₦airaland Forum

I read the article titled “Cardinal Onaiyekan’s Abuse of Clerical Privilege” by Temitope Ajayi with great interest. Surely, the article raises important questions about the relationship between the Church and the State. However, I believe some of its conclusions, particularly from the perspectives of constitutional democracy and the Church’s public mission, deserve a respectful and balanced response and clarifications.

Here is my point to point response to each of the concerns raised.

*1. Was it improper for Cardinal Onaiyekan to speak publicly on Arise News?*
Not necessarily. The meeting between President Tinubu and the Catholic Bishops of Nigeria was not a sacramental confession that requires utmost secrecy, a diplomatic negotiation under secrecy, or a legally confidential proceeding. Unless the participants expressly agreed to confidentiality, there is no legal or moral principle that absolutely prevents either party from commenting on the discussion afterward.

*2. The Church has both the right and the duty to speak*
Catholic bishops are not merely private citizens expressing personal opinions. By virtue of their pastoral office, they have a responsibility to teach on moral and social issues. Catholic social teaching consistently affirms that the Church must speak whenever human dignity, justice, security, and the common good are at stake. That is exactly what the bishops did.

*3. Speaking after a meeting is not necessarily a breach of trust*
Providing one’s understanding of a discussion is different from revealing confidential state secrets. Democratic engagement often includes explaining to the faithful what was discussed, particularly when the meeting like theirs concerns issues affecting millions of citizens.

*4. Criticism of government is not a denial of progress*
One may acknowledge improvements while still concluding that much more remains to be done. Recognizing government achievements and identifying persistent failures are not mutually exclusive positions.

*5. “Truth to power” remains relevant*
The fact that a president receives intelligence briefings does not eliminate the value of independent voices. Security reports, economic data, religious leaders, civil society, academics, journalists, and ordinary citizens each offer different perspectives. No single source possesses the whole truth.

*6. Access to privileged information does not settle public debate*
The President undoubtedly possesses information unavailable to the public. However, democratic accountability also requires that government decisions remain open to public scrutiny and legitimate criticism.

*7. Confidentiality should not become silence*
If public officials may explain their side of a meeting, religious leaders should not automatically be denied the same opportunity, provided they do so truthfully, respectfully, and without disclosing genuinely confidential matters.

*8. Clerical office does not diminish civic responsibility*
The virtues expected of bishops such as prudence, temperance, and wisdom, do not require silence in the face of national concerns. History remembers many bishops who respectfully challenged civil authorities while remaining faithful to both the Gospel and legitimate constitutional order.

In all, the real issue is not whether Cardinal Onaiyekan spoke, but whether what he said was truthful, fair, and served the common good. I believe that in a constitutional democracy, respectful dialogue between religious leaders and civil authorities should continue not only behind closed doors but, when appropriate, also in the public square, just as Cardinal Onaiyekan did.


https://www.nationalaccordnewspaper.com/a-response-to-tope-ajayis-article-cardinal-onaiyekans-abuse-of-clerical-privilege-by-fr-ugochukwu-ugwoke/

It is well. Our government never take us serious for once. So nobody can speak out against government.

1vandragon:
I read the article titled “Cardinal Onaiyekan’s Abuse of Clerical Privilege” by Temitope Ajayi with great interest. Surely, the article raises important questions about the relationship between the Church and the State. However, I believe some of its conclusions, particularly from the perspectives of constitutional democracy and the Church’s public mission, deserve a respectful and balanced response and clarifications.

Here is my point to point response to each of the concerns raised.

*1. Was it improper for Cardinal Onaiyekan to speak publicly on Arise News?*
Not necessarily. The meeting between President Tinubu and the Catholic Bishops of Nigeria was not a sacramental confession that requires utmost secrecy, a diplomatic negotiation under secrecy, or a legally confidential proceeding. Unless the participants expressly agreed to confidentiality, there is no legal or moral principle that absolutely prevents either party from commenting on the discussion afterward.

