by Abdullahi Haruna
In healthier democracies, political disagreement sharpens ideas. In Nigeria, it increasingly sharpens tongues. The recent public spat between Dele Momodu, a veteran journalist, and Femi Fani-Kayode, a former minister, and ambassador -designate is less a clash of intellect than a descent into rhetorical ‘amalarism’. It is a spectacle—sore, sordid and shameful—that reveals more about the state of Nigeria’s political culture than about the men themselves. A roforofo- gbasgbos by two self acclaimed Omoluabis.
At first glance, the quarrel appears ideological. Mr Momodu accuses President Bola Tinubu of authoritarian tendencies, invoking the dark memory of military rule as a cautionary parallel. Mr Fani-Kayode, now a loyal defender of the president, who just yesterday was a rabid tormentor of the same man, rejects the analogy as reckless and unfounded. This is, in principle, a legitimate disagreement.
Yet what should have been a contest of ideas quickly degenerates into something far less edifying. Mr Fani-Kayode’s rebuttal abandons argument for assault.
His prose is littered with personal derision, theological absolutism and class-inflected sneers. Mr Momodu, for his part, responds in kind, trading critique for insult and replacing analysis with anecdote. The exchange collapses into a theatre of mutual contempt, as the two amala- loving dudes danced on shamelessly.
The tragedy is that, hardly you find these men talking about our biting economic reforms,and the annihilation of lives by non state actors
A serious debate about the nature of power under Mr Tinubu—its limits, its excesses, its intentions—would be both timely and necessary. Instead, the public is served a diet of invective, gutterism, and shame.
When prominent figures normalise abuse as discourse, they legitimise it as practice. Young Nigerians watching this exchange are not learning how to argue; they are learning how to insult. The lesson is corrosive: that politics is not a marketplace of ideas but a battleground of egos, where volume substitutes for substance.
Indeed the Momodu–Fani-Kayode affair is merely a vivid symptom of this structural deficiency.
Both men are products of privilege and exposure. They have traversed the corridors of media, power and influence. They understand, or ought to understand, the weight of their words. That they choose instead to indulge in public mudslinging suggests not ignorance but abdication. Their shame dey shame me walahi.
Nigeria deserves such conversations. Its citizens, especially its young, deserve better exemplars. Public figures need not agree; indeed, they should not. But they must argue as though the health of the republic depends on it—because it does.
For now, however, the country is left with a cautionary tale. When those entrusted with shaping public discourse choose spectacle over substance, they do more than embarrass themselves. They diminish the very idea of politics as a noble endeavour.
And in a nation already grappling with profound challenges, that is a luxury it can ill afford.
For Dele- Fani, it is an open sore to our collective resolve as a people. You exude shame.
Shamefully musing
Leave a comment