscience or shame have criticized their man for elevating nepotism and clannishness to the defining guidepost of statecraft. The statement is almost laughable in its mendacity. As they say, if the premise is wrong and false, the conclusion will also be flawed. Go figure.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/SN7PR06MB724708D5B0C698DAF4B7BE19F8D50%40SN7PR06MB7247.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Okey Iheduru]

Jibo Ibrahim suffers from what Frantz Fanon called "the psychosis of power". It's a situation where the colonial subject who experiences and learns serial abuse and brutalization from, and sometimes feels privileged to feed on the crumbs thrown at him by, the master. Upon attaining power, including social power, the now "privileged slave" becomes even more vicious in exercising and defending that colonial/postcolonial power structure that guarantees his privileged crumbs. 

Prof. Ibrahim knows who brews his brukutu; he must appease them -- and  has done so unashamedly in this forum and in his column pieces -- in order to protect his elite privileges while hiding behind the mask of a non-Muslim Northerner. This must be done, even if it means conveniently dredging up just ONE out of the hundreds of Bishop Kukah's equal opportunity social criticism write-ups and/or speeches over the past 40 years. Fortunately, His Lordship has no such burden and obviously doesn't carry colonial, let  alone internal colonialism's bucket of faeces.

Okey Iheduru 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CALUsqTQoNuhyGmZfEM%3D__YeV9OdVVAhAAu-pndHcg7Eg6euNtg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Toyin Falola]

Okey:

You crossed the line. You are not developing arguments but abusing Jibrin. We cannot start the year like this.

Make your points---abuse no one.

TF

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAGCbkjoJyQAnk%3DB3HZ%2BGRSj7Hjox%2BQe_Jbt8YwYoepJ5hxt5Sg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Okey Iheduru]

Oga TF:

I did develop my argument about Jibo's serial defense of the current regime's failures, but I accept your reprimand and I apologize. 

It's a New Year!

Okey Iheduru

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/SN7PR06MB7247D231AC8DE058D6A05569F8D50%40SN7PR06MB7247.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.

--

Okey C. Iheduru

e-mail: okeyi...@gmail.com

[Emmanuel Udogu]

Years ago, the Guyanese poet - Martin Carter - wrote:

men murder men

as men must murder men

to build their shining governments of the damned.

This poem was shared with me by my Guyanese brother and colleague. It seems apropos to the preceding discourses. In my opinion, we can do better--and must do better for the sake of a COUNTRY we all love.

HAPPY NEW YEAR Y'ALL!

BROTHER IKE UDOGU

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/SN7PR06MB7247D231AC8DE058D6A05569F8D50%40SN7PR06MB7247.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Farooq A. Kperogi]

Strangely, for the first time, I actually agree with most of what Professor Jibo wrote today. But, first, let's be clear that what Goodluck Jonathan was guilty of wasn't nepotism; he didn't appoint his family members into his government. That's the literal definition of nepotism, and it's Buhari's forte, which I have singlehandedly exposed on many columns.

But, like his predecessors, Jonathan was guilty of pampering the elites of the regions and religion where he enjoyed support. And that was the South-South, the Southeast, and Christianity. To deny this fact is to be mendacious at worst and escapist at best.

Jibo's argument that Bishop Kukah was benign to Jonathan perhaps because he benefited from his government in either symbolic or material terms, if true, has merit. 

The Bishop is also my friend, but I frankly don't recall him being as severely censorious of Jonathan as he has been of Buhari even though Jonathan was the absolute worst president we had had until Buhari came to beat his record.

So it's entirely legitimate to be suspicious of the intent of Bishop Kukah's very accurate and unassailable assessment of the Buhari regime. If he wasn't nearly as critical of Jonathan when he also supervised Nigeria's descent to anarchy and precarity, his motivation can't be attributed entirely to telling truth to power.

People like Professor Iheduru haven't hidden the fact that they're partisan hacks for Jonathan's incompetent regime. I for one don't take his judgement seriously. The knee-jerk, illogical, and overly vituperative rhetoric he deploys to defend Jonathan, for me, makes Professor Jibo's point: an emotionally invested partisan can't tell truth to power. 

Anyone who defended--or, worse, still defends--Jonathan has no moral right to criticize Buhari and expect not to invite ridicule or a questioning of their motives.

