VITAL OBITER®

I have watched Lere Olayinka, spokesperson to the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, for some time.

And I understand something about carrying another person’s brief.

I am an attorney.

I receive instructions from clients and, within the boundaries of law and professional ethics, I carry them out.

So I understand loyalty to an assignment.

But there must be a line.

You can serve another person without surrendering yourself.

You can vigorously defend your principal without dispensing with decorum.

You can carry a difficult brief without sacrificing the dignity of the human person.

Yesterday, Friday, September 4, I watched Mr. Olayinka appear on ARISE News’ The Morning Show.

There were three anchors:

Dr. Reuben Abati.

Ayo Mairo-Ese.

Rufai Oseni.

Mr. Olayinka knew this.

He had appeared on the programme before.

Then Rufai asked his question.

Mr. Olayinka announced that he would not answer him, referencing a “Gbewudani” comment Rufai had made on the programme the previous day.

Now, whether that comment fell within the bounds of legitimate expression is a separate question.

If Mr. Olayinka believed it crossed a legal or professional line, there are established remedies and proper channels for seeking redress.

What cannot become the remedy is media jungle justice.

He then said he wanted the conversation to be among “reasonable human beings.”

Ah.

At that point, for me, the issue was no longer Wike.

It was no longer Rufai.

It was order.

You accepted an invitation to a programme with three anchors.

You entered their professional space.

If your disagreement with one of those anchors was so fundamental that you could not engage him with civility, there was a perfectly dignified option:

Decline the invitation.

But to accept the invitation, enter the programme, and then attempt to determine which of its duly constituted anchors may question you?

How does that work?

I particularly appreciated Ayo Mairo-Ese’s intervention.

She reminded Mr. Olayinka that the programme had three anchors and that he had presented himself to all three.

When he maintained his position, she ended the interview.

Excellent!!!👏👏👏

Not because Rufai Oseni is beyond criticism.

He is not.

Not because Lere Olayinka has no right to feel aggrieved.

He does.

But grievance does not suspend decorum.

And disagreement does not abolish order.

There is a Yoruba wisdom I have carried for years:

Tí a bá rán ẹni ní iṣẹ́ ẹrú, a fi ti ọmọ jẹ́.

If you are sent on an errand as a slave, deliver the message as a freeborn.

Your assignment belongs to your principal.

Your character belongs to you.

Your conduct belongs to you.

Your name belongs to you.

And history will eventually separate the person who gave the instruction from the person who chose how to execute it.

Perhaps what troubles me most is that our children and young people are watching.

They are watching our politics.

They are watching our television.

They are watching our elders.

They are learning from us what disagreement looks like.

What are we teaching them?

That offence abolishes order?

That loyalty excuses discourtesy?

That disagreement gives us permission to strip another person of dignity?

No.

We can do better.

Serve your principal.

Argue your position.

Defend your cause.

Disagree vigorously.

But remain a freeborn.

Because long after the assignment is over, your name remains yours.

From Taiwo AKINLAMI’s
Diary of a Roving Counsel

Follower of Christ. Husband. Father. Egalitarian. Goodwill Investor. Attorney. Author. Thriver. Culture-Edge Family Strengthening and Child Safeguarding Pioneer, Innovator and Practitioner. Value-Based Parenting Ideologue. Change Agent.
Rebel with a Cause. Three Decades in the Saddle.