Rejoinder - The Nation - How Ayokunle won CAN Election
25th June, 2019
The Editor
The Nation Newspaper
Lagos
The Editor
The Nation Newspaper
Lagos
Dear Sir,
REJOINDER TO THE NATION NEWSPAPER:“HOW CAN PRESIDENT AYOKUNLE WAS RE-ELECTED”
For the second time in two months, the NCEF is
compelled to write and correct wrong impressions created about the
Christian Elders by
journalists of The Nation Newspaper. On 18th April, 2019, the
NCEF had to issue a rejoinder to an article by Mr. Sam Omatseye titled
“What kind of Elders?” Again, in the wake of the recently conducted
election of CAN, Mr. Sunday Oguntola, another journalist with The
Nation newspaper made comments in his article “How CAN President
Ayokunle Was Re-elected”, published in The Nation on Sunday
23rd June, 2019 which NCEF considers disturbing and should be
corrected. We hope The Nation would publish this rejoinder the same way
it published the original article.
NCEF is taking these painstaking measures bearing in
mind that history is being written in all that is evolving in the
Nigerian Church,
particularly under a Government that openly harbors anti-Christian
sentiments judging by the tepid response it has accorded the genocide
going on in
Christian dominated areas of the country. In recent times, more
prominent Nigerians have lent their voices to condemn what is now openly
described as
“Fulanization” and “Islamization” agenda in Nigeria. These concerns are
in the public domain.
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to assure
Nigerian Christians through this rejoinder that NCEF is “not fighting
CAN”,
neither is it involved in any contest for temporal power or influence in
the Church. On the contrary, NCEF is advocating for CAN and for
Christianity.
The Christian Elders, having full knowledge of what is going on in the
apex body of Christianity in Nigeria, are actually resisting
mismanagement and
the abuse of CAN. It is clear to the Christian Elders that if they do
not arise and intervene, there is a generation of Christian leaders
determined
to compromise the collective interests of all Nigerian Christians to
satisfy personal selfish interests. In the recent past, there have been
attempts
to make the advocacy of NCEF seem like power tussle with some CAN
Officials. This is nothing but misrepresentation of facts.
NCEF had refrained from making comments about the
election of CAN after giving its counsel to the Church before the CAN
election. As Christian
Elders, the NCEF has fulfilled its obligations to the Church and to
Nigerian Christians and felt no need to comment again about the outcome
of the
election. However, the article under reference, which NCEF perceives to
be an attempt at historical revisionism, is compelling the NCEF to make
the
following clarifications, for record purposes.
NCEF is not unaware that Mr. Oguntola, the author of
the article, is a member of the Baptist Convention, the denomination
headed by Rev.
Ayokunle, as President of the Convention. This may in part be
responsible for the skewed narrative of the role NCEF played in ensuring
that truth and
righteousness remain paramount in Christian Administration in Nigeria.
It is therefore uncharitable for anyone to seek to present the good done
by the
NCEF as evil.
ISSUE No. 1
“While his critics backed by the elders’ forum wanted CAN to endorse a candidate between President Muhammadu Buhari and
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Atiku Abubakar, his supporters opted for a more conservative approach.”
This statement is misleading. Apart from being
incorrect, it is certainly a deliberate effort, most probably backed by
Rev. Ayokunle to distort
narratives.
The intention of the author in making this incorrect
statement is to seek to equate NCEF with the politics of Rev. Ayokunle
which is geared at
undermining Christian interest. NCEF has always put the interest of
Christians first in its advocacy.
Where and when did NCEF opt to endorse either Atiku or
Buhari as Presidential candidate BEFORE the 2019 General Election? All
the political
intervention of NCEF was aimed at building Christian consensus so that a
Christian candidate can emerge as the Third Force. This goal was behind
the
meeting NCEF held on Friday 30th November, 2018 with thirteen
(13) Christian Presidential Candidates with the objective of persuading
them to agree on a consensus candidate. The Christian Presidential
Candidates gave NCEF the mandate to endorse one of them which NCEF met
to
deliberate on in Abuja on 10th December, 2018. It was on this very day that CAN under Rev. Ayokunle unceremoniously intruded into the
process and summoned its version of political meeting which included two Muslim candidates.
