Poor Dr. Abati

Opinion editorials are never unbiased because they simply express opinions; in fact, it is the height of naiveté to think that anything you read in the papers is unbiased (even scientific/academic research can be manipulated to suit a desired outcome). In the light of this, I am not going to point out the obvious leanings of the authors of the editorials I refer to in this blog; after all, we all have friends and loved ones and it is only natural to want to showcase their best sides. It is a natural instinct to speak up for a friend. It shows loyalty and consistency when we stand by those we call friends in the face of adversity and for this reason I can sympathise with Dr. Reuben Abati’s friends in the media. I have read two articles in as many weeks in defence of the beleaguered erstwhile social critic and I’m beginning to wonder if there’s some sort of ‘Rehabilitate Abati’ movement unfolding.

Be that as it may, sometimes it is possible to expose more than was intended in defence of a friend. For instance, I never knew that the late Chairman of The Guardian Newspapers advised Abati against working for the Government but Mr. Sabella Abidde revealed this in his column in The Punch Newspaper 2 weeks ago. Now, that in itself is telling, coming from a man who knew firsthand what working for the Nigerian Government can entail for the well meaning citizen who longs to change the system from ‘within’; needless to say, Dr. Abati did not heed that particular piece of advice. 

Mr. Akinnaso, on the other hand, decided to resort to hair splitting to show the tenuous distinction between Dr. Abati’s and Dr. Doyin Okupe’s roles. He subtly implied that Dr. Abati’s role is nobler than Dr. Okupe’s because the former is about defending policy while the latter is about defending the person; he explicitly states that Dr. Okupe, and not Abati, is the attack dog. I find this argument rather facetious because policies are not spontaneous occurrences, devoid of human input. Every policy has a human being at its core, people conceive policies so it is unnecessary nitpicking to say someone is defending policy and the other one is defending the person behind the policy. Any honest person will admit that the policies of a political leader are the yardstick by which his/her character is judged, so if you defend dishonest, anti-people and retrogressive policies, it also means that you defend a dishonest, anti-people and retrogressive policy maker. I do not have the privilege of knowing how Mr. President treats his household pets (if he has any) or his next door neighbours, his policies (or lack of them) are the only insights I have into his character.

Back to the issue of unintentionally revealing too much in the heat of passionate defence, I never knew (i.e. before reading Mr. Akinnaso’s article) that Dr. Abati’s job description did not include defending the person but only the POLICY. Abati could have fooled me with all his utterances during the massive protests against the removal of fuel subsidy earlier this year. From the information generously provided by Mr. Akinnaso, it is safe to say that Dr. Abati went way beyond his remit on several occasions. During the uproar against the removal of fuel subsidy, Mr. Abati didn’t just defend the POLICY, he went further to criticize the people who dared to challenge the President. He expressed his disgust at people who did not ‘respect’ the person and office of the President. The ‘disrespect’ he referred to was the people’s anger against an unpopular policy (the last time I checked we were living in a democracy and not under an absolute monarch who must not be questioned)

My advice for Dr. Abati’s sympathisers: please sympathise a bit more discreetly in order to save the last shreds of your friend’s dignity; these articles do not help his cause. They only draw more attention to Dr. Abati’s waning popularity and get people wondering why such a ‘good’ man is suddenly in need of such strident defence.