Farooq Kperogi

By Anna Gabriel Yarima

When the internet and digital platforms emerged from the rapid growth of information and communication technology, journalism experienced a fundamental transformation. Traditional newspapers and mainstream media organisations around the world embraced these tools, prompting universities and journalism schools to introduce online journalism courses. The goal was clear — to equip students with the skills to navigate and manage digital media while preserving the profession’s core principles and ethics in a new online environment.

Today, another major technological shift is underway: the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI). From established newspapers to online-only platforms, media organisations are experimenting with AI in reporting and content creation. But this raises important questions: Do all journalists possess the skills to use AI effectively and responsibly? At what point in the reporting process should AI be applied — and in what ways? For example, should it be used to create images for advertisements or event coverage? And if so, how do we reconcile that with journalism’s commitment to accuracy and objectivity?

If AI is here to stay in the newsroom, the profession must find ways to use it without eroding the ethical foundations of journalism. This makes it imperative for journalism educators, researchers, and training institutions to include AI literacy in curricula at universities, polytechnics, and media schools.

Professor Farooq Kperogi has written extensively on the potential dangers of AI in journalism and academia. In his commentaries, he has pointed out how misuse of AI can undermine truth and credibility, warning of ethical lapses and factual distortions if its use is left unchecked. His examples are sobering reminders of the stakes involved.

Integrating AI instruction into journalism training is no longer optional — it is essential. Without it, journalists risk damaging the profession’s reputation and eroding public trust. The benefits of such training are clear, especially when we consider recent cases that have attracted global attention.

A lack of AI literacy is already causing problems. Many journalists remain either unfamiliar with AI or unaware of the ethical implications of its misuse. For instance, The Guardian US reported on an experienced reporter who used ChatGPT to produce news stories, adding fabricated quotes that were later denied by the supposed sources. This journalist had 15 years of professional experience — a fact that raises serious concerns about what could happen when inexperienced or student reporters misuse such tools.

In another case, The Guardian exposed how the Chicago Sun-Times published a summer reading list generated by AI. While the authors named in the list were real, the books themselves did not exist. Titles such as Hurricane Season by Brit Bennett and Nightshade Market by Min Jin Lee were entirely fabricated. The paper later admitted the content had come from a syndicated partner, not its own newsroom, but still apologised and pledged to investigate. “This should be a learning moment for all of journalism,” the paper said, emphasising the unique value of human reporters and editors.

The fallout spread beyond Chicago. On Threads, AngelaReadsBooks accused the Philadelphia Inquirer of publishing the same AI-generated list, prompting outrage from library advocates who viewed it as a betrayal of journalistic integrity at a time when libraries are under constant pressure.

In Nigeria, the Nigerian Guild of Editors has recognised the risks and announced the creation of a dedicated fact-checking desk to address AI misuse and protect the credibility of the media.

Professor Umar Pate, a respected communication scholar, has also warned of the broader implications of AI in education and employment. Speaking at the University of Maiduguri, he noted that 92 million jobs could disappear in the coming years, even as over 100 new job categories emerge. As Vice Chancellor of the Federal University, Kashere, he confirmed that the institution is already preparing to teach students about the responsible and ethical use of AI. Extending such measures to journalism education nationwide would greatly strengthen the profession’s resilience in the face of technological change.

Anna Gabriel Yarima writes from the Department of Mass Communication, University of Maiduguri.

By Anas Abbas

Farooq Kperogi, a journalism professor at Kennesaw State University in the U.S. and a Nigerian commentator, has publicly apologised to former First Lady Aisha Buhari following backlash from a Facebook post in which he erroneously claimed she had divorced the late President Muhammadu Buhari.

In a statement issued days after the post ignited widespread public outcry, Kperogi acknowledged that his July 16 update, titled “Aisha Buhari, Divorce, and Forgiveness Claim,” represented a significant misjudgment on his part.

Kperogi expressed regret for not foreseeing the distressing impact his words would have on Mrs. Buhari and her family.

“I did not anticipate the profoundly painful consequences that my Facebook update would have on former First Lady Mrs. Aisha Buhari and those closest to her,” Kperogi stated.

He described the incident as one of the most regrettable lapses in judgment he has experienced, leading to “unfathomable personal anguish.”

In his original post, Kperogi claimed that Aisha Buhari had reverted to her maiden name, Halilu, and suggested she had refused to travel to London to care for her husband during his illness.