*2. The Church has both the right and the duty to speak*
Catholic bishops are not merely private citizens expressing personal opinions. By virtue of their pastoral office, they have a responsibility to teach on moral and social issues. Catholic social teaching consistently affirms that the Church must speak whenever human dignity, justice, security, and the common good are at stake. That is exactly what the bishops did.

*3. Speaking after a meeting is not necessarily a breach of trust*
Providing one’s understanding of a discussion is different from revealing confidential state secrets. Democratic engagement often includes explaining to the faithful what was discussed, particularly when the meeting like theirs concerns issues affecting millions of citizens.

*4. Criticism of government is not a denial of progress*
One may acknowledge improvements while still concluding that much more remains to be done. Recognizing government achievements and identifying persistent failures are not mutually exclusive positions.

*5. “Truth to power” remains relevant*
The fact that a president receives intelligence briefings does not eliminate the value of independent voices. Security reports, economic data, religious leaders, civil society, academics, journalists, and ordinary citizens each offer different perspectives. No single source possesses the whole truth.

*6. Access to privileged information does not settle public debate*
The President undoubtedly possesses information unavailable to the public. However, democratic accountability also requires that government decisions remain open to public scrutiny and legitimate criticism.

*7. Confidentiality should not become silence*
If public officials may explain their side of a meeting, religious leaders should not automatically be denied the same opportunity, provided they do so truthfully, respectfully, and without disclosing genuinely confidential matters.

*8. Clerical office does not diminish civic responsibility*
The virtues expected of bishops such as prudence, temperance, and wisdom, do not require silence in the face of national concerns. History remembers many bishops who respectfully challenged civil authorities while remaining faithful to both the Gospel and legitimate constitutional order.

In all, the real issue is not whether Cardinal Onaiyekan spoke, but whether what he said was truthful, fair, and served the common good. I believe that in a constitutional democracy, respectful dialogue between religious leaders and civil authorities should continue not only behind closed doors but, when appropriate, also in the public square, just as Cardinal Onaiyekan did.


https://www.nationalaccordnewspaper.com/a-response-to-tope-ajayis-article-cardinal-onaiyekans-abuse-of-clerical-privilege-by-fr-ugochukwu-ugwoke/

How do you justify this statement by a supposed revered authority like the arch bishops,in what way can you explain this as an unbiased,apolitical view of his person and by extension the church?

Lets start with this first and we move on to the others.

"2027: Tinubu Government Bent On Winning By All Means — Onaiyekan

Unfortunately they have a lot of means at their disposal and they’re deploying all those means in a way that eventually, even with a free and fair election the votes of the people may not count."

John Cardinal Onaiyekan
Archbishop Emeritus, Catholic Diocese of Abuja

The president should never had allowed them audience in the first place.

Those cardinal are Peter obi supporters.

They are already political.

Lithiumite:
How do you justify this statement by a supposed revered authority like the arch bishops,in what way can you explain this as an unbiased,apolitical view of his person and by extension the church?

Lets start with this first and we move on to the others.

"2027: Tinubu Government Bent On Winning By All Means — Onaiyekan

Unfortunately they have a lot of means at their disposal and they’re deploying all those means in a way that eventually, even with a free and fair election the votes of the people may not count."

John Cardinal Onaiyekan
Archbishop Emeritus, Catholic Diocese of Abuja

You guys are forgetting that the cardinal made that statement based on what Tinubu said on live tv that “All is fair in politics”. The cardinal referenced that statement on the interview.

When someone says all is fair in politics it simply means you can do anything in politics, either moral or immoral, the end goal is winning.

Tinubu has never shied away from saying such statements that power has to be snatched.

Lithiumite:
How do you justify this statement by a supposed revered authority like the arch bishops,in what way can you explain this as an unbiased,apolitical view of his person and by extension the church?

Lets start with this first and we move on to the others.

"2027: Tinubu Government Bent On Winning By All Means — Onaiyekan

Unfortunately they have a lot of means at their disposal and they’re deploying all those means in a way that eventually, even with a free and fair election the votes of the people may not count."

John Cardinal Onaiyekan
Archbishop Emeritus, Catholic Diocese of Abuja

You call out the Arch Bishop for speaking the truth because you do not want to be free...

