By Temitope Ajayi
Cardinal John Onaiyekan's decision to grant a television interview explaining his interpretation of the private meeting between the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu raises an important question about the boundaries of privileged access and public commentary. In my view, it amounted to an inappropriate use of clerical privilege.
The bishops sought an audience with President Tinubu, and the President granted the request in a spirit of openness and respect. During the meeting, the bishops presented their concerns over Nigeria's economic hardship, insecurity, governance challenges, and democratic trajectory, while acknowledging only a few government initiatives, such as the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND), as positive developments. Their assessment reflected genuine concerns but was also notably critical of the administration's overall performance.
Ordinarily, such an exchange should have concluded within the confines of that engagement. The bishops were entitled to express their views, just as the President was equally entitled to respond. Their observations were not beyond debate, nor were they articles of faith. Like every public assessment, they remain subject to scrutiny, evidence, and counter-arguments.
President Tinubu reportedly addressed each issue raised during the meeting. On the longstanding demand for the return of mission schools to their original owners, he reportedly reminded the bishops that education falls primarily within the constitutional jurisdiction of state governments. He also pointed to his own record as Governor of Lagos State, where mission schools were returned to their owners, suggesting that the bishops should engage state governors directly on the matter.
The President also challenged what he viewed as an incomplete portrayal of Nigeria's present realities. While acknowledging that economic and security challenges remain significant, he argued that measurable progress has been recorded in key sectors and maintained that his administration has laid the foundation for long-term recovery. His position was not that Nigeria's problems had disappeared, but that the country had begun emerging from years of deep fiscal and structural difficulties.
This highlights a distinction that is often overlooked. Governing a nation of more than 200 million people is fundamentally different from leading a religious institution. In a constitutional democracy, faith-based organisations have every right to demand accountability and advocate for citizens. At the same time, the responsibility of government involves balancing competing interests, limited resources, constitutional constraints, and difficult policy choices that inevitably leave some constituencies dissatisfied.
It is relatively easy to compile a catalogue of Nigeria's many challenges. It is considerably more difficult to acknowledge crises that may have been prevented. Supporters of the administration argue that President Tinubu inherited severe fiscal pressures and implemented reforms aimed at restoring financial stability. Increased allocations to states following fiscal reforms have reportedly enabled many sub-national governments to improve salary and pension payments, easing difficulties that persisted for years in several states.
For many civil servants and pensioners who previously endured prolonged delays in receiving their entitlements, more regular payments represent tangible relief. While these improvements do not erase the hardship many Nigerians continue to experience, dismissing them entirely risks overlooking meaningful developments.
The same debate extends to security. The bishops described Nigeria as a nation under severe strain from insecurity, while the President reportedly argued that security agencies have recorded measurable gains in several theatres of operation. As Commander-in-Chief, President Tinubu receives classified operational briefings and intelligence assessments unavailable to the general public. Although this does not make his assessment beyond question, it does provide him with information that may not be reflected in daily media reports. Disagreement over the interpretation of available evidence should not automatically be mistaken for arrogance or indifference.
Cardinal Onaiyekan's subsequent interview also echoed a familiar assumption in public discourse—that only outspoken critics tell leaders uncomfortable truths, while those around them merely reinforce official narratives. That argument may be appealing, but governance is rarely so simplistic.
The President has access to multiple channels of information, including intelligence reports, economic briefings, security assessments, media coverage, and consultations with advisers and stakeholders across different sectors. He is exposed daily to competing viewpoints, criticism, and policy recommendations. The suggestion that only the Catholic Bishops can acquaint him with the realities facing Nigerians arguably overstates their unique role in national discourse.
Public criticism is not the only form of truth-telling in government. Every administration operates within a system of constant assessments, conflicting advice, and difficult decisions. The more important question is not whether leaders are aware of national challenges, but how effectively they respond to them.
The Catholic Bishops fulfilled what they regarded as their moral responsibility by presenting their concerns directly to the President. Likewise, President Tinubu demonstrated respect by granting the audience and responding to every issue raised. That exchange reflected the healthy engagement expected in a constitutional democracy.
However, reciprocity should also have required preserving the confidentiality and dignity of that private conversation. It was therefore inappropriate, in my view, for one participant to appear on national television almost immediately afterward to provide a personal account of what transpired behind closed doors.
Clerical office carries immense moral authority, but it also demands restraint. Among the qualities expected of bishops are wisdom, discretion, maturity, and self-control—virtues that become even more important when engaging matters of state. Public influence is often most effective when exercised with prudence rather than by transforming privileged access into a platform for post-meeting public commentary.
0 Comments