He asserted that the information was sourced from a reliable individual but acknowledged that making it public was a mistake.

“My source maintains the accuracy of the information but never intended for it to be disclosed publicly. It was wrong of me to share it,” he said.

He also mentioned that Alhaji Sani Zorro, former Senior Special Assistant on Public Affairs to the First Lady, reached out to contest the claims’ validity.

“I will not dispute the details with Alhaji Sani, who communicated Mrs. Buhari’s position that her marriage remains intact. As the late MKO Abiola famously said, no one can give you a haircut in your absence,” he stated.

Kperogi reiterated that only Mrs. Buhari has the authority to discuss her marital status and that her truth should be respected above all else.

He clarified that he did not intend any malice but recognised that the harm caused by his post far outweighed any potential value it might have held.

“The truth of this information is now far less significant than the hurt my disclosure has caused. I should not have shared it publicly. Period. This action violated every moral and ethical principle I uphold,” he admitted.

He concluded with a sincere apology: “To Mrs. Aisha Buhari, I offer my heartfelt and unreserved apology for the needless and deeply regrettable hurt I have caused. I am truly sorry.”

Kperogi’s post gained traction just three days after President Buhari’s passing, eliciting reactions across various political and social media platforms.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Respected columnist and political analyst, Farooq Kperogi, has claimed that former Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari and his wife, Aisha Buhari, were divorced before the former leader’s death.

In a piece titled “Aisha Buhari, Divorce, and Forgiveness Claim,” Kperogi wrote, “What I do know is that before Buhari’s death, he and Aisha were no longer married. They had divorced, and Aisha reverted to her maiden name, Aisha Halilu.”

According to Kperogi, signs of their separation had been evident since Buhari left office. He noted that Aisha did not accompany Buhari to Daura after his retirement and was absent when he later moved to Kaduna.

“If you paid close attention, you would notice that Aisha didn’t go to Daura when he retired to the town after leaving office. Buhari was also alone when he later relocated to Kaduna,” he stated.

He also revealed that when Buhari’s health declined in London, Aisha initially hesitated to travel to him.

“She reportedly hesitated because she was no longer his wife. She eventually went in the last few days before he died, but only after intense persuasion,” Kperogi claimed.

Commenting on the days following Buhari’s death, Kperogi noted that Aisha appears uncertain about her place in the ongoing mourning.

“Even now, during this period of mourning, she seems understandably conflicted about her role,” he said.

Neither Aisha Buhari nor the Presidency has responded to the claims, but the statement has stirred public interest in a part of Buhari’s life that remained largely shielded from public view during his presidency.

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.    

By Usman Abdullahi Koli

I read Professor Farooq A. Kperogi’s article “Emir Sanusi’s Quid Pro Quo for His Friends Turned Fiends” with keen interest. While it was well-written and rich in rhetorical flair, I believe it unfairly misrepresents the character and contributions of His Highness Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II and the broader context of his remarks. My intention here is not to disparage Mr. Kperogi or his intellectual depth but to offer a more nuanced perspective based on facts and a balanced understanding.

Sanusi’s commentary on economic reforms is not new, and it is not driven by self-interest, as the article implies. His economic positions, controversial as they may be, have always been rooted in his commitment to transparency, accountability, and fiscal prudence.

As governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Sanusi spearheaded reforms that stabilised the financial sector and exposed corruption, notably the mismanagement of funds in the petroleum industry. His leadership saved the Nigerian banking system during the 2009 global financial crisis. These efforts reflect a consistent commitment to economic pragmatism, not the “self-loving sadism” Mr. Kperogi ascribed to him.

At the Gani Fawehinmi Memorial Lecture, Emir Sanusi addressed Nigeria’s economic challenges within a historical framework, highlighting how years of poor management led to today’s difficulties. His statement about not defending the current government’s policies was not a quid pro quo demand but an expression of discontent over the failure of political leaders to reciprocate loyalty or act decisively for national progress.

Sanusi’s critique of governance has often transcended personal affiliations. For instance, he openly criticised the Goodluck Jonathan administration despite being part of the government apparatus, risking his career in the process. His comments in the lecture reflect this same principle: his loyalty is to ideas, not individuals.

