Governor Sullivan Chime, Pope Benedict XVI, and the Matter of Privacy
– By Ambrose Agu

247UREPORTS
20th February, 2013
http://247ureports.com/governor-sullivan-chime-pope-benedict-xvi-and-the-matter-\
of-privacy-by-ambrose-agu/


The Vatican has recently disclosed that Pope Benedict XVI has needed and used a
pacemaker for at least 10 years, and that the Pope underwent a secret heart
surgery about three months ago. As reported, the Pope, in an operation that had
remained a secret until last Tuesday, had a pacemaker fitted less than three
months before the announcement of his resignation. Father Federico Lombardi ,the
Vatican's chief spokesman confirmed the report, saying: "It is correct that (the
pace-maker) was substituted …" The pacemaker was a re-placement for one which
had been fitted about 10 years ago, before Pope Benedict XVI was elected to
succeed Pope John Paul II. The fitting of the new pace-maker was carried out by
heart surgeons at the Pius XI medical clinic in Rome. The operation went well
and the Pope recovered speedily. He did not even miss his weekly Angelus
address, which is held every Sunday. Subsequently Pope Benedict commissioned
three of his most loyal cardinals to write a report into the affair. The Pope
reportedly shelved the report immediately. Notably that announcement by the
Vatican last Tuesday was the first time that Pope Benedict's need for, and use
of the pacemaker had been disclosed to the public by the Vatican (albeit that
the pacemaker had been fitted about ten years ago). See "Vatican admits Pope
Benedict had secret heart surgery", February 16, 2013, by Sam Eyoboka & Olayinka
Latona with Agency Reports, Vanguard Newspaper.
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2013/02/vatican-admits-pope-benedict-had-secret-heart\
-surgery/ .

By this disclosure, therefore, the matter is invariably underscored for us all,
of the importance of privacy, and the importance of the need for privacy, and
the importance of the right to privacy to the very essence of human nature
itself. Clearly privacy and the need for privacy are primal and integral to
human nature. This is why almost all modern Constitutions recognize this need
for privacy and codify it as a legal right for all persons. In my thinking it is
this primal and natural need for privacy that rightly explains why even the Holy
Father, the Pope rightly withheld from the public the recently-disclosed
information regarding his medical condition and the heart surgery that he
underwent about three months ago.

Before I proceed any further, however, I want to implore the reader to, please,
not misconstrue my intentions in my mentions of the Pope, as indeed, I make
these mentions with the utmost trepidation and as these mentions are not and
will never be a criticism of the Holy Father! Quite to the contrary, as I write
this piece, I remain in awe and adulation, and adoration of Pope Benedict XVI,
as I revere him, and I, actually and honestly, believe that even Pope Benedict
XVI and all Popes have certain natural inalienable needs and rights (including
the natural need for privacy, and the moral right to privacy), thus that the
Holy Father was well within this inalienable need and right to withhold his
medical condition information for the ten or so years that he apparently did; or
to withhold his medical procedure (heart surgery) information for the three
months or so that he reportedly did; or even to withhold such information
forever if he so wished. Again I honestly believe that even Popes have an
inalienable primal need for privacy (in many cases), and a moral right to such
privacy that ought to be recognized and respected by all. So in short, I have no
problem with this recent announcement by the Vatican.

My only concern, however, is about Governor Sullivan Chime. Why not Governor
Chime? How come Governor Chime cannot assert his own need for privacy and
exercise his own right to privacy regarding his own medical condition and/or
medical procedure? Does Governor Chime not have the same primal need for privacy
and the same moral right to privacy as well as other public figures and leaders,
as well as the Holy Father? What about the fact that in addition to this primal
need for privacy, and moral right to privacy, Governor Chime additionally has a
legal right to privacy that is protected by the Nigerian Constitution? Is it not
unfair, therefore, to summarily strip Governor Chime of his need for privacy and
his moral and legal right to privacy?

