The storm that has followed the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria’s visit to President Bola Tinubu would certainly not have occurred had the Archbishop Emeritus of Abuja, John Cardinal Onaiyekan, not taken to the airwaves in the form of a television interview he granted Arise News Prime Time anchor Charles Aniagolu to not only speak about but also give details of their discussion with the president during the visit. It was as if the Archbishop was not satisfied with the outcome of the visit and therefore sought an opportunity to stir the hornet’s nest by putting the details of the meeting out for Nigerians.

Except for that desire to sensationalise the subject of the meeting and probably get the kind of reaction it has now attracted, there was no pressing reason for that Cardinal Onaiyekan interview, speaking to the extent he ended up analysing the president’s body language and facial expression. That was talking too much. It’s like a man telling his acquaintances the type of meat he was served during dinner at his in-laws.

It was an unusual behaviour that goes against the grain of similar visits by other clerics, Muslim or Christian, in the past. But the good Cardinal was clear in saying that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria is different from other presidential visitors that he claims are used to retailing lies like the akara the First Lady, Oluremi Tinubu, has recommended to struggling Nigerians as a good way to get out of the economic stress of these times. For Onaiyekan, others have been telling the president what he wanted to hear rather than what he ought to be told. So, he and his group went to ‘speak truth to power,’ as those praising him have stated the matter. Which, I guess, implies that Cardinal Onaiyekan could in this instance also speak without restraint, as it has turned out. Otherwise, the interview was not particularly necessary and looked like a strategy to stir controversy by someone determined to do so about issues that have for long been in the public domain and could well have passed without anyone noticing.

Both the presidency and the Catholic Bishops had also released their versions of what transpired at the Aso Villa meeting. While the bishops gave their account through the printed speech of the President of the Conference, Archbishop Matthew Man-Oso Ndagoso, who is the Metropolitan Archbishop of Kaduna, the presidency released footage of the meeting. It didn’t look as if there was any attempt on the part of the presidency to downplay the position of each side at that meeting. Why then was it necessary for Cardinal Onaiyekan to do a television interview that has now spiraled into a controversy that has cast a shadow over the bishops’ visit and its purpose?

Can he say he has achieved the purpose of that meeting with so much noise over what could simply have passed as a confidential visit? If it was not meant to be confidential, then he or any of the bishops could have gone directly to the media as some of them have often done individually. But to be granted presidential access after months of waiting and then turn around to engage in clerical chest-thumping is an abuse of privilege. Details of what transpired at that meeting could have stayed there. That is how to be an effective communicator as opposed to a tale-bearer.

Clerical visits have been guided by circumspection and confidentiality in order to keep the line of communication open should the need arise in the future. Thus, given the manner Cardinal Onaiyekan has gone about this interview business, should it surprise anyone if he or the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria loses the privilege of such access in the near future? One is not asking that the bishops exchange their integrity for the privilege of a presidential visit. Far from it, but it would seem a sign of maturity, one that conduces with the respectable status of the bishops, that they, or at least Cardinal Onaiyekan, had shown restraint in discussing the details of their meeting with the president out of respect for the office of the president.

Cardinal Onaiyekan has rejected any suggestion of partisanship. Neither he nor the other bishops are spokespersons of any politician. But what he could not deny, or even had to admit, is that each of them had their views of politics and which of the presidential candidates their sympathies lie with. And many Nigerians would swear they know where Cardinal Onaiyekan’s heart lies. The 2023 presidential election campaigns made it clear he was a supporter of the Labour Party candidate in that election. He might still be his strong ally now the man has moved to another party but retained not just his Christian credentials but also his Catholic bonafides too. Let us remember that Cardinal Onaiyekan, alongside other Christian leaders, had rejected the same faith ticket that produced President Bola Tinubu, a Muslim, and his deputy, Kashim Shettima, another Muslim. They had vowed, cursed and sworn at pulpits and other worship venues that a joint Muslim ticket was a recipe for religious conquest and marginalisation.

Those who think like this without considering other variables are mere romantics who imagine that an election only carries symbolic values. But a serious politician gets into an election to win, not pander to populist sentiments that would cost them the election. While Cardinal Onaiyekan and others were eager to castigate him, Tinubu was both clear-eyed and hard-nosed enough to know that there was no way he could win, not to say carry out his programmes at all, if he went with a vice-presidential candidate from the Christian part of the north. He was concerned about winning. It was for this he incurred the wrath of many Christian leaders. It is why some of them are hard put to concede his administration has achieved anything good in three and a half years. But they cannot help seeking to use wrongly the same powers of the presidency they had called unaccountable in their desire to see schools returned to their private owners.

For John Cardinal Onaiyekan, President Bola Tinubu’s partiality is proven by the fact of the powers conferred on him, as on previous presidents, to appoint the INEC chair and its board. It is a contamination he cannot wash off. So confident or biased was the Cardinal that he actually said INEC is filled with members of the president’s party. How did he come by this information? There are many grounds to criticise President Tinubu and his administration, but a clerical group that wishes to be effective in its engagement of power should do better than vending what looks like any opposition leader’s talking points.