The article unfairly caricatures Sanusi as an unrepentant neoliberal apologist indifferent to the suffering of the masses. While he has supported subsidy removal and exchange rate harmonisation, his positions are informed by Nigeria’s fiscal realities. Subsidy regimes, historically marred by corruption and inefficiency, drained trillions of naira from public coffers without addressing systemic energy sector challenges.

Critics often overlook the fact that subsidies disproportionately benefit the elite rather than the poor. Studies by organisations like the World Bank and Nigeria’s Budget Office have shown that wealthier Nigerians consume more fuel and thus benefit more from subsidies. Sanusi’s advocacy for subsidy removal aims to redirect these funds toward targeted interventions, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, which directly benefit the masses.

Contrary to the claim that Sanusi derives “delight from the misery of the masses,” he has consistently called for equitable resource allocation and the empowerment of marginalised communities. As emir, he launched initiatives to promote girl-child education, gender equity, and poverty alleviation in Kano State. His reforms in the Kano Emirate Council prioritised addressing social injustices that have long plagued Northern Nigeria.

For instance, his campaign against child marriage and his emphasis on the importance of education for girls drew both applause and backlash. These efforts single out his commitment to social progress and human dignity.

Mr Kperogi’s passionate critique of Sanusi’s remarks offers no clear alternative solutions to Nigeria’s economic woes. If we agree that Nigeria’s economy has suffered from decades of mismanagement, what is the path forward? Should we continue subsidising consumption at the expense of critical investments? Sanusi’s prescriptions, while debatable, are at least anchored in economic logic and long-term sustainability.

Nigeria’s challenges require a balanced, solutions-driven discourse. Reducing complex issues to personal attacks or dismissing individuals who have contributed significantly to national development is unproductive. Emir Sanusi’s positions are not beyond critique, but such critiques should engage with the substance of his arguments rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks or speculative interpretations of his motives.

Nigeria stands at a crossroads, and leadership—whether in government, traditional institutions, or civil society—must rise to the occasion. While Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II is not infallible, his track record of service, advocacy, and reform warrants a more balanced appraisal. Let us concentrate on fostering a Nigeria where ideas are debated with civility and respect, rather than transforming crucial national discussions into platforms for derision.

Usman Abdullahi Koli is a public relations expert, writer, and advocate for balanced public discourse. He can be reachedvia mernoukoli@gmail.com.

By Isma’il Hashim Abubakar 

I was prompted to pen this essay by two writeups of prominent newspaper columnists: Mr Gimba Kakanda and Professor Farouk Kperogi. The latter is one of the people I have been following due to their mastery of using his pen to communicate ideas. Both Kakanda and Kperogi have painstakingly struggled to deodorise the infamous Samoa (perhaps it’s more suitable to call it Tamoa) Agreement and exculpate it of its meticulously wrapped pro-LGBTQ+ substances. 

Maybe the authors of the document containing details of this agreement are so cunningly sagacious to beat the conscience and intelligence of the Atlanta word master who, as far I know him, is so wide-eyed to read things between the line and discern and decode messages from even unarticulated and not well coughed or well-lettered communications. Farouk Kperogi is not at all that simplistic type of a person that one could hoodwink by suggesting to him that a week is different from seven days or a year is anything else but twelve months. 

The 12-page document explicating different stages of agreements entered into by the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific states is so clear in the very first paragraph that “the multiple negotiation levels, the coronavirus crisis and difficulties in reaching agreement on sensitive issues, such as migration management and sexual and reproductive health and rights, …”. A witty reader would not even wait to be told that sexual rights emphasised in the quote would never mean the existing sexual customs prevailing in the beneficiary states just as no one will argue that sexual rights in this sense refer to what the West conceives of as new normal, acceptable sexual culture.

All the dull, lengthy noise and regular references to vague resolutions and procedures in the document, beating around the bush in most instances, reflect strategies meant just to propagate the incongruous norms the West is relentlessly hellbent on imposing on third-world countries. It may also sound controversial if one claims that the so-called autonomous countries like ours are, in real and practical terms, undergoing another form of colonialism in the modern day, of course, heavily pretentious, more diplomatic, possibly negotiable, and less confrontational.

Daily Trust, the newspaper outlet that took centre stage in unravelling Nigeria’s role in this agreement, should be commended for quickly alerting Nigerians to what our increasingly gluttonous, money-hungry leaders who could not resist a dubious multimillion-dollar loan are up to. 

