The response to Professor Wole Soyinka by SadiqAbacha over the blistering attacks on the memory of his father by the Nobel Laureate would have been absolutely unnecessary. This was the first time a member of the Abacha family had responded directly to the attacks on their father by Professor Soyinka who seems on a lifetime mission to attribute the worst evil imaginable to the late General SaniAbacha. The Professor is entitled to his opinion, but what is not acceptable is the habit of constantly pouring personal vitriol on the memory of a man who had died 15 years ago. A respected public figure like Soyinka should not exceed the boundary of reason. For a young man like SadiqAbacha to come out openly to reply Soyinka suggests that the professor has committed excesses that made the boy feel he no longer owes a duty to tolerate an elder that makes it a habit to be abusing their late father in the foulest and rudest language unbecoming of a Nobel Laureate.
If Soyinka decided to reject the centenary award from the Jonathan administration, it was within his right to do so. It is, however, wrong to use the event to vent his spleen on the memory of a dead man. Professor Soyinka’s consuming hatred of Abacha should be tamed with reason. How could Soyinka discredit the whole award just because he hates Abacha with passion? Hate is a negative emotion and, at his age, Professor Soyinka should keep his mind free from petty and emotionally damaging prejudice. His animosity towards Abacha is incredible. His hatred towards the former military ruler is of an intensity that admits of no virtue. In fact, it is psychologically and emotionally dangerous to be dominated by hate towards anyone.
And despite his repeated and ferocious attacks on Abacha, his children had refrained from replying him not because of fear but out of respect for elders. But elders too have to recognize boundaries and draw a line There is always a danger of losing sympathy if you continue on the path of excesses. Nobody should now preach to Sadiq about African culture and tradition of respecting elders. It is doubtful if persistent abuse of a dead person is part of that culture.
This was the first time in 15 years that any member of the Abacha family had directly responded to Professor Soyinka’s vilification of the memory of their father. Personally, I feel the Abacha family has demonstrated enough patience under maximum provocation. What is particularly worrisome about the Soyinka diatribe against General Abacha was its sheer lack of objectivity. How can the Professor label General Abacha “as a thief of no redeeming virtues”? This melodramatic outburst cannot withstand the basic test of objectivity.
Does it mean that there was nothing good Abacha ever did for Nigeria? Does Soyinka have the valid facts to prove these allegations? Can Soyinka’s wild allegation survive in the crucible of critical inquiry? Can Soyinka prove that Abacha was a total failure as a leader, despite his indelible legacies such as stable exchange rate for the naira, improving our foreign reserve levels, maintaining inflation at mild level and the efficient management of proceeds of petroleum subsidy withdrawal through the Special Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF)?
The Gwarimpa Housing Estate and the National Hospital are living proofs of the positive legacies of the late General Abacha. Yet, Professor Soyinka wants us to believe that Abacha had no “redeeming virtues.” Despite the evils attributed to Abacha by hardened enemies like Professor Soyinka, he did much better than his worst skeptics can admit. The Nobel Laureate should not arrogate to himself the eternal authority to sit in judgement over the conduct of others and decide for Nigerians who is a good a bad leader.
His opinions cannot change the reality of Abacha’s performance record. He does not have a monopoly over the verdict of history over Abacha’s legacy. Professor Soyinka should be blamed for forcing a young man into the ring to defend himself against an implacable and deadly enemy. SadiqAbacha had no options because Soyinka’s persistent abusiveness had removed all civilized means of making him see reason. According to George Orwell, “The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection.” Maybe Professor Soyinka is unassailably perfect! After all, kicking a dead horse is not an act of courage.
Sanda wrote from No. 87, Federal Housing Estate, PunjinSambo, Sokoto. E-mail: [email protected]
