Misfortune of denying the obvious

Self-incriminating words do not dignify silence; they defile it. The logic of this common sense is embedded in the Miranda warning to any suspect who has been arrested: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court.” But in today’s world of social media, sedatephobia (the fear of silence) seems to have become endemic, and people are hardly able to remain silent, even when saying nothing appears to be noble and more helpful.
The recent Christmas message of the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto diocese, Most Revd Matthew Hassan Kukah, presented Nigerians with a golden moment for silent reflection. But sedatephobia disorder ignited a chain of reactions; and while some of the reactions usefully attempted to help us further understand the magnitude of the already-known painful reality captured by the Bishop, others decided to embrace the self-incriminating defilement of the golden moment for silence. Surprisingly, the response tweet by a certain aide to the president on social media, registered itself as an example of such violation of silence from a highly recognized podium.
Understandably, she was being active in her line of duty as an aide to the President on Social Media. Unfortunately, she seemed to have been caught off guard by the naked reality of government ineptitude captured in Bishop Kukah’s message. Or, perhaps, instead of responding with the same quality of substance that formed the Bishop’s message, she chose to represent her official responsibility as a national joke. In her “wailing” tweet, in response to Bishop Kukah’s message, she wrote: “They’ve met more than once. So, what is the problem? Baba no dey drop! He is rebuilding a nation battered by greed, political and religious favors. Buying the support of traditional/religious/political leaders is no longer on the table. Rebuilding our nation is the main focus.”
Many have interpreted the tweet as an insinuation that Bishop Kukah’s criticism of President Buhari’s administration was an outburst of personal disappointment due to the fact that the Bishop could not lure the President into giving him pocket money or material favors. Probably, that was the point she was also trying to make. And such insinuation may convince some people, but I had difficulty relating her logic to the context and content of the Bishop’s message because of some critical questions. Is there a way to make people with political offices in Nigeria to embrace the wise counsel of the former US First Lady, Michelle Obama, who said: “when they go low, we go high”? Every time a serious issue is raised about governance in Nigeria, government officials begin to go low with ridiculous defense mechanisms. But sometimes the humility to accept defeat is superior to an attempt to stage a porous defense. Former President Goodluck Jonathan was on the political procession to be baptized as one of the worst Nigerian presidents in history. But when he graciously conceded losing election to President Buhari in 2015, many Nigerians changed their perspective about him. Is it impossible to accept failure now?
If, as she indicated, Bishop Kukah and President Buhari have “met more than once,” in what capacity was the Bishop received by the President? Was he received as a regular citizen or as Bishop? What had been the agenda of their meetings? Or should we take it from her that pocket money request has been the main agenda of those meetings? In that case, if exposing corruption has been a key agenda of the Buhari administration, why has the Bishop not been exposed since after several meetings of “loose change” request? Or was there some difficulty in establishing any corruption charges against the Bishop for a report to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission? Are a…