The document being circulated currently seems not to be the only manual laying guidelines and terms of the negotiations. It refers to a monitoring group under the Committee on Development (DEVE) set up by the European Parliament, whose consent was crucial in the approval of the negotiations. In the report submitted to the  EU through the DEVE committee, several recommendations were adopted, including a particular “chapter on human rights” which “should explicitly list the forms of discrimination that should be combated (such as sexual, ethnic, or religious discriminations) and mention sexual and reproductive rights”.  

It appears that while the available document now within public reach may remain implicit and brief about the nature of rights this bill wants to get protected, there are appendixes which may be at the domains of leaders and top representatives of concerned countries and which explain in greater details and specify perhaps in exact terms the list of kinds of the so-called discriminations that must be stopped once the agreement is entered into. 

Admittance that there are divergences in positions on sexual orientation and gender identity (LGBTI rights) among EU Member States is not a definite declaration or solemn undertaking that this agreement will not pursue that goal. It doesn’t require any mental labour to know where this agreement is heading, even if it does not now literally endorse LGBTQ+. The reference in the agreement document about scepticism and misgivings nurtured by some affected countries is nothing but a deceptive pretence of objectivity and balancing, such that later it will be presented as a mere debate and leaning toward the LGBTQ+ as a mere result of in-house voting among donor institutions, vetoing the concerns of and leaving affected countries like our own with no option but to accept and be committed to the terms based on which we are handsomely paid. 

In fact, without any further denial, disclaimer or clarification, the document observes that “prior to the signing of the agreement in Samoa, several African and Caribbean CSOs called on their governments not to sign the agreement, fearing that it might lead to modifying domestic laws, in particular, to endorse LGBTI rights”. The authors do not attempt to deny the allegation above or make any further comments that will allay existing fears, thereby reminding us tacitly that to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Both Kakanda and Kperogi capitalise on the lack of literal mention to promote Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ+) in the document, thereby accusing the Daily Trust of misguided reporting but also rubbishing the understanding of the majority of Nigerians who interpreted the clauses emphasising the need to protect sexual rights and orientation as another way of reintroducing LGBTQ+ using the power of juicy loans. 

Since Kakanda is in government, we have no difficulty forming the proper framework to read his intervention. As a former activist now enjoying dividends of democracy, one should either keep quiet if one cannot defend the truth or at least not pretend to be ignorant of how Nigeria is run and what are the ulterior motives and hidden goals behind all loans that the third world is lured into accepting.

Kakanda’s points revolve around the absence of explicit devotion and literal commitment to LGBTQ+. Kakanda reiterates the insignificance of the anxiety this new agreement saga is generating by referring to the anti-gay law signed during the Jonathan administration, and he thinks that is absolutely enough to guarantee our safety and to suggest that the money could be collected and consumed without serious implications and disastrous consequences. If Kakanda is sincere, let him advise the government in which he now serves to institute operational frameworks that will deploy the same anti-gay laws enacted about a decade ago to end the LGBTQ+ movement that already practically exists and is being rigorously promoted and advertised via social media platforms.

Meanwhile, Kperogi, who has built a reputation of siding with the masses always against different government antisocial policies, has fallen so low this time around to fail to discern that sexual rights and other terminologies used in the document are not even so vague to think they are different from all those bizarre rights and queer sexual orientation freedoms. We are all not oblivious to how highly sophisticated and cunning heirs of former colonialists are and not as gullible to declare support for the scary LGBTQ+ catchphrase glaringly in their proposal, given that they faced resistance in earlier phases of their project. We ought to be mature enough and vociferously critical to detect proposals to institute LGBTQ+ even by mere mention of key phrases like “gender violence”, “women’s and girl’s empowerment”, “fight against discrimination”, “right of self-determination”, and so on, not to talk of sexual and reproductive health rights.

Kperogi is merely angry that people have been, for operational reasons, refusing to kowtow to his admonition to rise and execute his yet esoteric, misunderstood and almost ‘impracticable’ revolution. Now that people seem to be once again united and appear determined to fight this dubious bill which is at our doorstep, which, to him perhaps, is innocuous or at least less harmful, Kperogi is tactically venting his anger on people and accusing them of misplacing priority. 

In other words, people in Kperogi’s theory should better fight anti-masses policies which institutions like the IMF and World Bank are forcing Nigeria to implement than jawbreaking and investing unnecessary energy on sexual rights issues, which, after all, is what he encounters in the U.S day in day out, unlike the excruciating poverty and bad governance that bedevil Nigeria. 

