Wole Soyinka has spent decades occupying a unique place in Nigeria’s public life: playwright, intellectual, activist, political critic and one of the country’s most recognisable moral voices.
That position carries enormous authority.
But moral authority does not place anyone beyond scrutiny.
And when Professor Wole Soyinka writes about Nigeria’s political class, attacks what he calls a “Republic of Liars,” or presents himself as an independent voice confronting political deception, Nigerians are entitled to examine not only the claims he makes about others but also the record behind his own interventions.
This is not an argument that Soyinka should be silenced.
It is the opposite.
If public figures demand accountability from political leaders, they must also accept accountability when their own words, relationships and historical positions become subjects of public examination.
The question is therefore not whether Soyinka is allowed to criticise politicians.
He obviously is.
The question is whether the standards he applies to Nigeria's politicians should also apply to him.
Soyinka was not always this distant from Tinubu
One of the easiest ways to misunderstand the current debate is to examine Soyinka only through his recent criticism of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Soyinka's political history predates Tinubu's presidency by decades.
He has been an activist, critic and participant in Nigeria's political struggles since the military era.
His willingness to confront governments is well documented.
But that history makes his relationship with Tinubu even more important to examine.
Soyinka was not simply an ordinary observer who suddenly discovered Tinubu when he entered Aso Rock.
There has been a political and intellectual relationship between the two men stretching back years.
That matters because political relationships inevitably influence how public figures interpret political events.
It does not automatically prove bias.
It does not prove corruption.
It does not prove dishonesty.
But it does mean that Nigerians are entitled to ask difficult questions about consistency.
If Soyinka can examine politicians' relationships, motives and historical conduct, why should his own relationships be exempt from examination?
The Tinubu question cannot be separated from history
The argument surrounding Soyinka and Tinubu became particularly complicated because Soyinka himself acknowledged that he had not yet reached a final judgment on Tinubu's presidency.
That position is perfectly legitimate.
A public intellectual does not have to issue an immediate verdict on every administration.
But there is a difference between saying:
“I am still assessing the administration”
and later presenting oneself as though one's position has always been obvious.
Political commentary should be judged against the historical record.
What did someone say before an election?
What did they say immediately afterwards?
What changed?
What evidence caused the change?
Those questions are not attacks.
They are the basic tools of democratic accountability.
Then there is the heroin case
Perhaps the most uncomfortable issue surrounding Tinubu's public history is the long-running controversy surrounding the United States forfeiture case involving approximately $460,000 connected to an account in Tinubu's name.
This issue has been discussed repeatedly in Nigerian political discourse.
But it is important to be precise.
The United States government pursued a civil forfeiture action involving funds held in American bank accounts associated with Tinubu.
The matter was resolved through forfeiture.
That is not the same thing as a criminal conviction for drug trafficking.
This distinction matters.
A serious journalist or commentator should never turn a civil forfeiture proceeding into proof of a criminal conviction that did not occur.
But the opposite mistake is equally problematic.
The fact that there was no criminal conviction does not mean the underlying episode should simply disappear from public discussion.
The American court proceedings and the forfeiture remain part of Tinubu's public record.
Therefore, Nigerians are entitled to ask how and when public commentators chose to discuss it.
And they are entitled to ask whether the standards applied to other politicians were applied consistently.
The problem with moral authority without reciprocal scrutiny
Soyinka's extraordinary reputation sometimes creates an unusual problem in Nigerian public debate.
People begin treating criticism of Soyinka as an attack on democracy itself.
It is not.
Soyinka is not Nigeria.
His Nobel Prize is not Nigeria.
His literary achievements are not Nigeria.
His history of activism is not Nigeria.
And none of those accomplishments makes him immune from criticism.
In fact, his accomplishments create a stronger reason to demand precision from him.
When an ordinary politician makes a questionable statement, it may disappear within 24 hours.
When Soyinka speaks, newspapers publish it.
Television stations discuss it.
Social media amplifies it.
International audiences listen.
His words therefore have consequences.
