11 January, 2016
by Mohammed Bello Doka
When a presidential spokesman shares a political hit piece, it ceases to be private opinion and becomes institutional posture. That is the unavoidable implication of what just happened.
An article titled “A Verbal Diarrhoea Called Nasir El-Rufai”, authored by Olabode Opeseitan, did not merely circulate in obscure corners of the internet. It was amplified by Bayo Onanuga, the official spokesman to Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Let us be unambiguous: Mr. Onanuga and his social media allies have consistently argued that when Nasir El-Rufai shares an article, he “owns” every word in it. They have built an entire moral doctrine around that principle.
By that same doctrine, Mr. Onanuga now owns every word in Olabode Opeseitan’s essay.
Ownership cuts both ways.
An Essay of Insults, Not Evidence
The Opeseitan article is not a rebuttal. It is not a policy response. It is not a data-driven counterargument.
It is a 2,000-word character assassination.
It relies on psychological labelling, theatrical metaphors, and memoir excerpts — not documents, not court judgments, not empirical evidence. The phrase “verbal diarrhoea” may generate applause in partisan corners, but it does not constitute analysis.
And when a presidential spokesman shares such a piece, the Presidency inherits its tone.
You cannot defend governance with gossip.
The Senate Rejection: Politics, Not Conviction
The article treats the Senate’s refusal to confirm El-Rufai’s ministerial nomination as a moral execution. It describes it as a “public unmasking” and implies a definitive security stigma.
This is political exaggeration.
Senate confirmations in Nigeria are political acts. They are not criminal trials. No court declared El-Rufai guilty of any offence. No publicly released judicial document labelled him a security threat. A confirmation vote is a political decision — influenced by caucuses, negotiations, and interests.
To inflate that into a permanent moral obituary is rhetorical gymnastics.
If rejection equals guilt, then Nigeria’s political history is full of convicts who were never charged.
Weaponising Obasanjo — Selectively
The Opeseitan piece leans heavily on the memoir of Olusegun Obasanjo, quoting harsh descriptions of El-Rufai.
Memoirs are not court judgments. They are subjective recollections.
But here is the inconvenient question: if Obasanjo’s words are gospel when aimed at El-Rufai, are they also gospel when aimed at Tinubu?
Obasanjo recently described Nigeria as a “failing state.” He invoked the phrases “Baba-go-slow” and “Emilokan” while criticising current leadership direction. Those statements were widely reported and prompted official reactions from the Presidency.
If Obasanjo’s authority is valid ammunition against El-Rufai, it is equally valid scrutiny against Tinubu.
Selective canonisation is not morality. It is convenience.
The Catalogue of “Contradictions”
The article lists El-Rufai’s shifting alliances with Atiku Abubakar, Muhammadu Buhari, and Tinubu himself as proof of opportunism.
Welcome to Nigerian politics.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) itself was born from shifting alliances. Former rivals became allies. Former critics became champions. Political realignment is the currency of Nigerian democracy.
If shifting positions disqualifies politicians, then the entire political elite stands indicted.
Selective outrage again.
Kaduna Violence and the Dangerous Double Standard
The Opeseitan article paints El-Rufai’s tenure in Kaduna as a “reign of fire and fury,” implying moral culpability for every act of violence during his administration.
Let us apply that standard consistently.
Security in Nigeria is constitutionally under federal control. Governors are called “Chief Security Officers,” but they do not command the police or armed forces operationally.
If insecurity under a governor automatically equals personal guilt, then that standard must apply to every governor in Nigeria’s democratic history.
During the governorship of Bola Ahmed Tinubu in Lagos State (29 May 1999 – 29 May 2007), the Oodua People's Congress (OPC) was active and violent.
The OPC was formed in 1994 after the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election. But between 1999 and 2002 — during Tinubu’s tenure — its activities peaked.
Human Rights Watch documented hundreds of killings and injuries linked to OPC operations. Major clashes occurred:
November 25–26, 1999 — Ketu/Mile 12 Market clashes; over 100 killed, many Hausa traders.
September–October 2000 — Ajegunle and Agege violence; hundreds killed.
February 2–4, 2002 — Idi-Araba/Mushin clashes; more than 70–100 killed, mostly Hausa men, homes burnt.
A Lagos State Tribunal of Inquiry confirmed OPC involvement in attacks on non-Yoruba communities. President Obasanjo later banned the OPC and deployed federal forces.
No serious analyst claims Governor Tinubu ordered those killings.
But neither can history pretend they did not occur under his watch.
If violence during tenure equals personal indictment, then apply it equally.
If constitutional limits excuse Tinubu, they must excuse El-Rufai.
You cannot have two standards.
The Probe Is Not a Verdict
The article celebrates the Kaduna State Government probe into El-Rufai’s administration as though it were a final conviction.
Probes are investigations. They are not court judgments. Political successors auditing predecessors is routine in Nigeria.
Allegations are not verdicts.
In democracy, guilt is determined in courts — not in opinion columns.
Silence? Or Outsourced Noise?
The article claims Tinubu’s silence is “strategy.”
Yet the Presidency’s spokesman amplified a 2,000-word rebuttal filled with insults.
Silence that requires amplification is not silence.
It is outsourced response.
If El-Rufai is irrelevant, why does every statement he makes trigger such mobilisation?
If he is politically finished, why must the Presidency react through third-party essays?
The pattern suggests not irrelevance — but irritation.
Ownership, Mr. Onanuga, Ownership
Let us return to first principles.
Mr. Onanuga and his media allies have repeatedly insisted that when El-Rufai shares an article, he owns it.
Very well.
By that doctrine, Mr. Onanuga owns Olabode Opeseitan’s words.
He owns the phrase “verbal diarrhoea.”
He owns the psychological diagnoses.
He owns the moral condemnation.
A presidential spokesman is not a freelance blogger. When he shares, the Presidency speaks.
If sharing equals endorsement, then endorsement has occurred.
You cannot preach ownership when it suits you and disown it when it is inconvenient.
This Is Not a Defence — It Is a Demand for Consistency
This rejoinder is not a sanitisation of Nasir El-Rufai’s record history and records have done that.
It is a rejection of selective morality.
It is a demand that standards be applied uniformly.
If insecurity under a governor equals guilt, apply it to all governors.
If constitutional limits matter, let them matter equally.
If memoirs are scripture, let them cut both ways.
If sharing equals ownership, own what you share.
Final Word
When El-Rufai sneezes and the Presidency catches cold, perhaps the issue is not the sneeze — but the immunity.
Governance should be defended with data, not diagnosis.
Political disagreement should be met with argument, not anatomy.
And ownership — the very principle Mr. Onanuga has preached — must now be accepted in full.
Ownership cuts both ways.
Own it. Mr Onanuga own it.
Mohammed Bello Doka can be reached via [email protected]
Abuja Network News
Tags
Opinion