The Presidency has strongly countered recent comments made by Cardinal John Onaiyekan regarding the country’s economic direction and security, with a senior aide alleging that the senior Catholic cleric is acting from political rather than spiritual motives.
Daniel Bwala, Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Media and Public Communications, launched the rebuke on Saturday in a post on social media platform X. He argued that the Archbishop Emeritus speaks strictly for the Catholic Church rather than the wider Christian community.
The aide’s pushback follows an interview granted by Cardinal Onaiyekan on Arise TV’s Prime Time on Friday, where the cleric revealed details from a meeting between Catholic bishops and the president at the State House, Abuja, on 28 July 2026. According to the cardinal, President Tinubu rejected the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria’s assessment that ordinary citizens are suffering, maintaining instead that the economy is performing well.
Responding to the broadcast, Mr Bwala defended the president’s stance, asserting that “the President was well within his right to disagree with their assertion as regards Nigeria’s economy based purely on facts, statistics and numbers put into context.”
The presidential aide further linked the cleric’s stance to opposition politics, alleging an alignment with institutional support for Labour Party figure Peter Obi ahead of the 2027 presidential election:
“Cardinal Onaiyekan wasn’t speaking for Christians, he was speaking for Catholics, the very institutions rooting for Peter Obi, in fact, likely the institution where Peter Obi also said in 2022 ‘take back your country.’ Therefore, Cardinal is more political than spiritual. And not all Catholic members are supporting Peter Obi.”
Mr Bwala pointed out that a broader umbrella body exists to represent all Christian denominations, including Catholics, and cautioned that its required neutrality is threatened when individual institutions take partisan positions.
He also accused clergy who publicly criticise government economic narratives of double standards, claiming:
“Ironically, the same priest would rebuke their members if the members said ‘we are suffering or we are poor.’ They would tell them to rather say ‘we are doing great and or we are rich’ even when they are suffering or poor.”