By Chibuike Nwabuko
In politics, disagreement is normal. Criticism of those in power is healthy for democracy. But what happens when the loudest critics suddenly become the most enthusiastic defenders, not because facts changed, but because appointments were offered?
The recent transformations of Daniel Bwala, Femi Fani-Kayode and Reno Omokri fall squarely into this troubling category. These were individuals who, not too long ago, were among the most vocal critics of President Bola Tinubu. Their words were sharp, their condemnations forceful, and their arguments presented as matters of principle. Yet today, many of those same statements are being renounced or quietly buried.
Why? Because political appointments have entered the equation.
There is something profoundly disappointing about watching public figures so casually lick their own vomit. The explanations offered that new perspectives have emerged, that political realities have changed, or that national interest demands unity. ring hollow when contrasted with the intensity and certainty of their previous attacks.
A person of conviction may change his mind when confronted with new evidence. But abandoning previously declared principles the moment personal opportunity appears is not evolution, it is opportunism.
Ironically, the political calculus behind these appointments may be even more strategic than it appears. By bringing some of his fiercest critics into his orbit, President Tinubu has effectively neutralized them. More than that, he has turned them into living exhibits of political inconsistency. Their own voices are now being used to contradict their past words.
From a strategist’s perspective, it is a brilliant move.
Whatever moral burden or criticism once trailed the president from their earlier attacks is now diluted. After all, if the same men who once described him in the harshest terms are now defending him, the credibility of their earlier accusations inevitably collapses. In the process, the burden of explanation shifts from the president to them.
History is rarely kind to those whose words are not their bond. Public discourse depends on people who speak based on facts, principle and conviction, not on whichever direction the political wind is blowing.
When public commentators demonstrate that their outrage can be switched on and off depending on access to power, they do not merely damage their reputations. They weaken the very culture of accountability that democracy requires.
Years ago, former President Goodluck Jonathan suggested the idea of creating a national “Hall of Fame” to celebrate exemplary citizens and a “Hall of Shame” to remind society of the consequences of dishonourable conduct.
It was an interesting proposal.
If such halls were ever built in Nigeria, the faces of Daniel Bwala, Femi Fani-Kayode and Reno Omokri would likely be displayed prominently in the Hall of Shame, not because they criticised a president. Criticism is necessary in any democracy.
Rather, it would be because they abandoned their own words so easily.
In the end, every public figure must choose how history will remember them. Some choose principle. Others choose proximity to power.
The tragedy is that once words lose their meaning, reputation becomes impossible to recover.