If Gov Sullivan Chime were the Pope instead of the Governor of Enugu State would
you still hold the opinion that he has committed the gravest of crimes just
because he chose to exercise his right to privacy and withhold information
concerning his medical condition and/or medical procedure for approximately
three or four months ? Just as the Vatican withheld information about the Pope's
heart surgery for approximately three months, was it not also within Gov Chime's
inalienable right to privacy to withhold information about his cancer treatment
for the three or four months that he did, or even forever if he so wishes? Or is
there a different standard for political leaders as opposed to religious
leaders? Or is it because it is Gov Sullivan Iheanacho Chime?

As we may recall Governor Chime left Enugu State on or about 19th September,
2013 for his accumulated annual leave. His absence was explainable and publicly
explained because prior to proceeding on vacation, he transmitted a letter to
the Speaker of Enugu State House of Assembly (ENSHA) informing him that he was
proceeding on vacation, and Enugu government officials subsequently and
repeatedly explained to the people of Enugu State that Governor Chime had left
Enugu State on account of his accumulated leave. So the people of Enugu State
knew that Governor Chime was away from the state on accumulated leave.

And Governor Chime's whereabouts was also public knowledge. It was a well-known
fact that Governor Chime was spending his accumulated leave in London. Governors
Amaechi, Akpabio, and Suswam paid Governor Chime a visit in London and actually
took a group photograph with him in London. Also, Deputy Senate President Ike
Ekweremadu travelled to London to visit Governor Chime. Also Governor Peter Obi
visited Governor Chime in London. Besides, Gov Chime himself had also reported
that he was vacationing in London and that it was while undergoing a medical
checkup in London that certain medical issues were discovered that required
medical follow-up. The Guardian Newspaper also reported that they saw Governor
Chime in London. So this to say that the fact that Governor Chime was in London
during his accumulated leave was not in dispute. That information was well known
to the public. The people of Enugu State knew this, and at a point even the
whole world knew it also.

And that Gov Chime fully complied with the law prior to proceeding on his
accumulated leave is also not in dispute. Gov Chime (as a matter of fact)
properly transmitted the letter required under Section 190 of the Nigerian
Constitution, to the Speaker of the Enugu State House of Assembly thereby
transferring full powers of the office of the Governor to the Deputy Governor,
as Acting Governor. The Speaker of the Enugu State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon.
Eugene Odo, and the former Acting Governor of Enugu State, His Excellency Sunday
Onyebuchi, and Governor Sullivan Chime, himself have all confirmed this, and
also confirmed that Governor Chime even urged the lawmakers to give the Acting
Governor the needed support and cooperation in the period that he (Governor
Chime) would be away.

To be noted also is the fact that Gov Chime's absence while on his accumulated
leave never caused any governance problems in Enugu State. Prior to proceeding
on leave, Governor Chime left Enugu State with an alternate head of government
in the person of the former Acting Governor Sunday Onyebuchi on whom he had
transferred the full powers of the office of the Governor via his (Gov Chime's)
Section 190(1) letter to the Speaker of the Enugu State House of Assembly. So
Enugu State had a competent and effective head of government in the person of
the former Acting Governor, His Excellency Sunday Onyebuchi. And Enugu State
also had an Executive Council (EXCO) that continued to meet to consider matters
of State administration.

It is important to acknowledge that the former Acting Governor (who was the
chairman of the Enugu State Executive Council) had himself confirmed that Enugu
State (in Governor Chime's absence) had no problem with governance at all. He
confirmed that all that needed to be done was being properly attended to. Work
was going on. Workers and contractors were being paid. Despite Governor Chime's
absence, governance powered on and numerous developmental projects worth
billions of naira in the area of roads, water supply, electricity, education,
health, and housing among others were all in progress, all over Enugu state. In
fact the Enugu State Executive Council under the chairmanship of the former
Acting Governor Onyebuchi had awarded several contracts running into billions of
naira during that period and such projects were and are still ongoing.
Government services were being delivered promptly and efficiently in Enugu
State, despite Governor Chime's absence.