Sheuns:
You guys are forgetting that the cardinal made that statement based on what Tinubu said on live tv that “All is fair in politics”. The cardinal referenced that statement on the interview.

When someone says all is fair in politics it simply means you can do anything in politics, either moral or immoral, the end goal is winning.

Tinubu has never shied away from saying such statements that power has to be snatched.

Exactly... that is what they cleverly try to dodge.

garykoeman:
The president should never had allowed them audience in the first place.

Those cardinal are Peter obi supporters.

They are already political.

He shouldn’t have allowed them in the first place?
Come down from your high horses he knows better not to turn them down..stop moving in circles.

Those cardinal are Peter Obi supporters?
I think it has become a trend on Nairaland that when one criticizes BAT the next thing you lots shift the goal post shamelessly.

No government is above criticism as it is a way to let you know you still have a lot to correct not this lame and dodgy modus operandi that leads nowhere.
The cardinal is not out of point and please clarify if what he said is the truth or not.

1vandragon:
I read the article titled “Cardinal Onaiyekan’s Abuse of Clerical Privilege” by Temitope Ajayi with great interest. Surely, the article raises important questions about the relationship between the Church and the State. However, I believe some of its conclusions, particularly from the perspectives of constitutional democracy and the Church’s public mission, deserve a respectful and balanced response and clarifications.

Here is my point to point response to each of the concerns raised.

*1. Was it improper for Cardinal Onaiyekan to speak publicly on Arise News?*
Not necessarily. The meeting between President Tinubu and the Catholic Bishops of Nigeria was not a sacramental confession that requires utmost secrecy, a diplomatic negotiation under secrecy, or a legally confidential proceeding. Unless the participants expressly agreed to confidentiality, there is no legal or moral principle that absolutely prevents either party from commenting on the discussion afterward.

*2. The Church has both the right and the duty to speak*
Catholic bishops are not merely private citizens expressing personal opinions. By virtue of their pastoral office, they have a responsibility to teach on moral and social issues. Catholic social teaching consistently affirms that the Church must speak whenever human dignity, justice, security, and the common good are at stake. That is exactly what the bishops did.

*3. Speaking after a meeting is not necessarily a breach of trust*
Providing one’s understanding of a discussion is different from revealing confidential state secrets. Democratic engagement often includes explaining to the faithful what was discussed, particularly when the meeting like theirs concerns issues affecting millions of citizens.

*4. Criticism of government is not a denial of progress*
One may acknowledge improvements while still concluding that much more remains to be done. Recognizing government achievements and identifying persistent failures are not mutually exclusive positions.

*5. “Truth to power” remains relevant*
The fact that a president receives intelligence briefings does not eliminate the value of independent voices. Security reports, economic data, religious leaders, civil society, academics, journalists, and ordinary citizens each offer different perspectives. No single source possesses the whole truth.

*6. Access to privileged information does not settle public debate*
The President undoubtedly possesses information unavailable to the public. However, democratic accountability also requires that government decisions remain open to public scrutiny and legitimate criticism.

*7. Confidentiality should not become silence*
If public officials may explain their side of a meeting, religious leaders should not automatically be denied the same opportunity, provided they do so truthfully, respectfully, and without disclosing genuinely confidential matters.

*8. Clerical office does not diminish civic responsibility*
The virtues expected of bishops such as prudence, temperance, and wisdom, do not require silence in the face of national concerns. History remembers many bishops who respectfully challenged civil authorities while remaining faithful to both the Gospel and legitimate constitutional order.

In all, the real issue is not whether Cardinal Onaiyekan spoke, but whether what he said was truthful, fair, and served the common good. I believe that in a constitutional democracy, respectful dialogue between religious leaders and civil authorities should continue not only behind closed doors but, when appropriate, also in the public square, just as Cardinal Onaiyekan did.


https://www.nationalaccordnewspaper.com/a-response-to-tope-ajayis-article-cardinal-onaiyekans-abuse-of-clerical-privilege-by-fr-ugochukwu-ugwoke/

A Cassock Is Not a Licence for Partisan Insinuation: Reply to the Defence of Cardinal Onaiyekan. by CharlesCNG.

