One might not be completely wrong to say that the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has lost its soul as it now appears to be more political than religious. Yet, some highly religious folks wouldn’t mind evoking the wrath of God on whosoever opines that CAN is compromised.
Anyway, that we are all entitled to our different views doesn’t change the truth, and the truth remains obvious to those who appreciate it.
Last week, CAN issued a statement in which it called on the government to put an end to some prevailing unpleasant circumstances in the country. On the surface, the statement appeared highly objective as it raised serious issues, like that of the menace of the rampaging herdsmen across the country, the prolonged fuel scarcity and the appalling power supply.
However, the statement veered off altruism and became one of the regular shenanigans of hawks in cassock as it sought to pass across its main message – the defence of its anointed, former President Goodluck Jonathan.
In the usual manner charlatans would twist the popular “touch not my anointed” biblical verse to gag those who might raise constructive and deferring views, CAN declared that Jonathan’s arrest would “throw the country into chaos”, should the Muhammadu Buhari-led government dare it.
Please note that since the statement was published, CAN has not put forward any other statement to clarify its stance or debunk the explosive headlines the media gave it. Given this, the statement reminds keen observers of the dirty money sharing politics CAN was allegedly involved in, in the run up to the 2015 presidential election. It also makes one wonder if CAN has not lost its focus as a supposed sacred religious organisation.
Frankly, those who wrote the statement ought to have known that CAN is supposed to be a sacred association that speaks on behalf of Christians, and it’s contributions to national issues should not unnecessarily heat up the polity. On the contrary, it seems CAN is interested in narrowly speaking for its anointed, other than the larger Christian community.
For clarity, it’s good we ask some questions to understand the said statement in the right context. First, is CAN saying Jonathan should not be probed because he is a “Christian” or because he relinquished power after he was defeated in the 2015 presidential election? Second, has CAN done any investigation that revealed that Jonathan is innocent and therefore should not be probed at all? And third, should the fact that Jonathan has received awards as a ‘hero’ of democracy from international communities shield him from probe?
Even if CAN is under an oath to run a fool’s errand at all cost, preferable it could have called for the probe of all living former presidents and other public servants to avoid appearing like a group of hawks trying to cover up the mess of its anointed. And, the fact that CAN never advocated that Jonathan should not be arrested on the ground that he’s innocent should worry discerning observers.
By extension, that CAN cunningly brought in the “let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast the stone…” idea to portray the on-going war against corruption as lopsided is mischievous. Even our Lord Jesus Christ never absolved the two men who were crucified – on his left and right hand-sides – at Calvary from the legal penalty of their crimes.
So, why should CAN be acting like it has been contracted to seek to shield Jonathan from possible probe, whereas he has not even been invited yet for questioning on any matter in the first place? If brotherly love is a premise for this, I think CAN should extend such love to Sambo Dasuki and co by advocating that their probes be quashed immediately.
For the records, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Ehud Olmert of Isreal, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, Pasteur Bizimungu of Rwanda, were all former leaders of their respective countries who were duly prosecuted and sentenced after they left office for crimes they committed while in office. So, why is CAN making it appear as if Jonathan’s probe would lead to Armageddon?
I have no doubt that some folks out there might call me an infidel or a rebel for holding these views. That’s fine. I’ll advise them to be humble enough to admit the single fact that Christ died not for saints. And more importantly, I would prefer to be called a rebel than join those who would grovelingly call a pig ‘daddy’, in order to just have a bite of pork.
Ahmed Oluwasanjo writes from Abuja and can be reached through firstname.lastname@example.org.