Okay, I woke up this morning and noticed that, London-based news magazine, The Economist was trending on Nigerian Twitter for calling former President Goodluck Jonathan “an ineffectual buffoon”. Five minutes after, I wrote this piece just to sound off some thoughts on this unfortunate decline in editorial standards by this respected media organisation.
1. In referring to Dr. Goodluck Jonathan in such a derogatory term – buffoon means fool in political speak – referencing a unproven propaganda connotation that he allowed official under his government to “steal Nigeria dry”, the paper was actually referring to Lai Mohammed’s famous story about “55 people stealing trillions from Nigeria”. If the paper had any local intelligence source in Nigeria, it would have know that this person is actually called “Lie Mohammed” – a well celebrated LIAR and propagandist in the class of Hitler’s Goebbels!
2. I am therefore shocked that such a respected news platform would use a man with a defective character, whose own political godfather, “the chairman at Bourdillon Plc”, is the epitome of “high class and celebrated corruption in Nigeria”. Apparently, some of us “Africans” respect these white people, so much so, that we don’t bother questioning their vouched level of intelligence and intellectualism. It is pretty much the same way US Secretary of State John Kerry quoted this same defective source at the World Economic Forum (WEF) last week. What’s next? Probably, President Obama also quoting an infamous liar as his source!
3. It should also be recalled that this same The Economist quoted folks like Lamido Sanusi, Charles Soludo, Oby Ezekwesili as authoritative sources when they were bandying around all manner of ridiculous figures with partisan colouration in the election year and the year leading up to it. These figures, which have since been debunked by investigation and audits done by credible global accounting firms like KPMG and PriceWaterHouseCoopers, were and orchestrated attempt to bury the administration of Jonathan. Seriously, I expect much more from a newspaper like The Economist. I don’t think it is too much to expect them to stick to facts and do some research before putting out information that is not only mischievous in intent, but actionable too.
4. The Economist also went to say, “Buhari was currently making all the mistakes he made in 1983” – but the paper failed to remind the world that it was the ONLY global newspaper that ENDORSED General Muhammadu Buhari during the 2015 presidential elections; an election in which he ran against sitting President Jonathan.
5. I think it is time for The Economist to admit publicly that they are the real ineffectual buffoons for approving for the Nigerian presidency, a man whose continual progression – in his private and public life – never betrayed the same failed personality he portrayed when he was military head of state 30 years ago. A man who never presented to the nation an economic blueprint with which he intended to use in salvaging the nation. A man who refused to attend a public debate with his incumbent rival to prove what he would do better; and basically rode to power on the back of an opposition that used negative propaganda, blackmail, and looting of state resources to achieve its aims!
6. The Economist goes on to focus on the Nigerian economy under their endorsed candidate, President Buhari, exposing the same directionless policies that some of us have written about copiously in Nigeria. By so doing, the newspaper obtained an automatic licence to join the team of #WailingWailers – an elite group of citizens who “remain bitter for losing the elections” to The Economist’s “‘anointed” candidate.
The Economist are also (in)famous for never publishing rejoinders to their articles. I have sent them several ones in the past and I won’t bother doing so again. Perhaps, this time, it appears that it is time for one of the Buharists to one in an attempt to launder the image of their “‘hero” in response to the “crude tactics” the newspaper says Buhari is deploying in running the Nigerian nation. To them, I wish good luck in that regard.
In conclusion, therefore, I submit that I will not bother about the newspaper’s qualification of Goodluck Jonathan because history will continually place our beloved former President in an elite class of good-hearted African leaders. Without a doubt, Jonathan is a rare breed and The Economist will soon find competing intellectual platforms are celebrating him. Those ones are certainly not ineffectual buffoons like The Economist.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.