Fr. Ugochukwu Ugwoke’s defence of Cardinal John Onaiyekan begins by answering a question nobody seriously asked.

The issue is not whether a bishop may speak publicly. Of course he may.

The real questions are: Did he represent the meeting fairly?
Did he distinguish his personal interpretation from the collective position of the bishops?
And did he use his enormous clerical authority responsibly?

1. Absence of a secrecy oath does not abolish discretion

The meeting did not need to be a sacramental confession before participants owed one another good faith and discretion.

When religious leaders meet a president privately, immediately proceeding to television to narrate one side of the discussion can undermine trust—even where no classified information is disclosed.

Confidentiality is not limited to state secrets. There is also diplomatic courtesy, institutional trust and the moral duty not to reduce a complex exchange to a partisan soundbite.

The Presidency’s objection was precisely that Onaiyekan publicly characterised the private discussion in a way it considered incomplete and unfair—not that he had violated the seal of confession.

2. The Church’s prophetic mission is not a partisan blank cheque

Yes, the Church must defend human dignity, justice and the poor.

But the Church has a duty to speak” does not mean every statement made by a cleric automatically becomes the authoritative Christian position.

Cardinal Onaiyekan is Archbishop Emeritus of Abuja. He is not presently the president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference, and he cannot casually convert his own interpretation into the collective voice of Nigerian Catholics.

Moral authority demands greater precision—not lower standards of evidence.

3. The problem was not merely that he criticised government

Onaiyekan reportedly said the bishops presented the “true state of the nation,” while the President rejected their assessment and claimed the economy was doing well.

But describing one’s own assessment as “the truth” and the President’s position as detachment is not neutral reporting. It is already a political conclusion.

The President’s reported response was more nuanced: hardship persists, but measurable progress has occurred in fiscal stability, reserves, economic reform and security. Reducing that to “he told us everything is fine” risks caricaturing what was actually said.

Criticism is legitimate. Selective retelling is not made sacred because it comes from a cardinal.

4. “Truth to power” must also be truthful

The phrase “speaking truth to power” has become an escape hatch from factual accountability.

Who determines that the cleric’s view is the whole truth?

Religious leaders see suffering in their congregations. Government sees national revenue, intelligence reports, security operations, investment data and economic indicators. Neither perspective should automatically cancel the other.

The bishops were entitled to present citizens’ pain. The President was equally entitled to present evidence of stabilisation and disagree with their conclusion.

Democracy is not government silently receiving a sermon. It permits disagreement in both directions.

5. Civic responsibility includes restraint

Nobody is demanding clerical silence. Bishops have a proud history of challenging injustice, including Onaiyekan’s own opposition to Obasanjo’s alleged third-term ambition.

But there is a difference between:

* condemning a clearly identified constitutional abuse; and
* emerging from a private presidential meeting to offer politically loaded interpretations of a disputed national record.

A bishop’s words carry institutional weight far beyond those of an ordinary commentator. That heightened influence creates a heightened duty to be balanced, precise and conscious of how his statements may be weaponised politically.


Fr. Ugwoke’s argument repeatedly proves only that Cardinal Onaiyekan had the right to speak.

Nobody disputes that.

What remains unanswered is whether he exercised that right with the fairness, discretion and institutional responsibility expected of his exalted office.

The cassock does not remove citizenship—but neither should it become armour against criticism.

When a cleric enters the political arena, selects one side’s interpretation and publicly questions the other side’s integrity, he cannot retreat behind clerical privilege when challenged.

The pulpit must speak truth to power—but it must never assume that everything spoken from beneath a cassock automatically becomes truth.

Tell your Cardinal that he can appear on as many TV stations as he likes to smear the President's name, but Obi will never be President.

Where was he when the devil's incarnate that he's rooting for claimed election is "religious war"?.. why didn't Onaiyekan call him to order over such reckless statement?. Shows he is bias, insincere and actively playing partisan politics.

Sheuns:
You guys are forgetting that the cardinal made that statement based on what Tinubu said on live tv that “All is fair in politics”. The cardinal referenced that statement on the interview.

