*Says CBCN Meeting With Tinubu Not Secret

A CATHOLIC priest, Ugochukwu Ugwoke, has defended Archbishop Emeritus of Abuja, John Cardinal Onaiyekan, over criticism by the Presidency that he acted improperly by speaking publicly after a private meeting between President Bola Tinubu and members of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria (CBCN).

    In a point-by-point response to an opinion article by Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Temitope Ajayi, titled ‘Cardinal Onaiyekan’s Abuse of Clerical Privilege,’ Ugwoke argued that neither law nor Catholic teaching prohibits bishops from publicly discussing issues of national importance after meeting government officials.

    Recall that Ajayi had accused Onaiyekan of breaching the confidentiality and dignity of the meeting by granting a television interview where he commented on the content of the discussion, insisting: “The meeting between President Tinubu and the Catholic Bishops of Nigeria was not a sacramental confession that requires utmost secrecy, a diplomatic negotiation under secrecy, or a legally confidential proceeding.”

    He stated that “unless the participants expressly agreed to confidentiality, there is no legal or moral principle that absolutely prevents either party from commenting on the discussion afterward,” arguing that Catholic bishops have a pastoral obligation to speak on matters affecting society, as the Church’s social teaching encourages engagement whenever justice, human dignity, security and the common good are threatened.

    “Catholic bishops are not merely private citizens expressing personal opinions; by virtue of their pastoral office, they have a responsibility to teach on moral and social issues,” Ugwoke stated, adding that speaking publicly after the meeting should not be interpreted as a breach of trust.

    “Providing one’s understanding of a discussion is different from revealing confidential state secrets. Democratic engagement often includes explaining to the faithful what was discussed, particularly when the meeting concerns issues affecting millions of citizens,” he said.

    On Ajayi’s defence of Tinubu’s economic and security policies, Ugwoke said acknowledging government achievements does not prevent religious leaders from pointing out shortcomings, noting: “One may acknowledge improvements, while still concluding that much more remains to be done.     

    “Recognising government achievements and identifying persistent failures are not mutually exclusive positions.”

    He shut down the Presidency’s argument that Tinubu’s access to intelligence briefings makes external criticism less necessary, saying independent voices remain indispensable in any constitutional democracy, adding: “Security reports, economic data, religious leaders, civil society, academics, journalists and ordinary citizens each offer different perspectives.

    “No single source possesses the whole truth.”

    The priest said while the President has access to classified information unavailable to the public, democratic accountability requires government actions to remain open to scrutiny, sating: “The President undoubtedly possesses information unavailable to the public.

    “However, democratic accountability also requires that government decisions remain open to public scrutiny and legitimate criticism.”

    Still on the issue of confidentiality, Ugwoke insisted that if public officials are free to explain their perspectives after meetings, religious leaders should enjoy the same liberty, provided they “do so truthfully, respectfully and without disclosing genuinely confidential matters.”

    He also dismissed the suggestion that bishops should avoid commenting publicly on national affairs because of their clerical office, saying history shows that many bishops have constructively challenged governments while remaining faithful to both the gospel and constitutional authority, as “the virtues expected of bishops such as prudence, temperance and wisdom do not require silence in the face of national concerns.”

    Ugwoke stressed that the debate should not focus on whether Onaiyekan spoke publicly, but on the substance of his remarks, whether what he said was truthful, fair and served the common good.

     According to him: “In a constitutional democracy, respectful dialogue between religious leaders and civil authorities should continue not only behind closed doors but, when appropriate, also in the public square, just as Cardinal Onaiyekan did.”