Farooq

Personal website: www.farooqkperogi.com
Twitter: @farooqkperogi
 

Sent from my phone. Please forgive typos and omissions.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/SN7PR06MB7247D231AC8DE058D6A05569F8D50%40SN7PR06MB7247.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Moses Ochonu]

Perhaps Jibo, if Farooq is correct, meant provincialism, not nepotism. Even on that score, Jibo’s statement would still be way off. 

To be sure, since 1999, all Nigerian presidents have favored certain constituencies over others. Jonathan did did as well, but even before Buhari, he was not the record holder. It was Yar’Adua who was.

 In fact I remember that the signature marker of that administration was it’s clannishness. It was during that administration that the word “clannishness” intruded forcefully into our political lexicon. It wasn’t just provincialism with him, political inclusion/exclusion was also clan-based, which led to the popular idiom of his administration not just being dominated by Northwestern Muslims but by Katsina people in particular. 

At the time, we were so scandalized that we never imagined that anyone would eclipse Yar’Adua or progress from provincialism into crude nepotism. But here we are. 

Jonathan’s provincial politics was the garden variety type of pandering to one’s electoral base. His cabinet indeed favored the Southeast and South-south, but compared to Buhari’s unabashedly Arewa Muslim administration and security formation, Jonathan comes across as a nationalist and statesman. 

In fact, then and now, some of the commentary on Jonathan was that he was too naive in aggressively but futilely courting the Muslim north, which would never vote for him over Buhari or any other Muslim northerner, when he could have focused on doing more for the Southwest and in particular patronizing Tinubu, the region’s political godfather/kingmaker.

The least provincial (ethnic, region, and religion) person in the post-1999 period was Obasanjo. He cultivated the PDP bloc of Southeast, South-south, and Middle Belt, but his cabinet and administration had a national outlook, especially in his second term when the PDP captured the southwest and Obasanjo, perhaps in response to criticism that he was empowering the wrong kind of northerners (Christian Middle Belters) brought more Northern Muslims into the administration. 

No previous administration in short comes even close to Buhari’s record of ethnic-religious and regional exclusion. Not even Yar’Adua. 

So Jibo’s statement that Janathan was “as” nepotistic as Buhari is completely false, whether we consider it semiotically narrowly in terms of nepotism or more broadly in terms of provincialism.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 1, 2021, at 12:35 PM, Farooq A. Kperogi <farooq...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAPq-FWsN56Nn4wezY_5Gu3hQ7sWzHLiC9QaM96tHLuROVtQuxw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Okey Iheduru]

"This is the nature of humans and humanities. You and I cannot do anything about it. We cannot see the same issue in the same way.

And it is foolish for anyone to assume that he/she is smart and wise. This is hubris, and that person is ridiculous."  TF, January 1, 2021.

This is also my answer to that hubris.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAPq-FWsN56Nn4wezY_5Gu3hQ7sWzHLiC9QaM96tHLuROVtQuxw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Farooq A. Kperogi]

Iheduru has also made it his life's calling in this forum to be an unthinking defender of Goodluck Jonathan's unrelieved failure. What gives him the moral right to take umbrage at Jibo's own defense of Buhari's failures? 

You, Iheduru, need basic lessons in critical self-reflexivity. The world doesn't revolve around your little world, and your fragile emotions are not the lifeblood of disputations. Develop the maturity to be self-aware that people have a right to be like you: defend the absurdities they benefit from.

Your evidence-free charges against Jibo must be classic projection. They reveal what motivates your instinctual defense of Goodluck Jonathan's incompetent regime.

Farooq

Personal website: www.farooqkperogi.com
Twitter: @farooqkperogi
 

Sent from my phone. Please forgive typos and omissions.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAGCbkjo_14%2BvTnttqJrUSasPsr_HuU%3DgX%3Dic22eter-1xVruWw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Farooq A. Kperogi]

Moses,

You're right about Yar'Adua's previously unexampled record of provincialism in governance. I think the word his clannishness introduced to or popularized in Nigeria's political vocabulary was "cabal." 

Yar'Adua had Nigeria's first overtly provincial cabal since 1999; it was, as you rightly said, an entirely Katsina cabal. 

Buhari's cabal is at least spread between Katsina and Borno, but this is perhaps because Buhari's mother is Kanuri, which makes him no different from Yar'Adua in the final analysis.

Buhari went beyond cabalism to outright nepotism since his family members are strategically ensconced in the inner recesses of the power structure he heads.

But Jonathan, being Ogbia, an ethnic group that numbers fewer than 300,000, couldn't possibly play the sort of narrow provincial politics that Yar'Adua played and that Buhari plays. 

