By Valentine Obienyem

I recently read Reno Omokri’s article titled “Why Peter Obi Has No Moral Authority to Criticise President Tinubu.” Predictably, it felt like navigating through a sycophant’s asylum – a place where logic is abandoned, and self-serving rhetoric reigns supreme. The piece, rather than present a balanced or thoughtful critique, was riddled with contradictions, and an almost comical level of bootlicking. It was yet another example of Reno’s ability to contort his narrative to suit his immediate interests, showcasing an astounding capacity for opportunism disguised as commentary. His article seemed less about addressing real issues and more about currying favour with the powers that be, leaving one with the surety that his allegiance lies with personal gain even if the country burns.

Lest we forget, Reno Omokri, who now sings praises of President Bola Tinubu as though he were a paragon of virtue, once unleashed a torrent of scathing invective against the very same man when the political winds seemed to favour his preferred candidate. It is both instructive and ironic to revisit those earlier declarations, for they lay bare the astonishing malleability of Reno’s convictions. With the fervour of a man certain of his position, Reno decried Tinubu as a “known drug lord” who, in his words, belonged not in the corridors of power but behind the bars of justice. He questioned Tinubu’s integrity with the zeal of a prosecutor, urging the collection of hair or urine samples to verify allegations of drug abuse – allegations he presented as irrefutable truths, backed by what he claimed were verified court documents from Chicago.

This was no casual criticism; Reno led protests in London, branding Tinubu a disgrace to leadership and declaring his opposition in terms so unequivocal that they echoed through media channels worldwide. In one memorable diatribe, he accused Tinubu of running away in the face of public condemnation, crowing over the supposed success of his #HarassTinubuOutofLondon campaign. His rhetoric was unyielding, his tone righteous, as he cast Tinubu as a symbol of everything that should be shunned in governance. Yet, today, the very same Reno lavishes praise upon Tinubu with an enthusiasm that borders on sycophantic adoration. Such a volte-face raises profound questions about the authenticity of his moral compass, inviting us to reflect on the nature of loyalty and the ease with which principles can be traded for personal or political expediency.

Reno Omokri’s transformation from fierce critic to ardent admirer of President Tinubu offers a masterclass in the art of political shape-shifting. His earlier invectives against Tinubu were nothing short of incendiary, painting a picture of a man unfit for public office. Take, for instance, Reno’s outright accusation regarding Tinubu’s alleged involvement in a heroin cartel. With dramatic conviction, he dared Tinubu to take him to court, boasting of his readiness to expose Nigeria to what he described as irrefutable documentary evidence. Reno’s rhetorical question – whether being a heroin drug lord was not worse than being a “yahoo boy” – dripped with moral outrage, presenting Tinubu as a figure whose very presence on the political stage was an affront to decency.

When Tinubu articulated his ambition to serve for eight years and handpick his successor, Reno’s response brimmed with indignation. He lambasted Tinubu for what he saw as hubristic presumption, accusing him of treating the Presidency as though it were a hereditary throne. His fury was palpable as he posed a rhetorical question dripping with disdain: “Is Tinubu God?” Reno’s critique extended to Tinubu’s disregard for the democratic process, portraying him as a man who had already anointed himself for re-election without consideration for the will of the electorate or the uncertainties of life.

Yet, perhaps the most startling pivot lies in Reno’s professed loyalty. Once an unwavering supporter of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, he pledged himself entirely to Atiku’s victory, portraying this allegiance as absolute and unshakeable. However, once Tinubu assumed the mantle of leadership, Reno’s tone shifted dramatically. He now pledged his vote and vigorous support for Tinubu, invoking God as his witness. The juxtaposition of these two declarations underscores the fluidity of Reno’s convictions, raising profound questions about the motivations behind his rhetoric and the consistency of his principles.

In all honesty, what do you make of such a man? Reno Omokri’s behaviour, for those of us steeped in classical studies, evokes the memory of Alcibiades, the notorious Athenian whose opportunism and sycophantic tendencies made him one of history’s most infamous political chameleons.

Plutarch, in his “Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans”, provides a vivid portrait of Alcibiades, a figure whose charm, ambition, and lack of scruples allowed him to manipulate alliances for his own benefit. Alcibiades was a master of flattery and opportunism, praising and aligning himself with anyone who could further his personal goals. His alliances were never about loyalty to a cause or principle but about leveraging power and influence for his own advancement. He switched allegiances with ease, abandoning old friends and forging new ones whenever circumstances shifted in his favour. Like the reckless Athenian, he also learnt the art of trying to convince be appearing or wearing the clothes of those he is after. Consider what Plutarch wrote about him: “He would often change his manner of life and adapt himself to the habits and customs of those with whom he associated… When he was with the Spartans, he was austere and rigorous and wore their clothes; when he was with the Ionians, he was luxurious and effeminate… He could be whatever he chose to be, and he was never himself, except when he was alone.”

Today, Reno Omokri, like the Alcibiades of old, stands as President Tinubu’s most fervent defender, his zeal for the man surpassing even that of the most dedicated loyalists. His transformation from a sharp critic of Tinubu to one of his most enthusiastic apologists is nothing short of remarkable. However, it would be profoundly naïve to think that this newfound loyalty is driven by genuine ideological conviction or a deep belief in Tinubu’s vision for Nigeria. In reality, Reno’s passionate support is more a tactical manoeuvre than a matter of principle. He wants to secure appointment as if his life depended on that. His frequent publicised trips are also a gimmick to appear as if he were comfortable!

Beneath the surface of his zealous defense of the president lies a calculated strategy. Reno’s constant and often vitriolic attacks on Peter Obi are not motivated by any deep animosity towards Obi as a person. Far from it, these attacks are designed to serve a far more self-serving purpose: to garner favour with the powers that be. Obi, being the most vocal and committed opposition leader in the country, represents the most formidable challenge to the current administration. Reno, ever the opportunist, has identified this and seized upon it. By continuously engaging in attacks on Obi, he draws attention to himself, positioning himself as an ardent ally of Tinubu, someone whose loyalty is unwavering and whose support is indispensable.

His approach is a classic example of political opportunism at its most naked. For instance, on the 3rd of this month, Reno Omokri published another scathing attack on Peter Obi, and the irrationality of his claims raises serious doubts about his motives. How can anyone, with any semblance of reason, fault the President being advised to visit various states and observe the situation firsthand? This suggestion, rooted in common sense, advocates for a leader who is engaged with the reality on the ground, understanding the issues that affect the people. To dismiss such an idea reflects a deeper agenda, one that seems more concerned with undermining a potent voice than offering constructive criticism.

Similarly, Reno takes aim at Obi’s call for poverty alleviation policies that would directly benefit Nigerians, something that is fundamental to any nation’s progress. Instead of championing initiatives that can help uplift the most vulnerable, Reno derides the very notion of policies aimed at alleviating suffering, making it clear that his position is not about the well-being of the people but rather about maintaining a position of favour with the powers that be. In an even more perplexing move, he makes bizarre comparisons involving Tinubu’s and Obi’s children, as though he has no children of his.

Reno’s ability to turn a blind eye to reality becomes even more glaring when he attempts to trumpet fuel availability as an accomplishment, when  many Nigerians are unable to afford fuel due to skyrocketing prices. He ignores the fact that filling stations across the country are shutting down because of low patronage. How can anyone celebrate fuel availability when the majority of the population cannot buy fuel again thus tilting towards availability? Moreover, he celebrates foreign direct investments, turning a blind eye to the fact that existing companies are fleeing the country in droves, unable to operate under the current conditions. Reno’s version of progress seems detached from reality, rooted in platitudes that fail to address the pressing issues on the ground.

The ever-shifting positions and sycophantic behaviour exhibited by Reno Omokri are hard to ignore. His criticisms of Peter Obi are not based on principle or genuine ideological disagreements; they are instead a desperate attempt to secure personal gain and favour. If Reno achieves success in his relentless pursuit of recognition, it will not be because of his intellect or capability but rather because he is willing to trade integrity, honour, and principle for personal advantage. This, in itself, is the true tragedy of modern-day sycophancy. For those who truly value leadership rooted in service and accountability, Reno’s career is a clear case of how far one can fall when principles are sacrificed at the altar of personal ambition.

Obienyem, a Lawyer,  longtime associate and loyalist of Peter Obi, wrote from Awka

By Festus Adedayo

The door of life is binary; it opens either ways, inwards or outwards. So goes an age-long wisdom. When the Thisday newspaper, on January 1, 2025, announced President Bola Tinubu as its Man of the Year pick, emotions of Nigerians ran riot. Was that decision a product of editorial science or newspaper shamanism?, Nigerians asked. To many, the newspaper’s editors must have meandered into some kind of trance, communed with some unseen spirits and emerged therefrom with their odd pick. To others, Thisday hit the bull’s eye.

Suffering Nigerians were even ready to, in the lingo of the millenials, cut the Thisday some slacks. So, they reason: could the newspaper have been seized by some inexplicable emotion of sympathy for the president on account of unprecedented attacks against his government? Did it merely want to decorate him to charm his vanity? So, like Lord Henry said in Irish poet and playwright, Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, did the newspaper just go “bankrupt through an over-expenditure of (their) sympathy (for Tinubu)”?

For a journalism profession which thumps own chest as “the rough draft of history,” the idea of the newspaper media choosing persons as ‘Man of the Year’ began in 1928, five years after the founding of the Time magazine on March 3, 1923. The “Man of the Year” cover reflects individuals selected for their contributions for that particular calendar year. American aviator. Charles Lindberg, became the first person to grace the magazine’s “Man of the Year” cover that 1928. The choice of Lindberg, according to Time, which has coasted home with the coveted trophy of the world’s largest and first weekly news magazine, was based on his daring audacity of being the first solo aviator to fly across the Atlantic Ocean. He had flown from New York to Paris. With the decision to have Lindberg adorn its front page cover, which the editors said was a mere happenstance, the magazine began an annual ritual that has lasted almost a century.

In 1938, as Thisday editors picked Tinubu as their Man of the Year, the editors of Time picked Adolph Hitler as theirs, too. Hitler was the dictator of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945 during which he was believed to have committed suicide. Based on his ancient view that the Jews were the enemies of the German people, Hitler was reported to have executed about six million of them. As leader of the Nazi Party, Hitler believed Germans were superior to all other races. He thus became obsessed with the notion of the racial purity of his Aryan race by which he meant a pure German race or Herrenvolk. His Aryan race, in his thinking, was vested the control the world.

For a magazine which regaled the world with its rather self-adulating motto of “the faces of Time have been the faces of the world,” that same world was aghast and rankled by the Hitler pick. When the magazine’s cover page came out on its January 2, 1939 issue, it had the face of the German despot decorating its globally celebrated Man of the Year page. The world went berserk. Time was assumed to have faced similar bankruptcy of sympathetic emotions for Hitler as the Thisday faced. The world did not hide its consternation. Not dissimilar accusations of having gone on an emotive junket were pelted on Time.

Time had earlier in 1939 whetted the appetite of the world by foreshadowing what was to come. In the course of the 1930s, it featured the Third Reich leader of Nazi Germany over the course of time. Hitler appeared on the magazine’s cover in December 1931 as he made a fiery address. In March 1933 as well, Hitler, donning his emblematic bushy moustache, lounged in a chair by the side of a black German Shepherd. The photo hit the cover page of Time. In an April 1936 cover photograph, Time also had him giving an open-palmed salute.

But, what is the philosophy behind the Man of the Year of Time? Studies have been undertaken to de-couple the fact from fiction. One of the most remarkable of these studies which drilled into the rationale for selecting certain people for the magazine’s covers was done by William Christ and Sammye Johnson in 1985. Entitled Images Through Time: Man of the Year Covers, the authors submitted that Time’s picks are “a person or persons who for better or worse dominated events in the previous 12 months”.

The Man of the Year or Person of the Year concept was however teased out of Scottish philosopher, Thomas Carlyle’s theory of history. Carlyle had written that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.” It was the philosopher’s belief that the few, powerful and the famous, in a very essential way, shape our collective destiny as humanity. As such, Time uses its pick as one who best represents the news of the year.

From Time, newspapers all over the world thereafter borrowed the concept of the “Person of the Year”. Today, it has become an annual newspaper ritual. Time uses it to recognize individual or group of individuals who it considers as having had the hugest impact on news headlines in the previous 12 months. When the choice of a person is proclaimed, it is that person who, “for good or ill” has negatively or positively, more than any other person, affected the course of the year. Emotions however rise when the choice is considered to be an honor or a reward.

However, the 1939 portraiture of Hitler as Man of the Year by Time marked a radical departure from the norm. But, as Wilde said in that same Picture of Dorian Gray, behind every exquisite thing that existed, there is something tragic that exists. Instead of the conventional portrait, the magazine had a cryptic illustration by Rudolph von Ripper. Hitler was drawn playing a ‘hymn of hate.’ On the drawing was affixed the title, ‘From the unholy organist, a hymn of hate”.

But, on January 1, 2025, Thisday had no such forewarning. Nor any hint that it was satirizing Aso Rock. It had a smiling Tinubu below its screaming Man of the Year headline. No reflection of the searing pains his people undergo. Nor that the year Thisday decided on his pick as Man of the Year represents one of the most hopeless years Nigerians have lived on earth. Oh, I forgot, Time’s Hitler also looked resplendent. As Adolf sat comfortably on the front page of the magazine, Jews were being murdered in their thousands.

But Hitler was not the only despot to don Time’s front page as Man of the Year. A number of them made controversial appearances as the magazine’s pick. For instance, Joseph Stalin, Soviet despot and totalitarian, was the magazine’s choice in 1939 and 1942 respectively. Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin’s successor, was also adjudged its cover page choice in 1957. So also did Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomein, who led an Islamic revolution in Iran; who navigated the country from its political leader, the Shah and ran it as a theocracy from 1979 to 1989. He became its Man of the Year in 1979. In 1935, Haile Selassie, also known as Tafari Makonnem, Emperor of Ethiopia and a despot, started the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. It was at a time when Italian forces invaded Ethiopia. That same year, the Time magazine picked him as its Man of the Year.

In the thick of searing emotions against its controversial choices, Time had always come out to defend its choices. First, it argued that its picks were misconstrued as honour, award or prizes. Literally swearing by its mother’s head, Time swore that the controversial persons’ choices were done “for their impact on events.” It also said that those selections were ultimately based on “who (it) believed had a stronger influence on history and who represented either the year or the century the most.”

Similar to Nigerians’ disgust at the Thisday pick, in a Letter to the Editor penned and signed by Hollywood luminaries and published in the magazine’s 1939 edition, the luminaries frowned at the unmerited space Time offered Hitler. They considered him a blood-sucking emperor and pleaded that “if his picture appears on your cover only as Time’s man of the year, the controlled fascist countries and uninformed of all nations will hail the selection as an award of merit”. Time’s response was that it had noted and observed the letter-writers’ concerns and subsequently referred them to the magazine’s cover.

When in 1994, Time announced Pope John Paul II as its pick for that year’s Man of the Year, the choice was appraised in laudatory terms. This was largely because no citizen of the world commanded the texture of admiration the Pope enjoyed. His globetrotting where he garnered over 1/2 million flying miles to talk to the vulnerable had far-reaching impacts on a fractious world. Many people however disagreed with the Time pick of the Pope on account of his theology and abetment of perceived evil. They argued that, through his sacerdotal pen, John Paul had enough powers to stop Catholic Church’s centuries’ long dogma of “forbidding to marry,” otherwise called forced celibacy. The biblical Apostle Paul, in Timothy 4:1,3, had considered the Papacy’s celibacy as a strand of the “doctrines of devils.” It was also felt that Pope John Paul could stop the rampant child molestation by priests in the Catholic church.

The above historical recount of the concept of Man of the Year should make it clear that the Thisday newspaper does not have the patent of its pick of President Tinubu as its Man of the Year. Global villains, despots and achievers in the world have hitherto been garlanded with same trophy. The challenge is that, like everything Nigerian, that Times magazine concept has been bastardized. And the Nigerian print media is the culprit. Spurious and shameless Man of the Year awards have been made by newspaper houses in Nigeria over the years which made charlatans primus inter pares in areas they did not deserve. Most of the choices are money-driven, aimed at inflating the egos of the picks for a fee.

The only challenge is that the Thisday editors, in arriving at their pick of Tinubu, did not elaborate on whether his choice was for good or ill. In this regard, the newspaper chose to sit on the fence. From the outset, the newspaper should have defined its parameters for the pick, rather than seeking a justification of its choice from the beginning of the essay. Its general statement, its justification, it stated thus: “It is hard to find anyone who could fairly challenge (Tinubu) to the …Man of the Year.” If the parameter for choosing Tinubu was that he is the most audacious Nigerian leader in the last one year, it may indeed be difficult to best the president to the pick. Tinubu is known to have peremptorily taken the most consequential economic decision of subsidy removal of his own volition. The next decision was the flotation of the currency, a decision that could drown this country. The outcome has been gruelling pain, deaths and distress. Even in its choice of audacity as the parameter for canonizing the president, an attempt should have been made to calibrate the word “audacity.” As it means ‘willingness to take bold steps,’ the word also connotes impudence. Some acts of audaciousness can manifest as recklessness if the immediate positive outcome is life-threatening, invisible and inaccessible to the ordinary eye. For instance, if a president who willingly took his country to the unprecedentedly high inflation figure of 33.4% wants to bring it down to 15% in less than one year, should it be done like a Shaman conjuring specimens from space?

While Thisday says its choice of Tinubu, in part, was due to his “resolve to stick to his reforms” because he had forewarned that “you can’t be doing the same thing and expect different outcomes,” this could, in interpretative logic, mean arrogance of power. As good as it is for leaders to be determined and resolute, it is equally a downside for them to be unbendable. If they are, they are a mile away from Despot-ville. The appellation of a “daring” and “gritty” leader, which Thisday awarded Tinubu in the essay, the last time I remember, was also given to the Fuhrer when he began to nurture his Aryan race. In the same mould, a leader who, in the words of Thisday, dammed the consequences of floating the Naira and removal of subsidy can only be allowed to gloat if his paths are not filled with the dead and socially dislocated victims of such policies. Leaders should de-risk their policies.

One of the newspaper’s indices for awarding Tinubu the Man of the Year, according to its essay, was his proclamation in a recent media chat that, “there’s no going back on the tax reform bills.” No leader who sounds as God like this while underscoring the irrevocability of his action should be awarded a trophy for being good. Leaders are assessed by their humanity and not the number of dead persons that line the path of their decisions. The newspaper’s claim of Tinubu’s “measures to cushion the effects” of his policies, which it named to be CNG buses and his “constantly assisting the states with palliatives” is in the mould of the famous Ali and the Angel fabulism.

In the final analysis, while I agree that President Tinubu was worthy of the Man of the Year trophy given him by the Thisday newspaper, I am of the opinion that the award should be for ill, and for worse, in the words of Christ and Johnson. Tinubu has had, more than any living Nigerian in the last 12 months, negative impacts on the lives of Nigerians. His choice as Man of the Year should spell this out.

My choice for the Nigerian Man of the Year will be you; yes, you! In the year that just ended, the Nigerian has gone through an excruciating time. The Nigerian Man of the Year is the president’s friend who tumbled down from owning five Rolls Royce and now rides a Honda Accord, while his friend, the president, rides a Cadillac Escalade and flies a presidential jet that costs about $150 million. My Man of the Year is the Nigerian who is still breathing under this suffocating economy; who can hardly pay his child’s school fees. My Man of the Year pick is the elderly Nigerian who can hardly afford the cost of his drugs but manages nevertheless. My Man of the Year has suffered untold hardship in the hands of Thisday’s Man of the Year pick. Step forward to receive your award, longsuffering Nigerian!

Culled from Sunday Tribune of January 5, 2025.