Former Chairman of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), Dr. Sam Amadi, has defended Cardinal John Onaiyekan amid the growing backlash over the cleric’s comments following the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria’s meeting with President Bola Tinubu, insisting that the Cardinal is being unfairly attacked simply for speaking the truth to the President.
Amadi, a constitutional lawyer, made the remarks in a post shared on his X account on Saturday, where he dismissed the criticism directed at the former Catholic Archbishop of Abuja as baseless and undeserved.
Describing the Cardinal as one of Nigeria’s most respected Christian leaders, Amadi praised his integrity, courage and honesty, arguing that his reputation for truthfulness was beyond question.
“All these attacks against Cardinal are plain nonsense. Cardinal is the most credible and respected Christian leader in Nigeria. His courage, truthfulness and honesty are without comparison. I know him closely,” Amadi wrote.
According to him, the outrage against Onaiyekan was not because the cleric was dishonest, but because he refused to shield the Federal Government from criticism over the country’s security and economic challenges.
“The outrage is because he did not say ‘Well, insecurity is not Tinubu’s fault, Poverty is not Tinubu’s fault. Let us keep praying to God for help’,” he stated.
Amadi further argued that critics have increasingly resorted to branding anyone who holds President Tinubu accountable for perceived shortcomings as a supporter of Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi, regardless of the person’s background, ethnicity or religious affiliation.
“If you hold Tinubu responsible for his failings, you are an Obidient, whether you are Yoruba, Igbo, Fulani or Nupe; whether you are a pastor, bishop, imam or babalawo,” he added.
The former NERC chairman’s comments come amid sustained public debate over Cardinal Onaiyekan’s remarks after the bishops’ engagement with President Tinubu, with supporters insisting the cleric merely discharged his moral duty by speaking frankly on national issues, while critics argue he should not have publicly commented on the private meeting.