So Jonathan's slightly broader Southeast/South-South cabal wasn't a consequence of his broadmindedness; it was more a deliberate calculation for survival. If he could also get away with an Ogbia cabal, he would have had one. 

Nothing in Jonathan's temperament and comportment suggests that he is different from Yar'Adua and Buhari. He only had to make different choices because of the quiddities of his identity and the nature of how he got into power. This, after all, was a man who defended MEND against a terrorist attack it carried out in Abuja that it owned up to and even forewarned--similar to Buhari's defense of Fulani murderers.

Only Obasanjo, as you pointed out, had a broad governing clique out of choice. So, for me, anyone who defended or defends Jonathan but criticizes Buhari deserves to have their motives questioned.

Farooq

Personal website: www.farooqkperogi.com
Twitter: @farooqkperogi
 

Sent from my phone. Please forgive typos and omissions.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/FD4CD9FA-4DE6-4D32-871F-97A7CEF33DF5%40gmail.com.

[Moses Ochonu]

Yes, Farooq, the word Yar’Adua made popular was indeed cabal. 

Beyond the cabal (inner power configuration), Yar’Adua’s cabinet and security structures were also a lot broader than Buhari’s. And of course Jonathan’s were slightly broader than Yar’Adua’s.

The depth and scope of Buhari’s provincialism are without precedence in Nigerian history. No previous president had an entire security apparatus of the state in the hands of one narrow ethno-religious constituency. 

You may be right that Jonathan’s broader, more diverse cabinet and security architecture (and other appointments) stemmed from his minority origin and the constraints that placed on him and not from a more nationalist temperament. I have no evidence one way or the other on this. However, I believe it is near impossible to find any national political actor in Nigeria who is as comfortable in his parochial cocoon and as impervious to cosmopolitan association as Buhari. 

Most members of the national political elite, wherever they come from and whatever their professional pedigree, usually cultivate, to various degrees and over time, some forms of national political association and participate self-consciously in national associational networks that mitigate and modulate their worst parochial instincts. Buhari seems to lack that. More precisely, he seemed to have resisted that all his adult life.

It seems that his provincialism and nepotism stem at least in part from this fundamental character flaw of his in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic country like Nigeria.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 1, 2021, at 2:52 PM, Farooq A. Kperogi <farooq...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAPq-FWs12L5BuOo2MT8jsv5vip3kEMN%3Dz3NLOoC1LToMB0PuuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Farooq A. Kperogi]

People who have no intelligent comeback to defend their bigotry, illogic, mercenary or primordial loyalties use--in this case misuse-- other people's careful thought as a convenient rhetorical crutch to evade reasoned discourse. That's called intellectual cowardice.

Farooq

Personal website: www.farooqkperogi.com
Twitter: @farooqkperogi
 

Sent from my phone. Please forgive typos and omissions.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAGCbkjqFhUTyidFu0L%2BKucYAhJ%3DjR2TqUh%2BibJ4miiSZkYFuyg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Farooq A. Kperogi]

Moses,

I don't think any rational person can contest the accuracy of your--and even Bishop Kukah's--observations about the extreme lopsidedness of Buhari's appointments. I have harped on that theme since the first month of Buhari's first term. I even invented the term "Arewacentricity" in 2015 to call attention to this, and it has been getting progressively worse since then.

But although Jibo has written interventions that cast him as a Buhari regime apologist, I think he is asking a legitimate question. Does anyone who either ignored or defended Jonathan's disaster of an administration, which has been made only more tolerable in hindsight when compared with Buhari's, deserve to be shielded from having their motive questioned when they criticize Buhari?

In other words, if Buhari's successor turns out to be even worse than he is (the one thing no one can say with certainty about Nigeria's leadership is that it won't get worse than it is now), should people who ignored or defended Buhari be allowed to criticize his successor without having their motives questioned? I don't think so.

 If Bishop Kukah actually said what Jibo quoted him as saying in his column, then he wasn't different from current Buhari apologists and shouldn't be allowed to get away with selective outrage.

Every previous administration often benefits from a cognitive bias psychologists call rosy retrospection, and even Buhari will benefit from it years after his tenure. Should people who defend or ignore him now be given a pass if they come down hard on his successor?

Those of us whose chronicling of missteps in governance isn't animated by partisan or primordial impulses know that Jonathan was a weak, bumbling, unfathomably clueless, provincial philistine who had no business being president. Yes, Buhari is worse than he is, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was also terrible president. No one who defended-- or defends-- him has moral superiority over current Buhari defenders.