The intrusion of Rev. Ayokunle into the political
consensus process formed part of the Report of NCEF titled FACTORS
HINDERING CHRISTIAN
POLITICAL CONSENSUS FOR 2019 ELECTIONS in which the Christian Elders
openly affirm that Rev. Ayokunle deliberately frustrated Christian
political
consensus. The position of the NCEF on a Christian President was not
based on religious bigotry or discrimination but on the simple
realization that a
jihad has been launched in Nigeria. Under jihad, every Muslim is
expected to participate in, or at the least, support those waging the
jihad. NCEF
concluded that under the circumstances, a Christian President would be
required by Nigeria to put an end to the jihad and restore security and
peace
to Nigeria. AFTER the Election, which was full of intrigues and
manipulations, NCEF encouraged Alhaji Atiku Abubakar to challenge the
result since it
was clear the Democratic process was flawed. This is in line with the
advocacy of NCEF for Democracy.
Therefore, it is very wrong, for The Nation to claim
that NCEF wanted Rev. Ayokunle to endorse either President Buhari or
Alhaji Atiku. The
statement is not correct.
ISSUE No. 2
“Expectedly, the CAN President fired back the salvo, alleging he was being blackmailed for choosing not to mortgage resources of
the association to a few vested cronies.”
The statement above is meant to cast aspersion at the
NCEF that it is “fighting” for money which Rev. Ayokunle refused to
release to
it. The author is most uncharitable to the distinguished Christian
Elders.
It
is absurd for anyone to write that Rev. Ayokunle complained of being
“blackmailed for choosing not to mortgage resources of the association
to a
few vested cronies.” The attempt to whitewash the President of Baptist
Convention is pathetic. Ironically, in the same article, the author
wrote, “Otubu, who served as Vice National President, fought Ayokunle to
standstill, accusing him of corruption, high-handedness and
embezzlement.”
Could a man whom the Vice President of CAN “fought to standstill” on charges of “corruption, high-handedness and
embezzlement” complain that he was being “blackmailed” for “not mortgaging the resources of the association to a few
cronies”? Upon which moral ground would Rev. Ayokunle stand to make such statement?
The evidences of fraud, conversion of CAN funds,
violation of CAN Constitution to aid corruption, under this CAN
President, abound. The Apostle
Bamgbola Committee attempted to sweep these evils under the carpet by
producing a one-sided report, but it did not work.
What would have worked is a simple, “I am sorry; it
was an error of judgment.” Genuine repentance and restitution would have
resolved these issues since July 2017. What has exacerbated the
contention in CAN is the unrepentant attitude of some CAN Officials. It
is written,
“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and
forsaketh them shall have mercy.” Pro. 28: 13
The more they attempt to suppress the truth, the more
it bounces back in their faces. Truly, it is a sad season for
Christianity in
Nigeria.
Nigerian Christians are yet to be persuaded that
leadership is crucial to their survival. If their leadership is
compromised and treacherous, it
would affect their survival under jihad. Rather than maintain the
legendary attitude of docility, the time to act is now; it is of no use
declaring
prayer and fasting when the enemy has completely conquered them.
ISSUE No. 3
“One, he had the backing of arguably the
largest and most powerful bloc in the association, the Christian Council
of Nigeria
(CCN), … The bloc has produced three of the last six presidents of the
association. The Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria (CSN) comes second with
two former presidents…”
The information above needs to be corrected and placed
in proper perspective. It is CSN, (the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria)
that has produced
three CAN Presidents as follows: Cardinal Ekandem, Cardinal Okogie and
Cardinal Onaiyekan. The CCN (Christian Council of Nigeria) has produced
as CAN
President, Rt. Rev. Akinola and Prelate Mbang. Rev. Ayokunle is
currently the third CAN President produced by CCN.