That is precisely why his own claims should be tested as rigorously as the claims of the politicians he criticises.
“Republic of Liars”
Soyinka's use of language is often powerful.
But powerful language can also obscure complicated realities.
Calling Nigeria a “Republic of Liars” creates a dramatic moral framework: there are liars, there are truth-tellers, and there are those who expose the liars.
But Nigerian politics is rarely that simple.
Political actors lie.
Opposition politicians lie.
Government officials lie.
Activists can exaggerate.
Journalists can get things wrong.
Intellectuals can make mistakes.
And citizens themselves can repeat claims that fit their preferred political narrative without checking whether they are true.
Nigeria's problem is therefore bigger than individual liars.
It is an institutional problem involving weak accountability, political patronage, poor information systems, selective outrage and a public culture in which political allegiance can determine whether identical conduct is condemned or defended.
The uncomfortable question for everyone — including Soyinka — is whether they apply the same standard when the facts inconvenience their preferred political narrative.
Activism is not a permanent certificate of correctness
Soyinka's history as an activist deserves respect.
But activism is not a permanent certificate of correctness.
A person can fight authoritarianism and later get something wrong.
A person can oppose military dictatorship and still misjudge a civilian government.
A person can defend democratic principles while having political relationships that deserve scrutiny.
A person's historical contribution and their present-day arguments are separate questions.
Nigeria needs to learn this distinction.
We should be capable of saying:
“Yes, Soyinka played an important role in Nigeria's democratic history.”
And at the same time:
“Yes, his contemporary political claims should be examined critically.”
Those statements do not contradict each other.
The real test is consistency
The strongest criticism of any public intellectual is not:
“You once supported somebody I dislike.”
That is too shallow.
The stronger question is:
Would you apply the same standard if the political identities were reversed?
If an APC politician were involved in a controversy, would the same evidentiary threshold apply to a PDP politician?
If Tinubu were accused of something, would the standard of proof be the same if the allegation concerned Peter Obi?
If Soyinka criticised one politician's relationship with wealthy individuals, would he apply the same scrutiny to relationships involving politicians he previously respected?
That is where public accountability becomes meaningful.
Consistency is the real test.
Soyinka is entitled to change his mind
There is nothing wrong with changing one's political position.
In fact, changing one's mind after receiving new evidence is a sign of intellectual honesty.
But intellectual honesty requires explaining the change.
What did you previously believe?
What evidence changed your mind?
When did the change occur?
Why?
Those questions should not be interpreted as insults.
They are exactly the questions intellectuals ask of politicians.
The same standard should operate in reverse.
Nigeria does not need untouchable voices
Nigeria has suffered for decades from political personalities becoming larger than institutions.
Presidents become untouchable.
Governors become untouchable.
Party leaders become untouchable.
Religious leaders become untouchable.
Businessmen become untouchable.
Even intellectuals can become untouchable.
That is dangerous.
A democracy cannot depend on sacred personalities.
It needs institutions and citizens capable of interrogating everybody.
Tinubu should be questioned.
Peter Obi should be questioned.
Atiku Abubakar should be questioned.
Wole Soyinka should be questioned.
So should every other influential Nigerian who attempts to shape public opinion.
The question should always be:
What does the evidence establish?
Not:
Who said it?
The uncomfortable conclusion
Soyinka has earned his place in Nigerian history.
His literary achievements are undeniable.
His history of political activism is substantial.
His opposition to military authoritarianism is part of Nigeria's democratic story.
But none of that means Nigerians must accept every contemporary argument he makes without examination.
If Soyinka wants Nigerians to reject political lies, then Nigerians should also reject the idea that any public figure is too important to question.
The same principle applies to everyone.
Political accountability cannot be selective.
Truth cannot belong to one political camp.
And moral authority cannot be inherited from history and then treated as immunity from scrutiny.
Soyinka can question Tinubu.
Nigerians can question Soyinka.
Both things can be true.
That is not an attack on Soyinka.
It is democracy working as it should.
Comments
Post a Comment