Farooq

Personal website: www.farooqkperogi.com
Twitter: @farooqkperogi
 

Sent from my phone. Please forgive typos and omissions.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CC6D2D71-9380-47D4-B12B-6B0A7DD1C362%40gmail.com.

[Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju]

Exaggeration-

''Nothing in Jonathan's temperament and comportment suggests that he is different from Yar'Adua and Buhari. He only had to make different choices because of the quiddities of his identity and the nature of how he got into power. This, after all, was a man who defended MEND against a terrorist attack it carried out in Abuja that it owned up to and even forewarned--similar to Buhari's defense of Fulani murderers.''

Farooq

MEND does not come near Fulani herdsmen militia in scope of destruction represented by massacre after massacre across the nation, systematic land theft through discplemnt of entire populations and to the level of support the Fulani herdsmen militia have enjoyed from the Buhari govt, to the tune of an outright gift of billions of Nigeria's money to their organising group, MACBAN, nor did MEND have an equivalent of a Miyetti Allah and MACBAN civil society pressure groups promoting their cause even as the Presidency and security agencies give full support. 

This style of thinking looks odd to me- ''anyone who defended or defends Jonathan but criticizes Buhari deserves to have their motives questioned.''

You are conflating a flawed President - GEJ-with an openly terrorist President-Buhari.

They dont belong in identical interpretive universes. 

 toyin

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAPq-FWs12L5BuOo2MT8jsv5vip3kEMN%3Dz3NLOoC1LToMB0PuuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Moses Ochonu]

“If Bishop Kukah actually said what Jibo quoted him as saying in his column, then he wasn't different from current Buhari apologists and shouldn't be allowed to get away with selective outrage.“

Absolutely. Which is why my only serious objection to Jibo’s piece was/is his inaccurate statement that Jonathan’s administration was as nepotistic as Buhari’s, a patently false statement even if provincialism is actually what he meant.

I had not previously read the statement Jibo attributed to our friend, Kukah. It’s a verbatim quote and Jibo, whatever else you may say about him, is not known for flippancy, so I believe that the quote is real and creates a duplicity issue for the Bishop.

It doesn’t rob him of his right to criticize Buhari, especially when the critique expresses the same sentiments that are commonplace, but the willingness to give Jonathan the benefit of the doubt takes away from the purity of the critique and makes the question of his locus standi, as the lawyers would say, legitimate to raise.

Ironically, or maybe not, Jibo himself as you indicated is guilty of the same duplicity and double standards in regards to his commentaries on Buhari and Jonathan’s administrations.

Sent from my iPhone

[Moses Ochonu]

And by the way, Farooq, as you know, Facebook is the home base of the Jonathan administration revisionist history club. To this day, Facebook posts engage in amnesiac Jonathan rehabilitation propaganda, a job that has been made a lot easier by Buhari’s worsening disaster. In the first term of Buhari, you and I engaged them and tried to bring them to the points you’re making here. Personally, I have given up that fight. I have also noticed that you also no longer bother to correct and challenge that maneuver on Facebook.

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAPq-FWtCgpo7Jd9K2DyX9_F6Lq_v_uyi9KsDUFxGWMqEfUyz9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Farooq A. Kperogi]

Absolutely, Moses! They are a lost cause, and I think it's an absolute waste of time to engage the Jonathan romantic recollection brigade, so I just let them luxuriate in their self-created alternate reality.

 When even well-regarded political science scholars like Professor Iheduru wallow in such a wanton miasma of shamelessly revisionist deodorization of an abjectly inept regime, I feel unjustified to hold less intellectually endowed social media crowds to expectations of fact-based discursive rationality.

Farooq

Personal website: www.farooqkperogi.com
Twitter: @farooqkperogi
 

Sent from my phone. Please forgive typos and omissions.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/BEA5B03D-058C-4538-90E8-48734E2282A7%40gmail.com.

[Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju]

English!-

''... the Jonathan romantic recollection brigade...  luxuriate in their self-created alternate reality.

a wanton miasma of shamelessly revisionist deodorization of an abjectly inept regime... less intellectually endowed social media crowds to expectations of fact-based discursive rationality.''

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAPq-FWuKx4_ABt2x2VY-Lwb7h%3DdN5COycFaeOM1nqRqr10ds7A%40mail.gmail.com.