When someone says all is fair in politics it simply means you can do anything in politics, either moral or immoral, the end goal is winning.

Tinubu has never shied away from saying such statements that power has to be snatched.

So the defence is now that Cardinal Onaiyekan heard Tinubu say, **“All is fair in politics,”** adopted the opposition’s most hostile interpretation of the phrase, and then presented that interpretation publicly as though it were the obvious meaning?

And you still insist he was not being partisan?

Context matters. Tinubu spoke about political competition and, in the same engagement, assured the bishops that INEC would be neutral and all parties would receive equal opportunity. To translate that into “rigging, immorality and anything goes” is interpretation—not quotation.

That is precisely the problem.

Did Cardinal Onaiyekan fairly represent the entire exchange?

Did he clearly distinguish his personal interpretation from the collective position of the Catholic bishops?

Did he acknowledge the President’s express assurance about INEC’s neutrality, or did he select the interpretation most useful to Peter Obi?

A bishop has every right to criticise government.
But when he adopts the talking points of his preferred candidate,
supplies the most partisan meaning possible, and then uses the moral authority of his office to broadcast it, he should not pretend he is merely offering neutral pastoral guidance.

The issue is not whether he spoke.

The issue is whether he spoke fairly, completely and responsibly.

A cassock does not turn partisan interpretation into objective truth.

garykoeman:
The president should never had allowed them audience in the first place.

Those cardinal are Peter obi supporters.

They are already political.

The rest of the Bishops may have come with good intentions.
Bishop onaiyekan is a self confessed peter obi supporter, who obviously came to the villa with a pre-mediated POLITICAL AGENDA.

The obidient Bishop shamelessly chose not to remember the sacred dignity of his office and decided to do what is most unbecoming of a bishop :SULLY THE PULPIT WITH RECKLESSLY PARTISAN POLITICAL ADVOCACY.
Shameful.

I hope when the tables turn, those who defend the failings, incompetence and disregard for morality exhibited by bat will maintain thier present stance of providing justification for what is glaringly a worrisome situation...

1vandragon:
You call out the Arch Bishop for speaking the truth because you do not want to be free...

What truth,could be that to you but it isnt anything close to many others.

Lithiumite:
What truth,could be that to you but it isnt anything close to many others.

Ok. That is how you people supported buhari blindly and you are doing same for bat.

Continue...

Sheuns:
You guys are forgetting that the cardinal made that statement based on what Tinubu said on live tv that “All is fair in politics”. The cardinal referenced that statement on the interview.

When someone says all is fair in politics it simply means you can do anything in politics, either moral or immoral, the end goal is winning.

Tinubu has never shied away from saying such statements that power has to be snatched.

Thats wrong,if the bishop had quoted the president verbatim and left the interpretation to every one to infer,that would have been considered fair but to come to the public to attempt to disect,interprete and emphatically state a position to drive a contrived narrative,then the Cardinal has deviantly crossed the line.

1vandragon:
Ok. That is how you people supported buhari blindly and you are doing same for bat.

Continue...

Thats how you guys supported GEJ blindly and now packaging another fraud,we won't take it!!

Lithiumite:
Thats how you guys supported GEJ blindly and now packaging another fraud,we won't take it!!

Lol. Look at who is talking about fraud...

Between GEJ and bat, who is the real fraud? At least everyone knows which primary and secondary institutions GEJ schooled at.

Can you tell us the name of BAT's primary and secondary schools?

1st class accounting bagman... lol.

1vandragon:
Lol. Look at who is talking about fraud...

Between GEJ and bat, who is the real fraud? At least everyone knows which primary and secondary institutions GEJ schooled at.

Can you tell us the name of BAT's primary and secondary schools?

1st class accounting bagman... lol.

You could as well go and disprove it,if you do not have confidence in the Nigerian judiciary, you have ecowas court there.

Lithiumite:
You could as well go and disprove it,if you do not have confidence in the Nigerian judiciary, you have ecowas court there.

The ones he has been mentioning since 1999, have they not been exposed as lies?

You that is so sure of his 'school', can you tell us? Or are you just defending what you know nothing about?