Having clarified the above, it should be stated that
equity and justice breed unity and peace. CAN is made up of five Blocs
which have held the
office of the President since 1976 as follows:
CSN – 22 years
CCN – 15 years (as of 2019)
CPFN/PFN – 6 years
TEKAN/ECWA – 0 years
OAIC – 0 years
NCEF, in 2015, had counseled that to promote equity
and balance in the body of Christ, as prerequisite to strengthen unity
and harmony, the two
Blocs that have not had the opportunity to produce the President of the
Association should be permitted to do so. NCEF came to this conclusion
after
its Unity and Reconciliation Meetings with all the five Blocs of CAN in
2015 and this issue was raised by some of the Blocs as one of the
factors
hindering Christian unity in Nigeria. In the 2016 and 2019 CAN
elections, this sensitive issue was repeatedly ignored.
It
would have taken nothing out of the Blocs that have produced the
President of CAN for many years to permit other Blocs the opportunity to
do so. This
would have strengthened Christian unity and promote brotherly love.
It
is disturbing that Christians that are most vociferous about
restructuring and equity in Nigeria find it difficult to practice equity
within the
Church. This is unfortunate. With the nomination of Rev. Ayokunle, we
are faced with a scenario in which CCN Bloc wants to produce the
President of
CAN for a total of 18 years while TEKAN/ECWA and OAIC Blocs would not
have had such opportunity at all. This realization formed part of the
rationale
for the request of the 63 Christian Groups in AFD (Advocates for Freedom
and Democracy) that a Christian leader from the North should be
permitted to
produce the next President of CAN.
NCEF wonders how this lopsided arrangement could
promote “That they all may be one” which is the Motto of CAN. One could
only pray
that Nigerian Christians would summon sufficient courage to address this
issue, more so, when the nominated CAN President is morally challenged.
There
are better candidates who could do this job.
ISSUE No. 4
“Many well-meaning Christians were disgusted by the mudslinging that characterised the electioneering
activities.”
Before the CAN Election, NCEF issued a statement
titled “CAN: TIME TO HALT THE DRIFT. In the statement, NCEF, as
Christian stakeholders,
issued an “abridged performance report” of the first term of Rev.
Ayokunle and strongly recommended that he should not be permitted to
continue in office as President of CAN. For a man whose first term was
filled with contention, strife, division, violation of CAN Constitution
and
allegations of corruption in an organization whose Motto is: “That they
all may be one”, such demand is appropriate. After the NCEF had
written, the Coalition of 63 Christian Groups called Advocates for
Freedom and Democracy (AFD) also wrote to CAN Officials recommending
that Rev.
Ayokunle should not contest re-election. The 63 Christian Groups
suggested that someone from the North, the area most affected by the
jihad in Nigeria
should be permitted to lead the Church under the present circumstances.
It
is very unfortunate that these interventions are included in what The
Nation newspaper is referring to as “mudslinging”. NCEF wonders when
speaking the truth has become “mudslinging”. Should Christian Elders
fold their arms and permit morally challenged persons to lead the
Church? Then, why are they Elders? Culturally and Scripturally the
Elders are meant to act as moral standards and bastions of truth. Rather
than
commend NCEF for playing its role, uncharitable persons in the Church
chose to disrespect and dishonor them.
Exposing the truth and giving correction to the
society is also the function of the media of which The Nation newspaper
itself is a member.
Would it be right to describe the exposures of misconducts in the
society and in the polity by The Nation newspaper as “mudslinging”? To
add to the riddle, Mr. Oguntola is himself a member of the AFD and he
was aware of the letter of the 63 Christian Groups but made no attempt
either to
object or stop it. It is therefore curious that the first salvo of his
article was fired at what he himself was involved in. So, who was doing
the
“mudslinging”?
