Since he has the right to his opinion and he retains the discretion on whether to speak on what is happening in the nation, he must, however, know that a man of his calibre is not just another Nigerian and cannot enjoy the luxury of silence now after benefiting from the fame of dissidence not so long ago. Whatever the case, history and posterity will judge him accordingly.
For many in Nigeria, the depth of their convictions and the strength of their creeds are often shaped and determined by the quality and disposition of the characters they choose to associate with. Professor Wole Soyinka is a figure close to the hearts of many Nigerians, widely respected and held in high esteem by the majority of the nation’s educated and literate population. At least, that was the case before his benefactor and close friend, Bola Tinubu, became the President of Nigeria.
Before that, his words are nuggets of wisdom, his admonitions carry the weight of consequences, his writings are profound and searing, and his public presence and remarks are compelling and riveting. However, these endearing qualities and attributes have been deeply eroded by his willingness to compromise on what many know him for as a man; the voice of reason that speaks truth to power and stands up for the oppressed.
Of course, not many are surprised by Soyinka’s invidious pivoting from his pro-people and populist beliefs, which saw him verbally bludgeon those he believed were impediments to the growth of the nation, as he railed against corrupt vested interests and the unscrupulous political class. He was a thorn in the flesh of military regimes and was a menace to civilian government. He played a key role in ousting the Jonathan government with his noticeable involvement in many anti-government protests, especially the fuel subsidy removal in 2012, where he joined and helped opposition figures to undermine the Jonathan government. His criticism of Jonathan’s government was unrelenting and ostensibly truculent, often bordering on name-calling, character assassination and borderline hatred for the then president. However, many did not see anything wrong in Soyinka’s castigation as they were inebriated by the Jonathan-must-go kool-aid and the vicious but admittedly potent propaganda of the then opposition, All Progressives Congress.
But something tripped off in our dear noble lauréate after the APC came to power in 2015. The once pugnacious dissident and highly revered government critic became measured and constructive in his criticism of the late President Muhammadu Buhari’s government. The antagonistic and virulent excoriation of Jonathan was quickly replaced by passive, casual and lame scoldings. He occasionally called out the Buhari government over what he felt was the troubling and precarious state of the nation but not with the nastiness, ferocity and venom with which he tore into Jonathan’s government. In any case, one could not help but notice the change in tone and language of Kongi when contributing to topical issues of national significance since the APC came to power in 2015.
Those who are not oblivious to the change in Soyinka’s style of addressing national issues during Buhari’s tenure tend to wave it aside as inconsequential because he was at least still critical of the late President’s government, even if it is not with the same fierceness as he did Jonathan’s and to them that must count for something. But the coming to power of Tinubu in 2023 opened their eyes to the harsh reality of what they had excused and explained away for almost a decade about changes in Soyinka’s disposition in relation to holding the government accountable and speaking the truth to power.
In late 2023, nearly six months after Tinubu was sworn in as president and as Nigerians were grappling with galloping inflation and an unprecedented cost-of-living crisis occasioned by the sudden removal of subsidy on petrol and the exchange rate, Soyinka was asked to assess and rate the performance of the Tinubu’s government in relation to the state of the nation since he is quite known to be a figure that does not shy from passing verdict on government of the day. His response was unconvincing, but many people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He had said he could not say anything about Tinubu’s government until after he spent a year in office. To many, that was a fair and reasonable response.
It is worth mentioning that by this time, due to the removal of subsidies on fuel and foreign exchange, which is somewhat the lifeline of the Nigerian economy, prices of basic goods and staple household commodities went up by more than 200% or even higher in some cases. Since the removal of the subsidy on petrol was done haphazardly and without prior arrangement and measures to mitigate its impact, Nigerians were left in a lurch to find a way to survive the harsh and precarious reality. The government claimed the removal of the two subsidies without any plan to cushion its debilitating effect on the people was a necessary evil and the people must endure the momentary suffering and hardship for future prosperity.
A year and some months after Tinubu assumed office, long after the time frame given by Soyinka to make his position known on the performance of the government had elapsed, the professor was asked at an event what his thoughts and views are about the current government to which he mumbled something about not being heckled into making comments about Tinubu’s government and that he would do that whenever he wanted to and that no amount of intimidation and hassling will make him change his mind. After that exchange with the newsmen, those who were in doubt as to where the professor stood on the subject of Tinubu’s government got a rude awakening as it became clear what the anti-government and pro-people posturing of yore, especially under Jonathan, were all a ruse. The hypocrisy is jarring. The double standard is unsettling.
Two years into the Tinubu administration, which by all accounts has been nothing but disastrous, Soyinka still cannot find a reason or need to comment on Tinubu’s government even as widespread corruption plagues the country, insecurity, violence and wanton killings ravage the nation and an economy that is in free fall. He has maintained a dishonest and undignified silence until last week, when he made a show of being dissatisfied with the huge number of security details attached to Seyi Tinubu, the president’s son. He jokingly said that Tinubu should have deployed Seyi’s security escorts to the Benin Republic instead of sending the Nigerian troops. Soyinka is not concerned about the many challenges plaguing the country and his friend’s obviously disturbing, corrupt, authoritarian and lacklustre government, but is worried about the security entourage of the president’s son.
Soyinka’s idea of weighing in for the first time on his associate and benefactor, Tinubu’s dreadful and calamitous presidency, after almost three years and after reneging on his own promise to do so after one year, is to casually and jokingly criticise Seyi Tinubu’s security convoy, not even that of Tinubu himself. When a man who acquired a reputation for brutal honesty in his assessment of government loses his voice when his friend becomes the president, he is not throwing his weight behind a long-time associate, he has simply lost his conscience. When a man who was once vociferous in calling out the government and railed against injustice becomes silent in the face of brazen desecration of the nation’s constitution and assault on democracy, it shows that his activism was never about the people and the country but a sinister agenda woven together by his comrades’ pursuit of power. Professor Wole Soyinka’s displeasure with Seyi is not an honest public sociopolitical criticism but a perfunctory attempt to save face. Since he has the right to his opinion and he retains the discretion on whether to speak on what is happening in the nation, he must, however, know that a man of his calibre is not just another Nigerian and cannot enjoy the luxury of silence now after benefiting from the fame of dissidence not so long ago. Whatever the case, history and posterity will judge him accordingly.
Discussion about this post