Many had wondered how it was possible that governance ran so smoothly in Enugu
State in the period of Governor Chime's absence. It is an important observation
and the reason needs to be noted. The reason is that what Governor Sullivan
Chime has done in Enugu State is that he has built up, and shored up systems,
processes, and institutions of governance along with their requisite checks and
balances such that effective and efficient governance would and could still
operate flawlessly, regardless of the absence of particular persons. It is a
triumph of the system over the individual and not vice versa. So the period of
Governor Chime's absence was actually an opportunity to test and evaluate this
arrangement. It was set into motion and tested, and it was very successful as
governance indeed lost no step in Governor Chime's absence, proving that
Governor Chime has successfully recast governance once more as a collective and
a collaborative assignment, not a personal fiefdom. This is the reason why there
was never any problem with governance in Enugu State during Gov Chime's absence.

So in light of all the above what was the justification for the hullabaloo that
followed Governor Chime's decision to withhold his medical condition/ procedure
information for the three to four months that he did before he finally disclosed
that information to the public on 11thFebruary, 2013? Was the contrived and
engineered uproar justified? Was the public not repeatedly told that Governor
Chime was on accumulated leave, and was he, in fact not, on accumulated leave?
Was the public not repeatedly told that Gov Chime was in London as, in fact, he
was in London? Did Governor Chime then have any legal obligation to immediately
publicly disclose that he was undergoing cancer treatment on out-patient basis
while on his accumulated leave in London? Did the public have a legal "right to
know" this information as some have claimed?

The truth and stark reality of the matter is that Governor Chime was legally and
properly away on accumulated leave and whatever he may have legally done during
his accumulated leave (including attending to any medical issues) was entirely
his affair. There was no LEGAL obligation mandating Gov Chime to tell anyone
what he was doing during his vacation to the extent that such activity was
legal. Quite to the contrary, Gov Chime's LEGAL right to privacy as enshrined in
the Nigerian Constitution empowers him to keep this information to himself (if
he chooses). So it was entirely up to him to keep the information to himself or
to disclose it to the public if he so chooses, and in the event that he wished
to disclose the information to the public, that he had the right to do so at a
time and place that was entirely up to him. Suffice it to mention at this
juncture that Governor Chime has eventually disclosed the information to the
public on 11th February, 2013, in Enugu, Nigeria.

In other words the much trumpeted "public right to know", in this instance, is
nonexistent in Nigerian law. Where does it say in any Nigerian law or in the
Nigerian Constitution that the public has a right to know what a Governor is
doing (that is otherwise legal) during his vacation; or even where the Governor
is spending that vacation for that matter? Where does any Nigerian law or the
Nigerian Constitution say that a Governor on vacation must inform the public if
he decides to use that vacation period to attend to medical issues? The stark
reality is that this "public right to know" (in these circumstances) is
misplaced and mistaken. In fact in these circumstances, it is not a cognizable
legal right at all! If anything it is actually and more aptly a "demand to know"
(and the emphasis is on `demand'); an insistent inquisitiveness that information
to which one has no legal right whatsoever be disclosed to one, in brazen
disregard of the countervailing rights of the owner and possessor of that
information. The other inner truth is that for the most part this unfounded
"demand to know" in this case was clearly politically motivated and propelled by
an anti-Chime opposition that saw political capital in the situation. But
regardless of how insistent and strident this "demand to know" had been, it was
ultimately null and void because it has no foundation in law.

It is also noted that upon recognizing the lack of legal foundation for this
"demand to know", the anti-Chime opposition re-dress their unfounded "demand to
know" as a moral argument so it could be minimally tenable. That is to say that
they began to argue that Governor Chime has a moral obligation (as opposed to a
legal obligation) to disclose the information. But even this arguable moral
obligation to disclose Is not wholly persuasive or dispositive of the issue
because in considering it, it must be juxtaposed to, and considered along with
Governor Chime's own moral right to privacy (same as was exercised by the Holy
Father, Pope Benedict XVI, same as is possessed by all humans whether public
figure or not). And of course, this is in addition to Governor Chime's legal
right to privacy! So in these circumstances even the moral argument equally
fails. The question then follows whether this "demand to know" crowd had a moral
obligation to recognize and respect Governor Chime's legal and moral rights to
privacy in this instance and whether their failure to recognize and respect
these rights is immoral in itself, in these circumstances?

In sum, the truth is that Governor Chime had no legal obligation, and no
automatic moral obligation to disclose his medical information as some demanded
that he disclose to them immediately, at the time that they did. Quite to the
contrary, Governor Chime has a legal and moral right to privacy over the matter
which was not vitiated under the circumstances. Thus it was entirely up to
Governor Chime to disclose or not to disclose to the public, information
regarding what he had been doing (legally) during his accumulated leave. And
that in the event he chooses to disclose that information, then, the time and
place of such disclosure would be entirely up to him (not you). That was the
whole point. And again, at this juncture, it is worthy to note that Gov Chime
has eventually (on his own volition) disclosed the information to the public on
11th February, 2013, in Enugu, upon his return from accumulated leave.

So I ask again, if Gov Sullivan Chime were the Pope instead of the Governor of
Enugu State would you still hold the opinion that he has committed the gravest
of crimes just because he chose to exercise his legal and moral right to privacy
and not disclose his medical condition information for the three or four months
that he did? And just as the Vatican rightly withheld information about the
Pope's need and use of a pacemaker for about ten years, and rightly withheld
information about the Pope's heart surgery for about three months before
disclosure, was it not also within Gov Chime's inalienable right to privacy to
withhold information about his cancer treatment for the three or four months
that he did? Or is there a different standard for political leaders as opposed
to religious leaders? Are there even any standards at all in Nigeria regarding
this type of matter?

If you belong to the school of thought that believes that a public's need to
know could in certain circumstances trounce a public official's right to
privacy, then show me the standards of application of such in this country! Are
these standards clear cut? How do we navigate them? Where are the historical
precedents and guidelines for these standards in Nigerian public life? Which
body is the final arbiter of these standards? Do we even have such a body? Or
was all this dust not raised for political reasons just because it is Gov
Sullivan Iheanacho Chime?

Of course the "demand to know" crowd is quick to cite Hugo Chavez and Hillary
Clinton as two modern-day examples of public figures who voluntarily, publicly
disclosed information regarding their medical conditions/procedures. But as I
had noted earlier it is their right and their choice which of course was
determined by their own individual circumstances, therefore we must recognize
and respect their right and choice to publicly disclose their information as at
the time and place that they did. But certainly one can now equally cite Pope
Benedict XVI (based on the recent announcement), and, yes, Governor Sullivan
Chime as two modern-day examples of public figures who chose not to publicly
disclose (for some time, at least) information regarding their medical
conditions/procedures. Of course it is noted that this is also equally their
right and their choice as determined by their own individual circumstances,
therefore we must equally recognize and respect their right and their choice not
to publicly disclose their information until such a time that they wish to do
so, if at all they do so. By the way, it should be noted that while both camps
may have exercised inapposite choices, the determinant is usually
circumstantial, but the common denominator remains the same, which is that the
choice to disclose or not disclose is firmly rooted in the individual's
inalienable right to privacy.

Anyway, as I end this piece, I again underscore and plead with you the reader to
understand that this piece is not, and must never be misconstrued as a criticism
of the Holy Father or the Vatican. God forbid! Quite to the contrary, this piece
is indeed, in reverence, adoration, and support of these two great institutions,
from which this great lesson on privacy emanates.

Ambrose Agu
Enugu, Enugu State, Nigeria

This is a well-articulated write-up and I buy your idea. It is not every information about onseself that the person may wish to expose, especially health issues. People must learn how to respect other people's privacy. The hunger for talk-of-the-town gossips have seemed to blind some people. They leave the huge plank in their eyes and instead, mind the little speck in other people's eyes.