At any rate, within a decade or something like that, even as LGBTQ+ right was successfully illegalised and the law to fight it constitutionally still exists, there has been a proliferation of growing LGBTQ+ movements, largely operating without any hitch in the virtual world and particularly on the social media cyberspace. Who knows if institutions behind bills and agreements like the Samoa agreement do not sponsor those movements and groups? Why is there little or no evidence at all to show and establish that those breaking anti-gay laws and other unusual customs have been made to face the wrath of the law? 

Sexual rights agents, manifesting in many forms, have now become celebrities and operate freely on the media while clandestinely running ventures that everybody knows are nationally outlawed. Sponsors of these agreements might have been convinced that it is now the right time to secure legal frameworks for protecting their representatives, having taken some years to experiment and implement their projects successfully. 

We should not be deceived by any government defence on this matter—either by a government official or a likely bribed or even gagged scholar. We all know well what some powerful elements in the Western world are after when they set goals they want to achieve at all costs, deploying short—and long-term plans, even if the latter will span a century. As things go this way, let us ponder what will happen in the next 50 years for those who will live to see that period.

 As people are now sinking into excessive materialism, suffering from a lack of focus and shortsightedness,  and unduly obsessed with imitating the Western lifestyle, it is so hard to suggest that posterity could effectively challenge and fight bills like LGBTQ+.  Therefore, there is a need to start thinking of ways and techniques to instil zeal and introduce mechanisms for combatting moves like this in future. If they have not succeeded now, they have patience; they could wait and hope to see their plan triumph within less than a century from now. One better way to start tackling LGBTQ+ is to begin addressing the decline of morality that has been mainstreamed on social media now. Otherwise, once the law succeeds one day, God forbid, it will consume us unimaginably.

Isma’il writes from AERC, Rabat and can be reached via iahashim@fugusau.edu.ng.

By Aliyu Barau, PhD

Farooq Kperogi is among the few Nigerians who elegantly sandwich scholarship, media and English language expertise. On the contrary, I am neither a language expert nor a political analyst. Here, I am just trying to figure out the naughtiness of Kperogi’s thinking machinery. How Kperogi thinks substantially determines his writings and opinions.

No doubt, Kperogi’s articles are a cynosure of the eyes of many Nigerians across political, cultural and social divides. Some of his Nigerian readers pluck his linguistically well-crafted and yet asymmetric views and dye them in the colours of their sentiments or ignorance. It is very normal to manipulate any text on this planet. Interestingly, it is not unusual for bohemians and intellectuals to dress and feast on controversies.

I see Kperogi as a sort of a roller coaster dripping joyful and sorrowful moments on public sentiments and obsessions. Indeed, considering Nigeria’s contested socio-political landscapes, Kperogi personifies Hankaka (a pied crow in Hausa) which they say, “whoever sees its black must see its white too.

I am indifferent to Kperogi’s criticisms of the powers that be. I don’t care about his tirades and vituperations directed at the political class who sold their moral rights at the markets of failures and misgovernance.

So, what’s my headache with Kperogi? Well, I am deeply touched by his overriding superficiality, unidirectional views, bigotry, extremism and spider mannerisms. To be fair to Kperogi, no elites in the social and political divides of this country are immune from his pen. Nevertheless, his seamless and borderless forays are in many instances unconscionable and peddling post-truth constructs. My labelling of Kperogi is based on my readings and analysis of his recent blog stuff:

• Presidents Who’ll Make Me Renounce Nigeria (https://www.farooqkperogi.com/2022/03/presidents-wholl-make-me-renounce.html)

• Osinbajo’s RCCGification Part of Plot for Theocratic State Capture (https://www.farooqkperogi.com/2022/04/osinbajos-rccgification-part-of-plot.html)

• 10 Reasons Osinbajo Will Ignite a Religious Civil War (https://www.farooqkperogi.com/2022/03/10-reasons-osinbajo-will-ignite.html)

As a transdisciplinary environmental researcher, I always prefer wider views, co-produced, and inclusive opinions. I am diametrically opposed to ‘single story’ constructions – as Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie would say. My reading of the above articles has convinced me of Kperogi’s single story-driven narrowed conclusions on crucial and critical national issues. Before I explain my points, I have tried further analysis of Kperogi’s knowledge production mannerisms to see how that fits my labelling. For instance, I conducted a rapid assessment of his authorship of academic works on leading research archives namely Researchgate and Google Scholar. Both repositories reveal in him a professor with a very limited network and co-authorship. By implication, any scholar with limited networking and co-authorship will have little room for alternative views, tolerance and thorough analysis. This evidence convinces me as to why he writes less holistically and cares less to get into deep layers of issues.

