Truth Or Dare: The Bishops, The President And The Burden Of Truth

There is an old African saying that a king who surrounds himself only with praise singers soon mistakes applause for progress. Every leader, however powerful, needs people who are willing to speak uncomfortable truths not because they dislike him, but because they care about the nation he leads.

That is why the recent visit of the leadership of the Catholic Church to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was significant because it brought together one of Nigeria’s most influential religious bodies, which chose to use the opportunity to present an honest assessment of the country’s condition. The Bishops spoke about insecurity, economic hardship, rising poverty, unemployment and the growing frustration among ordinary Nigerians. They urged the government to respond more decisively to the challenges confronting citizens.

Their intervention was neither a political rally nor an opposition press conference. It was a candid conversation between moral leaders and the country’s elected President. They echoed concerns that millions of Nigerians express daily in markets, churches, mosques, offices and homes.

Yet what followed was sadly predictable. Instead of engaging the substance of their message, some of the President’s supporters turned on the messengers. His Eminence, John Cardinal Onaiyekan, one of Nigeria’s most respected clerics and public intellectuals, became a particular target. Social media was awash with accusations that he was partisan, anti-government or motivated by politics rather than patriotism.

That reaction says far more about the state of our political culture than it does about the Cardinal. It also raises a far more important question: in a democracy, who should tell the President the truth if respected religious leaders, elder statesmen and independent voices are discouraged from doing so?

The Patriotic Duty of Honest Counsel

A good number of Nigeria’s religious leaders have never existed merely to conduct worship services. Throughout our history, they have served as the nation’s moral conscience.

During military rule, many stood courageously against dictatorship, arbitrary detention, injustice and the abuse of power. They defended democratic freedoms when many others remained silent. Their interventions were not always welcomed by those in authority, but history has largely vindicated them. The same principle applies today.

When religious leaders speak about hunger, insecurity or the suffering of ordinary Nigerians, they are not contesting elections, lobbying for appointments or starting abstract policy debates. They are reflecting the lived experiences of millions of worshippers, stories of families unable to feed themselves, parents struggling to pay school fees, workers whose salaries have been overtaken by inflation, young graduates searching endlessly for jobs and communities living under the constant fear of kidnapping and violence.

The Catholic Church has long contributed to nation-building through its schools, hospitals, humanitarian work and advocacy for justice. Successive Catholic bishops have criticised military regimes and civilian administrations alike whenever they believed national values were being undermined. Cardinal Onaiyekan’s record reflects that same consistency. He has spoken against corruption, insecurity, electoral malpractice and poor governance under different governments and political parties.

One may disagree with his conclusions. That is legitimate. What is neither legitimate nor helpful is attempting to delegitimise him simply because his assessment is uncomfortable.

Constructive criticism should never be mistaken for hostility. Democracies thrive when religious institutions, civil society organisations, labour unions, professional associations, traditional rulers, academics and the media are free to speak honestly without being branded enemies of government.

Advertisement

Indeed, leaders often benefit more from sincere critics than enthusiastic supporters. Praise tells a leader what he wants to hear. Honest criticism tells him what he needs to know.

When Truth Becomes Treason

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the reaction to the bishops’ visit is not disagreement itself but the growing tendency to delegitimise anyone who expresses concern about the country’s direction.

Increasingly, public discourse appears divided into two camps: those who defend government unconditionally and those portrayed as enemies simply for asking difficult questions. That is neither healthy nor sustainable.

A democratically elected President governs both those who voted for him and those who did not. His supporters have every right to defend his policies. Equally, critics have the constitutional right to question those policies. Democracy requires both voices.

Unfortunately, our politics increasingly rewards loyalty over honesty. Public officials become reluctant to acknowledge policy shortcomings for fear of appearing disloyal, while political supporters sometimes interpret every criticism as a personal attack on the President rather than an invitation to improve governance. The result is an echo chamber where truth becomes politically inconvenient. Once leaders hear only applause, they gradually lose touch with the lived experiences of ordinary citizens.

The questions raised by the bishops therefore deserve thoughtful answers rather than personal attacks. Has insecurity ceased to threaten communities across Nigeria? Are food prices no longer crushing household budgets? Has youth unemployment suddenly disappeared? Can we honestly say that millions of Nigerians are not struggling under the weight of economic reforms?

If these concerns remain real and they clearly do, then those who raise them should not be dismissed simply because their message is uncomfortable.

Listening Is Leadership

One of the most underrated qualities of effective leadership is the willingness to listen. Listening is not weakness. It is confidence. A confident leader understands that criticism is not always opposition. Sometimes it is valuable feedback.

President Tinubu has demonstrated remarkable political resilience throughout his career. Those who have followed his journey know he has endured intense criticism and difficult political battles over several decades. That same resilience should encourage an openness to differing perspectives.

The Catholic Bishops did not organise a protest outside the Presidential Villa. They accepted an invitation, met respectfully with the President and conveyed their concerns directly. That is precisely how democratic engagement should work.

Whether one agrees with every point they raised is beside the point. The more important issue is preserving the civic space for respected national voices to speak honestly without attracting organised campaigns of vilification.

Advertisement

A Democracy Needs More Conversations, Not Fewer

Nigeria’s challenges are too complex for government alone to solve. Economic recovery, security, constitutional reform, youth employment and national cohesion all require the contributions of citizens and institutions beyond the corridors of power. Government should therefore welcome credible external feedback, not fear it.

Religious institutions, civil society organisations, academia, traditional institutions, the private sector and the media all possess valuable insights drawn from daily engagement with Nigerians. Their observations should be regarded as national assets rather than political irritants because democracies grow stronger when difficult conversations occur respectfully instead of being suppressed.

The measure of a mature democracy is not the absence of criticism. It is the ability to receive criticism without descending into hostility.

Ultimately, President Tinubu will not be judged by how vigorously his supporters defended him online or how effectively his critics challenged him. He will be judged by whether Nigerians became safer, more prosperous and more hopeful during his presidency. Those outcomes cannot be achieved by silencing independent voices. They require listening, reflection and the humility to acknowledge that no government has a monopoly of wisdom.

The Catholic bishops have discharged what they believe to be their moral responsibility. Government must continue to discharge its constitutional responsibility. And the rest of us must defend something even more important than any individual politician or cleric: the democratic space where citizens can still speak truth to power without being treated as enemies of the state.