During an interview on Channels TV on Monday, Wole Soyinka responded to critics who have been taunting him to “say something” about the present administration. In the interview, he said, “People should stop trying to work on my timetable for me. I had not swallowed an alarm clock. I don’t see why I should put my alarm on and say: ‘One year has passed, now, I must make an assessment’ if there is nothing I feel like talking about and if I am busy elsewhere.” Following his earlier statement when he visited Bola Tinubu at Aso Rock in 2023, that he only criticises a government after its first year, it must be disappointing to his monitors that they cannot put their hands in his mouth and force out words.

To be fair to him, Soyinka has not been exactly silent on Nigeria’s situation. He criticised Tinubu’s decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State, but his intervention was tame, lame, and lacking characteristic edginess. The Soyinka who once referred to President Goodluck Jonathan as “Nebuchadnezzar” because of a police siege on the National Assembly resorted to prevarications on Rivers’ state of emergency. Time truly changes everything. If Jonathan were Nebuchadnezzar, the enslaving king who lost his sanity at the height of his brutal reign, then to which biblical figure can one similarly liken Tinubu, under whose watch Nigerians have confronted a severe economic crisis and recorded an unparalleled number of human rights abuses? Rehoboam, perhaps. That was the king who ill-advisedly refused to lighten the strenuous taxes his predecessor had tolled the people, incited a public rebellion, and ended up balkanising a united kingdom.

Everyone, including the critics taunting Soyinka for bringing less than the blunt edges of his sharp wit to political discourses, knows he is in an awkward situation under the present administration. He and Tinubu are friends, and their close relationship reportedly started during their NADECO days. Ordinarily, it is hard for a social critic to take down a close friend in power. It is even harder for a man like Soyinka, who has set a high bar of radical public engagement, to continue to meet his own standards now that his buddy is the President. While he has built a towering profile around being an anti-establishment figure, he is part of the political establishment now, even if he does not hold any official position in Tinubu’s administration. He can no longer maintain his previous ideological stance on political issues, and he should make that clear to the public rather than promising to speak when he finally has something to say. There is nothing he will ever have to say on any issue that has to do with Tinubu’s administration that will not be considered tainted and even cynically prejudged, so why bother?

Perhaps if Soyinka had known that a day would come when Tinubu would become the President, he would have been more measured in his criticisms of previous administrations. He would not be in the awkward position where they jab him to prove his patriotic commitment to the nation by criticising an oppressive government now run by his dear friend. The past cannot be helped, but he should also be able to clearly state to the public on whose behalf he has advocated for years, why he would hang up his boxing gloves this time around. It will not be a crime, nor will it mean he has lost the patriotic zeal that pushed him into lifelong social advocacy; it would just be practical under the circumstances. It is not enough to say, “I will speak when I have something to say,” but you must also be accountable enough to the public to point out your closeness to the political subject, how it compromises you, and why you would take a pass on political commentary. Without being upfront about why you have nothing to say during an oppressive reign when you would have had more than enough to say if your friends were not involved, you damage your public image and legacy. Respecting the public enough to be honest about your limits under the circumstances means you can frame your actions as courtesy to a friend rather than leave them to be interpreted as cowardice or hypocrisy.

One of the several fallouts of the ascendance of the All Progressives Congress to the national stage from being a regional party is that it forcefully retired many anti-establishment figures. Many of them cut their critical teeth railing against the Peoples Democratic Party machine that was in power for 16 years. While at it, they also fraternised with the Alliance for Democracy/APC, the political party that also defined itself against the state. Their mutual affiliation was logical for reasons ranging from ethnic sentiment to the lush funds Tinubu provided from Lagos’ purse. When the APC won the Presidency in 2015, many of them found themselves in the uncomfortable position where they could either maintain their oppositional stance (and risk offending their APC allies) or become apologists for a government that duplicated every political action for which they once attacked the PDP. Before many could figure out their roles under the dispensation, the dynamics of Nigerian political opposition changed. The old guard was replaced by a younger generation who quickly made it clear they would have nothing to do with them.

Soyinka was one of those who soldiered on, although one can argue that his criticisms of the Muhammadu Buhari administration curiously coincided with the sidelining of Tinubu among the APC establishment. While I do not think he is a card-carrying member of the APC, Soyinka’s political posture since 1999 has favoured the AD/APC political class more than any other collective in Nigeria. Now that the same Tinubu has made it to the Presidency, Soyinka is in an even more complicated place. There is no winning for him under the circumstances other than acknowledging that some personal relationships necessarily compromise us. The writer E.M. Forster once said, “If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” This should be one of the times when choosing your friend over your country is the right thing to do.

This is not the first time friendship has put Soyinka in an awkward position where he has to self-justify. In 2016, during one of the many squabbles between Rivers Governor Rotimi Amaechi and his successor Nyesom Wike, it was revealed that the former had spent N82m (about $165,000) to host him to a dinner. Wike’s boys pulled that detail out from official records for no other reason than to embarrass Soyinka, whose intervention in the Rivers matter was perceived as fighting Amaechi’s battles. Soyinka’s response was to deny it was his “business to probe into the catering and logistical implications of the hundreds of institutions and governments all over the world to whom I acknowledge an immense debt of unsolicited recognition over the years”. Yes, while no reasonable person expects a Nobel Prize winner to ask such questions when he is hosted at a dinner, the right thing would have been to condemn such an inordinate expense made in your name. By not calling out Amaechi’s corruption, he fell into Wike’s well-laid trap to make him choose between his friend and the strict moral principles for which he is renowned.

Now he is in another situation that warrants choosing between his friend and his principles, and I suggest he chooses the former. We can borrow the immortal wisdom of Ogbuefi Ezeudu in Things Fall Apart, who told Okonkwo: “That boy calls you father. Do not bear a hand in his death to remind him this unpleasant task needs not to involve him.” Soyinka was right that other people—the Falanas, Sowores, and the Baiyewus—are already doing a good job without him. The thing is, by looking away from his friend’s administrative shortcomings, he will also be losing the moral right to comment on any other leader after Tinubu. He should make peace with that.

Punch