Cardinal John Onaiyekan has hit back at the Presidency over the controversy surrounding his recent television interview, declaring that he did not appear on national television to please the government but to tell Nigerians what he believed was the truth.
The Archbishop Emeritus of Abuja also dismissed the growing attacks against him on social media, saying he had no obligation to respond to every person criticising him because other Nigerians had already spoken in his defence.
I did not go to National TV to please the government. I only went there to tell the truth, Onaiyekan said.
He added that he did not need to respond to those attacking him on social media because other Nigerians had spoken on his behalf.
The Cardinal also made it clear that he was not intimidated by the backlash, stressing that at 82 years old, he was not afraid of anyone.
The latest remarks come after a fierce disagreement between the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria and the Presidency following the bishops’ July 28 meeting with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the State House in Abuja.
During the meeting, the Catholic bishops presented their assessment of the condition of the country, focusing heavily on economic hardship, insecurity and concerns about the future of Nigeria’s democracy.
Onaiyekan later disclosed details of the encounter during an interview on ARISE News, saying the bishops had told the President that the nation was bleeding and that the economy was not helping poor Nigerians.
According to the Cardinal, Tinubu rejected the bishops’ assessment and maintained that the economy was doing well and that his administration was making progress.
Onaiyekan said the bishops did not expect the President to agree with everything they presented. Their responsibility, he explained, was to deliver their message honestly and ensure that the concerns of ordinary Nigerians reached the highest level of government.
He also stressed that the memorandum presented to Tinubu was not the personal opinion of a few bishops.
The document, according to Onaiyekan, represented the collective position of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria and followed extensive consultation, discussion, rewriting and correction.
He said the bishops were not politicians seeking public office and had no personal political ambition. Their intervention, he maintained, was rooted in their responsibility as religious leaders concerned about the lives and welfare of Nigerians.
A major part of the controversy has centred on whether Onaiyekan was right to publicly disclose details of what had been a closed door meeting.
The Presidency strongly objected to his television appearance.
Presidential aides Temitope Ajayi and Daniel Bwala criticised the Cardinal’s decision to publicly recount his version of the meeting. Ajayi described the move as inappropriate and argued that the confidentiality and dignity of such an engagement should have been respected.
The Presidency also rejected the suggestion that Tinubu was being shielded from the realities of the country.
Ajayi argued that the President receives information from newspapers, television, intelligence agencies, government officials and people across the country. He maintained that the President was therefore capable of forming his own assessment of Nigeria’s condition and was not dependent on the Catholic bishops to tell him what was happening.
Bwala went further by questioning the political neutrality of Onaiyekan and alleging that the Cardinal’s position was connected to political sympathies surrounding the 2027 election.
The Presidency’s response followed another major claim by Onaiyekan.
The Cardinal warned that the Tinubu administration appeared determined to retain power in the 2027 general election by all means.
He also expressed concern about the possibility of Nigeria moving towards a one party dominant political system and argued that democracy could not survive without credible elections and a level playing field for political parties.
Onaiyekan questioned public confidence in the neutrality of the Independent National Electoral Commission and called for reforms capable of strengthening trust in the electoral process.
President Tinubu had told the bishops during their meeting that INEC was neutral and rejected suggestions that the electoral commission was being used to intimidate political opponents.
The President also defended his administration’s economic record, pointing to what he described as progress in stabilising the economy and moving Nigeria away from the difficult conditions inherited by his government.
That response, however, did not convince Onaiyekan.
The Cardinal has maintained that many Nigerians are still experiencing severe hardship and that government leaders must pay closer attention to the reality faced by ordinary citizens rather than relying solely on official statistics or positive reports.
He also expressed concern that some people around the President might not be giving him the full picture of what Nigerians are experiencing.
The dispute has attracted support for Onaiyekan from several prominent Nigerians.
Former Transportation Minister Rotimi Amaechi defended the Cardinal, saying Onaiyekan was not supporting any political party but was concerned about poverty, hardship and corruption.
Amaechi also accused the government of trying to intimidate the Cardinal, arguing that religious leaders have a responsibility to speak when they believe citizens are suffering.
The Catholic Lay Council of Nigeria also came to Onaiyekan’s defence, rejecting the Presidency’s accusation of a breach of trust and arguing that matters affecting the lives and future of more than 200 million Nigerians cannot remain permanently confined behind closed doors.
The controversy has therefore grown beyond a disagreement between one Cardinal and the Presidency.
It has become a wider national debate over whether religious leaders should publicly challenge government policies, whether private meetings between national leaders and religious institutions should remain confidential, and how freely influential Nigerians can speak about the performance of government.
For Onaiyekan, however, the central issue remains simple.
He believes the bishops went to the President to tell him what they believed Nigerians were experiencing. He believes they had a responsibility to speak honestly about hardship, insecurity, democracy and the 2027 elections. And he has made clear that criticism from the Presidency or attacks on social media will not force him to withdraw his position.
His latest declaration has added fresh fuel to an already intense national conversation over the Tinubu administration, with the Cardinal insisting that his intervention was not about pleasing government or supporting a political party.
It was, in his words, about telling the truth.
He argued that the perception of a predetermined election could produce voter apathy and damage the legitimacy of whatever government
The Cardinal’s intervention has ensured that questions about economic hardship, insecurity, youth unemployment and electoral credibility remain firmly in the national conversation as Nigeria moves closer to another crucial political season.
