Nobel Prize winner, Professor Wole Soyinka has challenged the vice-presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Yusuf Datti Baba-Ahmed, to a one-on-one interview regarding the nation’s democracy at this time in its history.
Speaking on Wednesday, March 22nd, Datti Baba-Ahmed, called on President Muhammadu Buhari and the Chief Justice of Nigeria not to swear in Bola Tinubu, whom INEC declared as the president-elect, insisting that declaring Tinubu a winner and issuing him a certificate of return was against the constitution.
Baba-Ahmed who was a guest on Channels TV’s Politics Today, went on to stress that “whoever swears in Mr Tinubu” has “ended Democracy” in Nigeria, a position that did not sit well with Professor Soyinka.
Reacting to the interview that elicited great criticism from political stakeholders as well as a N5 million fine for the TV station, the Nobel
Laureate described the remarks as a “kind of do-or-die attitude and provocation” that goes contrary to democratic disposition.
Soyinka said the LP vice-presidential candidate tried to “dictate to the supreme arbiter of the nation”, adding that it was unacceptable.
“I have never heard anyone threaten the judiciary on television the way Datti did. I heard the kind of menacing, blackmailing language as that to which we were treated by Datti. That kind of do-or-die attitude and provocation is not what I think we have all been struggling for,” Soyinka said.
“Nearly the totality of Datti’s comment in the interview was unbecoming. It was like trying to dictate to the supreme arbiter of the nation, and whatever you think of the supreme court, it is an institution we all refer to sooner or later.
“But Datti kept saying, in his wisdom, that the supreme court must agree with me. That is what is known as fascistic language and it is not acceptable.”
The revered poet’s position on Datti’s utterances, however, did not go down well with many supports of the LP’s presidential candidate and his vice, even as they dragged Soyinka on social media.
Giving a reply to these criticisms and the conduct of Datti Baba-Ahmed, Soyinka in a statement titled “Fascism on Course”, noted that Nigerian Democracy 2023 has witnessed innovations largely in the retrogressive vein, as violence, ethnic profiling and intimidation continue to be easily overlooked even as they are directed against dissenting voices.
Soyinka condemned the sanction against Channels TV and praise the professionalism of the anchor who he stressed made several attempts to keep Baba-Ahmed in check while on air.
He went on to challenge the LP’s vice presidential candidate to a debate as regards his claims of Nigeria’s democracy ending if Tinubu is sworn in come May 29th
“May I cease this opportunity, by the way, to condemn the sanctions imposed on CHANNELS Television which anchored the performance of the LP candidate. As stated, I watched the programme keenly – saw the valiant efforts of the interviewer to ensure fair hearing.
“I fail to understand just where the station could be faulted, except from a disposition for injustice. To sustain that penalty is to give joy to others who turn Internet into a soakaway for their rancid emissions, yet feel that others should be silenced.
“If CHANNELS feels up to it, I offer myself willing to engage Mr. Datti – or any nominee of his – on its platform on this very bone of contention – one-on-one – without the malodorous intervention of media trolls, and with the same interviewer as mediator.
“That should be taken as a serious offer,” the Nobel Laureate stressed.
Below is the full statement as sent out by Prof Wole Soyinka.
FASCISM ON COURSE
It would appear that a record discharge of toxic sludge from our notorious smut factory is currently clogging the streets and sewers of the Republic of Liars. It goes to prove the point that provoked the avalanche EXACTLY! The seeds of incipient fascism in the political arena have evidently matured.
A climate of fear Is being generated. The refusal to entertain corrective criticism, even differing perspectives of the same position has become a badge of honour and certificate of commitment.
What is at stake, ultimately is – Truth, and at a most elementary level of social regulation: when you are party to a conflict, you do not attempt to intimidate the arbiter, attempt to dictate the outcome, or impugn, without credible cause, his or her neutrality even before hearing has commenced. That is a ground rule of just proceeding. Short of this, Truth remains permanently elusive.
The ensuing cacophony has been truly bewildering. It strikes me as a possible ploy to smother recent provocations by other, far more trenchant issues, such as revelations of declarations of a religious war. If so, let it be known that I have long declared war against religious fundamentalism, the nature of which justifies the butchery, kidnapping and enslavement of students in the name of religion.
That aspirant’s alleged gaffe cuts no ice with me.
Far more alarming was the grotesque fantasy of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court disguised as a wheelchair, zooming off in space to a secret meeting with other parties of the conflict. On its own, that is sufficiently scary. Swiftly followed thereafter by a television tirade of intimidation, it strikes one as more than the mere antics by the mentally deranged. The tactics are familiar: ridicule, incriminate, then intimidate. Objective: undermine the structure of justice .Just as a reminder: this writer was not being rhetorical when he declared, on exiting prison detention: Justice is the first condition of humanity.
The Instigating contest – Nigerian Democracy 2023 – has witnessed much that is innovative – largely in the retrogressive vein. Violence and ethnic profiling. “Spiritual” warfare in the shape of sacrificial rams to keep “disloyal” communities under restraint – in short, intimidation yet again!
Easily overlooked however are those missives of violence directed against dissenting voices, real or suspect. Such, for instance, were the virulent attacks and threats to the musician Seun Kuti, his family and iconic music Shrine. His crime consisted of nothing more than declaring the name “Obidient” derogatory to his sense of civic dignity and activist history. Such beginnings – and instances are numerous – have culminated in the open intimidation of the Court of Last Resort, even before proceedings have begun. By the way, I do agree with Seun Kuti; ‘Obidients’ is one of the most repulsive, off-putting concoctions I ever encountered in any political arena. Some love it however, and this is what freedom is about. Choice. Taste. Free emotions. By contrast, I have no quarrel with “Yes Daddy”. Roman Catholics are used to saying “Yes, Father”. Secularists say “Enh, Baba”.
The context and content are what matters, and lies – where established – raise bothersome issues such as Integrity Deficiency.
Let us remind ourselves of the following: in any adjudication, society finds it unacceptable that a party to the dispute resort to influencing tactics by extra-judicial means – such as bribery. Intimidation and threats are merely the obverse complements of material inducement. Those who fail to appreciate this are entirely free to their existence in an illusory world.
nearest available symbol. When a symbol does emerge however, we are still obliged to examine every aspect of what is fortuitously on offer, and continue to guard our freedoms every inch of the way.
Before I take myself off for – well, next port of call – the final word goes to a favourite maverick, propagated even as he matched his words by action. I suspect that in this instance we find ourselves on opposite sides of the strategic fence – that is democracy. This now coopted watchword of his formulation remains apt, applicable to all who strive for authentic social transformation: Your mumu don do!
Ramadan Kareem. Happy Easter!
Wole SOYINKA
Credit: Channels TV Report.