Kperogi is a good reflection of the proverbial Dubarudu – a character in one of the Hausa riddles. Dubarudu owns a mirror in a town where no one owns any. He alone uses it and no one can use it including his wife. Nigeria is a mirror that we need to share to see our faces and appreciate our different outlooks.

My reading of the three blog articles produced by Kperogi leads me to carry out further analysis of how this versatile writer thinks. Scholars make use of Low-Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) and Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) to determine the thinking capacity of scholars and students. I always assume that the Nobel Prize winners and other high ranking scholars utilise HOTS. Without prejudice, blog articles produced by Kperogi appear to belong to low-order thinking skills.

Then, how is he seen as a low thinker at least in the three articles under consideration? The answer is discernible to all his readers who care. He uses interrogatives such as ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘which’, ‘how many’ and ‘who’ in driving his opinions in the three articles. We could see mentions of places, names of persons, the number of persons, places, when and where in his labelling of religious bigotry by VP Osinbajo. Healthy and informed minds would care only about the HOTS interrogatives such as ‘why’, ‘how’; ‘what evidence is there?’, ‘cause and consequences’ etc. Unfortunately, less informed and sentimental Nigerian readers can easily be misled by the lots of LOTS he always amplifies.

At this point, I am bringing out my real problems with this language scholar. I really find it very nauseating and irritating when he declared in his blog, on March 28, 2022, that he would renounce his Nigeria citizenship if any of the four individuals he listed in an article would become Nigeria’s next president.

The four Nigerians he condemned were Osinbajo, Tinubu, Bello and Wike. How on earth! What depth of hatred is this? What if God has decided one of them to be? To me, this is exotic bigotry, branded intolerance and egregious extremism. Where is his knowledge of the language of contestations, resistance and resilience that characterize the works of Edward Said, Frantz Fanon, Michel Foucault, and Karl Marx? Maybe, I should remind him of the struggles of the Irish activists captured in Feargal Mac Ionnrachtaigh’s Language, Resistance and Revival. Such a Kperogian declaration amounts to cowardice, hopelessness and disillusion. How can I give up my citizenship on account of a tenured president that could be at the mercy of the judiciary, parliament, media and civil society? I never expected him to easily forget how spirited men and women stood against the caudillos (strongmen of Latin America) seen in Pinochet of Chile, Stroessner of Paraguay, Somoza in Nicaragua, and Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. I wish good luck to the listed four and to Kperogi, especially when one forsakes Nigeria for America where black lives matter. The people brutalized by the Nigerian junta yesterday are princes of the Aso Rock Villa of today. That is how time works.

No little thanks to Farooq for giving us a neologism -RCCGification through his April 14th 2022 blog opinion. I was distraught reading that as I saw in it that article tight shortness of sight and breath considering it is coming from a scholar. Saying that one church denomination will overrun Nigeria is a devilish statement. Even Satan might call that the last post-truth reality. Nevertheless, I find solace in Mehdi Hassan’s response to Anne-Marie Waters during Oxford Union Debate On Islam held at the Oxford University in the UK sometime in 2015.  Putting your article in the context of that debate and Mehdi’s response means Kperogi is a big fanatic and bigot. Why? Because RCCGification is the same thing as Islamisation.

Every time a Muslim rules Nigeria some Christian bigots use the thread of Islamisation to weave clothes of suspicion and division. So what’s the difference between the advocates of Islamisation and RCCGification? Is it not flipping sides of the same coin? I would be happier to have as a leader, a just Christian than an unjust Muslim. RCCGification of Islam, Catholicism, Protestants, and traditional religions are all mirages. RCCGification of Nigeria is a charade since this church has not even seen the intergenerational transition of itself let alone overrun others.

Let us be frank with ourselves, it has been a standing tradition of Nigerian political, religious and business leaders to bring close to them the people that they know. Hence, I am unruffled by any list of political appointees associated with the RCCGification agenda. I am always amused by fears of Islamisation and I always see weak and ignorant Christians as its drivers and authors.

When you insist on going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem as Muslims do in Mecca, you are just Islamising Nigerian Christianity. When you say let us block the Muslims or deny them their rights what is your name? Islamaphobe, unjust, conspirator or still a Christian? What I like most about religion is the sweet taste of spirituality. Those forwarding the RCCGification agenda are either mischief makers or ignorant of Nigeria’s social, historical and political institutions. 

When I saw the casket of Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu draped in Nigeria’s flag and carried by the Nigerian military officers, that is the day I realised that Nigeria is bigger than all its citizens. Nigeria overwhelms anybody with any hidden agenda. A critic must learn how not to be like a spider. Its knowledge of design is superb and its nest is outstandingly beautiful. However, the skinny guy builds its nest on the common pathways not minding trapping everybody.

Aliyu Barau, PhD, is an Associate Professor from the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria. He can be reached on Twitter via @aliyubarau.

By Ahmad Deedat Zakari.

Professor of Journalism and Emerging Media at Kennesaw State University, Farooq Kperogi, has faulted the Redeemed Christian Church of God’s interest in partisan politics. 

Kperogi expressed his disdain regarding the church decision on his verified Facebook account on February 10, 2022, in an article titled “RCCG’s Dangerous Foray into Politics for Osinbajo.”

He said he was not surprised at the church’s sudden interest in partisan politics. 

“This isn’t really surprising, frankly, because Pentecostal Christians see Osinbajo as their representative in government and think he is the fulfilment of Pastor Enoch Adeboye’s oft-quoted prediction that one of them would become Nigeria’s president during his lifetime.”

Kperogi also threw a subtle jab at President Muhammadu Buhari, faulting Osinbajo’s rise to the presidency as a ploy to burn the notion that the president is a fanatical Muslim.

He also described Osinbajo as a pentecostalist whose inner circle are his fellow pastors and churchgoers. 

“Osinbajo himself defines his role in government in the narrow terms that his co-pentecostalists see it: as the materialization of a Pentecostal Christian theocratic dream. That’s why his inner political circle is almost entirely made of Yoruba RCCG members,” he wrote.

Kperogi further argued that Osinbajo is not fit to be president. 

“There’s no Christian in government in Nigeria’s history who has ever been as narrow-minded, as culturally clueless, and as insular as Osinbajo, which was why, a senior Yoruba Christian professor told me recently that Osinbajo would “create greater instability as president” than Buhari has because “The Sharia folks will confront [Osinbajo’s] Christian fundamentalism with more violence” which would precipitate disabling communal upheavals.”

Several people have also reacted to the development. 

Aisha Yesufu, a human rights activist, in a Tweet said there is nothing wrong with the church supporting Osinbajo

“So let’s assume RCCG is doing this for Osinbajo, what is wrong with that? Why shouldn’t RCCG support a candidate? If the candidate is good, we vote. If the candidate is bad, we do not vote! Simple! RCCG have (sic) as much right to be interested in politics as anyone else.” She tweeted

Also reacting to the news on the Daily Reality Facebook page is Mallam Muktar, who condemned RCCG’s political move, said that “religious leaders participation in politics will lead to divided allegiance”.

“It will be devastating to hand over Nigeria presidency to religionists/extremists whether pastor or Imam because their first allegiance will invariably go to their faith. They are the propelling force behind the clamour for religious configuration of contesting persons and religious blackmail of our electoral process. Who knows, they might also be behind the continuous blackmail of that notable SW Muslim presidential aspirant and political benefactor of their man, who may be perceived as their major obstacle to the presidential ticket.

“Nigeria doesn’t need such leaders. Nigeria needs [a] liberal Muslim and Christian who only fear God but [is] not bound by a non-displaceable religious creed or allegiance. We should resist and shake off religious politics in 2023 by demystifying religion configuration ticket and by voting for liberal candidates with total disregard to their faith,” he concluded.

By Ambali Abdulkabeer

On January 22, 2022, a seemingly terse letter by one Muhammad Rabiu Jibril to the perennial critic of Nigeria’s asphyxiating political system and its enablers was published by The Daily Reality, an online news medium headquartered in Kano. In the letter, Bashir writes about Kperogi’s consistent verbal umbrage at Nigeria’s geriatric political stagers and asks him to recommend a candidate for Nigerians in the 2023 elections. Bashir implicitly hints that faulting our leaders alone won’t suffice. More worryingly, several people who commented on the letter challenge Kperogi to, in lieu of writing belligerent, “big grammar” articles to condemn all the candidates currently available for Nigerians to pick from in 2023, come out and participate in the laborious task of choosing a leader for Nigerians during elections. That, to me, seems ignorant at best and unwarranted at worst. Here is why.

We need to understand that political participation is in layers. In other words, our involvement in politics, as significant as it is, can take various forms. Some of these include voting during elections, participating in mature political campaigns, conducting political sensitisations especially in places far removed from the mainstream politics, holding political positions, donating money to a political cause (in the interest of collective prosperity), participating in meetings that keep citizens close to their leaders and blogging writing about political happenings.

It’s unarguable that Prof. Farooq Kperogi is renowned for one or all of the above. As a dyed-in-the-wool political commentator and justice advocate, he writes consistently about political issues. His writing has propelled many public decisions that have shaped the country’s economic, social, cultural and political trajectories. His weekly political columns are devoted to critically analysing the myriad of sociopolitical issues bedevilling Nigeria in the last three decades or more. For me, this is a heavier role to assume by someone who, despite not being directly affected by several political diseases in the country, takes his country’s progress as a priority.

The fact that Kperogi has taken it upon himself to right the wrongs of the monsters in power by exposing their egregiously corrupt practices, not minding the consequences, should be enough for us to know that he wants the best for the country.

Ngugi wa Thiong’o, the Kenyan man of letters, aptly reminds us about the responsibility of a writer in his essay “Writers in Politics: The Power of Words and the Words of Power” when he argues that writers in politics operate within complex forces. He refers to them as people who risk many things to create a befittingly just world. One of the paragraphs in the strongly-worded essay is worth quoting here:

“He (writer) must reject, repudiate and negate his roots in the native bourgeoisie and its spokesmen, and finds his true creative links with the pan-African masses over the earth in alliance with all the socialistic forces of the world. He must, of course, be very particular, very involved in a grain of sand, but must also see the world past, present, and future in that grain. He must write with all the vibrations and tremors of the struggles of the working people in Africa…behind him. Yes, his work must show commitment, not to abstract notions of justice and peace, but the actual struggle of African peoples…and be in position to lay the only correct basis for real peace and real justice”.

In all fairness to Prof. Farooq Kperogi, his writing has always been within the prism of the above-identified responsibilities of writers, especially those who are caught up in the terrible sociopolitical conditions of countries like Nigeria. Nigeria is plagued by existential problems, including bad leadership, mass ignorance, and smelling regional biases exemplified in people’s attitudes toward the establishment and others. Therefore, for anything, any writer that informs their people and unrelentingly writes to challenge the status quo by giving the blueprint for emancipation and genuine leadership, which Nigeria truly needs, doesn’t deserve ill-founded condemnation.

This is not to argue that Prof. Kperogi’s political essays are watertight recommendations; it’s hard to discredit the courage and foresight his work forges for concerned Nigerians. Perhaps, this is what Breyten Breytenbach means in his polemical essay titled “The Writer and Responsibility” when he says, “a writer, any writer, to my mind has at least two tasks, sometimes overlapping; he is the questioner and the implacable critic of the mores and attitudes and myths of his society, but he is also the exponent of the aspirations of his people”.

Those who have commented on Jibril’s letter by calling Prof. Kperogi out should know that it takes massive grit to do what he is doing. They should know that his writing is really helpful. Even though he is not in Nigeria, he is doing what many Nigerians who are direct victims of the mess the country is enmeshed in can’t or fail to do. Of course, many scholars in Nigeria should have taken it upon themselves to inform the public through writing and go against the grain in the interest of a better Nigeria.

I would end this essay this way: Voting during elections isn’t the only way to participate in politics. Before voting, voters need to have the required knowledge of the process and understand the qualities a responsible political aspirant should possess. They must also come to terms with the power dynamics in the country and know who is fit to say this and that on their behalf. This is the leitmotif in Kperogi’s writing. So, before launching baseless ad hominem digs at a patriotic Nigerian who is voluntarily doing his part to fight for a country we can all cherish, we should understand that the role of a writer, first and foremost, is to inform. And that is exactly what Prof. Kperogi is doing.

Ambali Abdulkabeer is a writer and critic of contemporary writing. He can be reached via abdulkabeerambali@gmail.com.