ISSUE No. 5
“Ahima didn’t not only have access to resources, … The combination of ethnic sentiments and heavy war chest worked
for Ahima.”
This is misinformation. It was actually the other way round.
Decency would not permit the mention of details of the
last CAN Election but the fact remains that the CAN Election was
heavily monetized and
credible sources in the Church claim that various sums ranging from
N300,000, N500,000, and N1,000,000 were allegedly offered by the
incumbent
to some delegates to secure their vote. Even before the election, there
was a report placed in the public domain that the incumbent was
offering
some delegates N300,000 in exchange for vote. To the best of our
knowledge, there has been no rebuttal of the news item.
Nigerian Christians should be interested to
investigate these allegations as well as ascertain the source of the
money. Decency would not permit
certain information to be shared by NCEF in the public domain. Nigerian
Christians should cultivate the practice of demanding accountability
from
Church leaders. Total acquiescence to whatever Church leaders do is what
brought Christianity to its current deplorable condition. The attitude
of
folding the arms and doing nothing while unrighteousness multiplies in
the Church is not a Christian virtue. Christians are commanded to
“resist” evil.
It
should be stressed that this is not how Christian leadership should be
appointed. This is degrading the Body of Christ and this generation of
Christian leaders shall answer before the Lord for this infraction on
holiness and righteousness. Everyone who participated in promoting
unrighteousness in the Nigerian Church shall answer before the Lord. The
National Assembly of CAN has the oversight to look critically into this
election.
CONCLUSION
Contrary to the title of the article under
consideration that Rev. Ayokunle has been “re-elected” as CAN President,
the fact in this
case is that Rev. Ayokunle has NOT yet been re-elected. According to the
Constitution of CAN, Article 14, d (iii, iv & v) he has merely been
“nominated” by NEC to be the next President of CAN. Article 14, d (v)
makes it clear that his nomination can still be nullified by the
National Assembly of CAN. Until the National Assembly ratifies the
election done by NEC on 18th June, 2019, it is not valid. The
National Assembly will meet in July to confirm or disannul the election.
On that day, the decision shall be taken whether Christianity shall
survive
in Nigeria or not.
In
view of the crucial need to resolve the leadership crisis currently
plaguing the Nigerian Church in the past three years, Nigerian
Christians should
note that Article 14, b (iii) of the CAN Constitution stipulates that
any candidate for the position of the President of CAN should “Be
a leader without reproach, having a good reputation and personal integrity …” This is the Constitutional provision.
There is still an opportunity for Christians to look
into this matter and take decisions based on truth and righteousness.
There would be no
need to be passive and indifferent only to start convening prayers and
fasting when the consequence comes upon Christians. A stitch in time
saves
nine.
NCEF wishes to assure Nigerian Christians that it is
not “fighting CAN”. The Association is our collective institution. What
NCEF is
resisting is mismanagement of CAN to satisfy personal selfish interests
at the expense of Christian blood and Christian lives. There is too much
at
stake for Christianity to accommodate a corrupt and compromised
leadership in its apex body. The past three years have been dark days
for Christianity
in Nigeria. Because of the great diversity of the Nigerian Church,
Christianity in Nigeria shall always require a central body. This
central body
should be manned by men of integrity who shun corruption and filthy
lucre.
In
this period when the Church is facing existential threat from forces of
jihad, Christianity requires leadership that is above board and
committed to
the progress of the Church and well being of the people of God. NCEF
regrets very much all the contention that has been brought into the
Church by
unsanctified leadership and prays that Nigerian Christians will summon
the moral courage to insist on leadership like Jesus Christ in the apex
body of
Christianity in Nigeria.
God bless the Nigerian Church.
For and on behalf of NCEF,
Bosun Emmanuel
Secretary,
24th June, 2019
Secretary,
24th June, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment