Wole Soyinka, Nigeria’s Nobel laureate and celebrated activist, has never been one to shy away from political commentary—except, it seems, when it does not suit his interests. His silence on the unconstitutional and undemocratic imposition of an administrator in Rivers State is deafening. This is the same Soyinka who, during the Goodluck Jonathan administration, was quick to criticize what he perceived as authoritarian tendencies. Yet now, as President Bola Tinubu has effectively suspended democracy in Rivers State, Soyinka remains mute. Why?
Back in 2013, when Jonathan declared a state of emergency in Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe States due to Boko Haram’s insurgency, Soyinka wasted no time in voicing his concerns about the government’s handling of security issues. Interestingly, Jonathan never imposed a sole administrator on any state or suspended elected officials. Yet Soyinka found it necessary to speak out then. Now, under Tinubu, a state of emergency has been declared in Rivers not because of war or terrorism, but because of political manipulation, and the supposed defender of democracy has nothing to say.
One must ask: is Soyinka’s silence due to his tribal affiliation with Tinubu? Is it because he is benefiting from this administration? Or has he simply lost the courage to stand up for justice when it does not align with his personal interests? Whatever the reason, his inconsistency exposes a troubling double standard. A true defender of democracy does not pick and choose when to speak based on personal gain or tribal loyalty.
The people of Rivers State deserve better. Their democratic rights have been trampled upon, yet those who claim to be intellectual and moral leaders remain silent. If Soyinka could find his voice against Jonathan, why is he not raising it against Tinubu? Is democracy only worth defending when it serves his preferred narrative?
Nigeria must reject selective activism. If Wole Soyinka wants to be remembered as a true advocate for democracy, he must speak up now—loudly and clearly. Anything less exposes him as just another intellectual compromised by political convenience.
