There’s been so much hoolabaloo on Tinubu’s visit to Chatham House and I’m still wondering why.
Several takes have come out of the visit and the visit is still the talk of the town even 48hrs after. Yet, PDP candidates held a reunion of aspirants at Arise TV debate to discuss what they plan to do should they become president and none of them could come up with anything meaningful to warrant discussions or next day’s headlines. But all eyes are on Tinubu’s visit. What more indication do we need to know Tinubu is the man to beat?
Issues came up about him delegating members of his team to respond to some questions. I’ve not heard one person complain that the people he delegated couldn’t answer or did a bad job of it. The man has clearly exhibited once again as he did when he was governor of Lagos state that he’s a team player and everyone on board knows and understands the mission. This ought to be something commendable but “bad belle” won’t let them see straight.
Tinubu has once again from his visit, proven he’s a pacesetter. When I hear people complaining it’s never been done before to delegate another to answer a question. Now here it is; an African of Nigerian decent has come to UK to teach new ways. Why must we always do things the way it’s done by the colonial masters? Are we forbidden as Africans to be innovative to show new ways of doing things and be accepted? Why must everything be the white man’s way? Rather than extol this man’s virtue and his confident sense of innovation, we are shouting “kill him kill him “. If I wasn’t his supporter already, his performance at the Chatham House would have been for me a reason to convert.
What really is the grouse here? Many were waiting for a gaff or for him to say something they could joke about or for him to slip in his speech so they have something to laugh about, but they were all disappointed. The man gave an excellent speech with no hick up, and that was annoying so they latched on the fact he delegated some his responses.
They also failed to let us know he answered some questions. Could they fault his response about the diaspora voting? Did he not sound like a man obviously in the know of the challenges?
But that was ignored because it will be in Tinubu’s favour to admit that. He responded clearly about his background and has challenged them to come take his DNA. How about the insight he gave about the presidential candidate that’s been rumored not to be a Nigerian? That also didn’t make news. He was also clear when he said he knew politics is like playing in the dirt and he has accepted it’s nature but intends to come out top. That didn’t sound like a man without capacity.
Why must we always deride our best only to cry “had I known” later. We have lost many great men to this kind of shenanigans. Tai Solarin is a classic example. It was all about why he had always wore khaki but sold his soul because he wore people’s bank Ankara but forgetting his great achievements with the people’s bank or the leaders he raised at his Mayflower school. It was sad that a great man would be reduced by same people he was striving to help because of his choice of garment. Are we really truly okay as a people?
In spite of the wonderful submissions by Tinubu in his speech and the fantastic road maps he drew, we beclouded ourselves and serious minded citizens with how come he delegated a response. Were the responses we got cogent or flimsy?
I’m quite delighted that for a man they claimed is senile, has gone to Chatham House to show the oyinbos that there are many ways to skin a cat and not necessarily their old ways. I dare say in the nearest future, this will become a trend and many leaders won’t shy away from Chatham House invites, knowing there’s no law to compel them to speak English or have to respond directly. What if Tinubu had opted for an interpreter? Would it have made any difference?
Why must we always crucify our true and genuine leaders in the name if envy?
Member, APC PCC Committee on Grassroots Engagement and Mobilization