By Bashir Uba Ibrahim, Ph.D.
In my article “A Deconstructive Reading of Sunusi’s Remarks on Tinubu’s Economic Policies,” published by The Daily Reality on 19 January 2025, I noted that the Emir loses authority over his words when the media and the public interpret him as they wish. This provokes deconstructive readings of his remarks. The more his statements are rife with contradictions and aporia, the more they invite diverse interpretations. Prof. Kperogi presents one notable critique of the Emir’s outburst in Lagos.
Kperogi’s scathing deconstructive critique of Emir Sanusi’s Lagos outburst, “Emir Sanusi’s Quid Pro Quo for His Friends Turned Friends,” is simultaneously attracting national and international critical attention, indignation, and approval due to its epitomising use of language and skilful deployment of sarcastic symbolism to ridicule its target subject (Emir Sanusi).
The piece provokes sporadic responses and comments that seem to open a Pandora’s Box. Consequently, this write-up reviews notable responses and comments on Kperogi’s piece, primarily authored by Prof. Aliyu Barau and a remark by Prof. Ibrahim Bello-Kano (hereafter referred to as Barau-IBK comments).
The piece revisits the epistemological challenges posed by such critique from the perspective of speculative criticism. Speculative criticism is a branch of theoretical criticism. As a philosophical approach to textual and non-textual studies, theoretical criticism focuses on the analysis and interpretation of spoken and written texts.
Prof. Barau, in a piece titled “Kperogi: A Captive of the Raw Emotions”, makes a scathing “scientific” deconstruction of Kperogi’s piece. In that article, he x-rays Kperogi’s write-up from scientific lenses. He argues that “Kperogi’s overloaded bags of insults towards Sanusi are unguided by science or descent knowledge”. Thus, Kperogi’s punch on Emir Sanusi should be predicated upon a scientific mode of inquiry by formulating research questions and hypotheses that would guide his critique as he succinctly puts that “writing on Sanusi Lagos outburst, I expect Kperogi to be deeply critical and analytical with scientific objectivity”.
The above reference to systematic research questions and hypotheses provides an invariable allusion to Barau’s scientific method of criticism (critique). His astute exploitation of language, adeptly combined with an erudite excavation of symbolism (e.g., the Tower of Babel, Neo-Babel Tower, etc.), to register his caustic critique of Kperogi’s piece, remains a recurring feature in his write-up.
On the other hand, in his response to Barau’s deconstruction of Kperogi’s deconstruction of Sanusi titled “Science” or “Critique” in Reguting Malice, IBK refutes the scientific method of critique advanced by the latter. He contends that the best way to match Kperogi’s verbiage is through eclectic methods of criticism. Thus, his reason for deploying sizzling anger and vituperative language in his comment on the latter’s piece.
Supporting this argument, Prof. IBK maintains that “only the concept of critique can meet head-on and devastate mere malicious criticism”. For that, he surmises that there is a problem with offering “a scientific critique of ideas” as Kperogi’s piece on Sanusi is “speculative ideas”. Thus, there cannot be a “scientific criticism”; science relies on facts, and there are no facts but only interpretations, as argued by IBK quoting Nietzsche. Since Kperogi’s article on Sanusi is a speculative idea, there cannot be a “scientific criticism”.
Finally, IBK concedes that his comment is by no means a criticism of Barau’s magisterial write-up but rather his way of showing how a convergence of Philosophy, Social Theory, Psychoanalysis and Chaos Theory within analytical critique can or could be used to deconstruct any discourse.
In conclusion, Barau’s write-up and the subsequent response by IBK are both deconstructions of the deconstructive critique of Kperogi’s earlier article on Emir Sanusi’s Lagos outburst. While the former advocates for a “scientific critique”, the latter espouses critical standpoints.
Dr Bashir Uba Ibrahim writes from the Department of English and Literary Studies, Sule Lamido University Kafin Hausa. He can also be reached via bashirubaibrahim@gmail.com.
