A ‘POWERFUL REJOINDER’ AND A DISAPPOINTING TWEET

  Paul Nwabuikwu deplores the increasingly poor communication skills in official quarters       

How did the nation’s former top judge lose his job? As you will learn presently, there was much more to the story than what the headlines said. A “powerful rejoinder” in the form of a fire-spitting, unwise press release played a starring role in the tale. Perhaps if that poorly considered public communication had not been issued, Justice Tanko Mohammad, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who eventually left with a N2.5b pension and was honoured with a GCON at the recent National Awards despite the ongoing Senate probe of his tenure, would still be in his seat.  But let’s start with what we know. 

The official reasons for his abrupt resignation (credible sources say that he was forced to hand in his letter, with the blessings of the Villa) are well documented. Mohammad had fallen out with his colleagues over issues that the headlines captured as “judicial corruption”. In a move unprecedented in the history of the nation’s highest court, his colleagues had, in a stinging, leaked letter accused him of serial corruption, maladministration and incompetence.

They pulled no punches in making their feelings known on a range of urgent issues: lack of official accommodation for many justices, lack of training opportunities, poor healthcare arrangements, inadequate administrative support, etc. According to the justices, the situation got so bad that the justices were forced to abandon their offices at 4pm daily because there was no diesel to power the generators. In this sea of institutional inadequacy and sloppiness, they charged, Mohammad was living it up with his aides, gallivanting across the world while largely ignoring their demands for action.

You could almost literally smell the rage of the Supreme Court justices in the letter. For people who by the nature of profession are usually more sedate and gracious in their language and style, the tone of the missive was significant. It was clear that Their Lordships were unhappy and at the end of their tether. Their demands and feelings were perhaps best summarized by this sentence: “We find it strange that despite the upward review of our budgetary allocation, the court cannot cater for our legitimate entitlements. This is unacceptable!”

The fallout between the Chief Justice and his colleagues was obviously a serious issue, especially after it became public. Nigerians are used to mutinies in the executive and legislative branches, not the judiciary. But given the “paddy-paddy” manner in which such issues are usually handled in this part of the world, Mohammad had a decent chance of surviving. A few calls to the right people coupled with pleas for de-escalation by the official and unofficial bosses could have done the trick.

But the “family affair” approach became impossible after the press release was issued by the spokesperson of Chief Justice, a gentleman identified as Ahuraka Isah. It was a rambling and not very credible defense. Basically, the message was: your complaints have no substance because we are doing our best in the midst of scarce resources. It also ignored a key plank of the Justice’s complaint: their lot was getting worse despite the improvement of their budget.

But the weak defense was, again, not a major problem. The part that ended up being fatal to Mohammad’s interests was the description of the Justices protest as “dancing naked at the market square”. According to sources close to the Court, the public insult, more than any other factor, was the last straw. There was no way back. The Justices could not be persuaded to let bygones be bygones. Shortly after, both Messers Mohammad and Isah were out of their jobs.

Last week, Mrs Abike Dabiri-Erewa, CEO of the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission was entangled in a similar unseemly spectacle on Twitter, sadly not her first. Fortunately for her, there is no indication that the labour market could be calling. Still, the optics were decidedly awful. Admittedly, her interlocuter, a Twitter user with the name Aggressively Obedient – Avoid me. (@sensegiver1) was quite rude in his approach. Contributing to a thread on the awful treatment of Nigerians by India and other countries, he tweeted: “She (Dabiri-Erewa) should go to Indonesia and see how Nigerians are treated. Mumu woman supporting a failed government. She’s equally part of the failure. Eye service!”

In response, Dabiri-Erewa took the low road. “Ode! (Yoruba for “idiot”), she retorted. “You go to Indonesia, carry drugs, do cultism and come begging to be rescued from death sentence. Thank God for @ndlea_nigeria now saving people like you from death row”. It wasn’t clear if the agency head is privy to some personal information including the criminal history of the fellow she was responding to or if she was sharing what she knows about the demographic she thinks he belongs to. Either way, it was a disappointing performance. Not even the robust defense of some hastily assembled “friends” who joined the battle to defend their hardworking “queen” could change that.

The head of a government agency with a mandate to engage and support Nigeria’s vital diaspora simply had no business losing her head like that. And it was doubly sad that she also managed to reinforce some of the worst stereotypes about Nigerians in South East Asia in the process. She might as well have been justifying the serial maltreatment of Nigerians across the world. But that’s what can happen when you forget your institutional mandate and your brief – as well as your sterling career as one of the most empathetic voices on Nigerian television – and take on a random person on social media.

In a recent article, I described the popular style of many official spokespersons especially in government and political circles as muscular nastiness. Less elegantly, it may also be described the face-me-I-face-you-nization of public communication in Nigeria. In style, content, and focus, it is a parody of what happens in Nollywood skits and the local market. But describing it as a market woman’s response is an insult to market women who, within the context of their environment and focus, are a lot more thoughtful than many government representatives and mouthpieces.

Sadly, this has become the go-to “strategy” of many persons in government responsible for engaging and communicating with the public. It is characterized by knee-jerk responses, a failure to concentrate on strategic and sustainable priorities, the resort to crude insults at the expense of reason and, worst of all, a focus on a single audience – the “enemy” – rather than the larger, more important audience of stakeholders and the informed public. It is a deeply unprofessional approach which can achieve a temporary personal high, please the bosses, but is ultimately damaging to both personal reputations and the institutions involved. As the former Chief Justice found out, it can also make a serious situation an impossible one.

Nwabuikwu is a member of THISDAY Editorial Board