Nobel laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka on Friday challenged Labour Party vice‑presidential candidate Datti Baba‑Ahmed to a one‑on‑one debate. The challenge came after Soyinka expressed displeasure at a statement made by Baba‑Ahmed in an interview with Channels TV, where the candidate warned that “whoever swears in Mr Tinubu has ended democracy” in Nigeria. The National Broadcasting Commission subsequently fined Channels TV N5 million for breaching broadcasting law during the programme.
Baba‑Ahmed, whose ticket with Peter Obi placed third in the February 25 presidential election, used language that Soyinka described as “fascistic” when speaking about the Supreme Court. “I denounced the menacing utterances of a vice‑presidential aspirant as unbecoming. It was a gladiatorial challenge directed at the judiciary and, by implication, the rest of the democratic polity,” Soyinka told Channels TV. In the same interview, Soyinka revealed that he had warned Obi that a loss in the presidential election would stem from his followers’ attitude. Obi’s supporters, known as “Obidients,” reacted sharply on Twitter, condemning Soyinka’s remarks.
In a statement titled “Fascism on Course,” Soyinka also condemned the N5 million sanction imposed on Channels TV, arguing that the station had done nothing wrong in hosting the LP vice‑presidential candidate. “May I seize this opportunity to condemn the sanction imposed on Channels Television, which anchored the performance of the LP candidate. I watched the programme keenly and saw the valiant efforts of the interviewer to ensure a fair hearing. I fail to understand where the station could be faulted, except by a disposition for injustice,” he said. He added that maintaining the penalty would “give joy to others who turn the Internet into a soakaway for their rancid emissions, yet feel that others should be silenced.”
Soyinka then extended his debate offer, saying, “If Channels feel up to it, I am willing to engage Mr Datti—or any nominee of his—on its platform on this very bone of contention—one‑on‑one—without the malodorous intervention of media trolls, and with the same interviewer as mediator. That should be taken as a serious offer.” He concluded with a broader reflection on Nigeria’s future: “Project Nigeria has become near‑terminally soul‑searing. Do I still believe in it? I am no longer certain, but first we must rid ourselves of the tyranny of the ignorant and the opportunism of time‑servers. There is always the possibility of a revolution, with a clarity of purpose and acceptance of all attendant risks, including costly errors. Revolutions are not based on speculative power entitlement. Until that moment, the structures that ensure just and equitable cohabitation must be protected from partisan appropriation—be it material inducement, fake news, or verbal terrorism—the last being the contribution of one who is positioned to assume co‑leadership of the nation. Revolution is not about lining up behind the nearest available symbol; when a symbol does emerge, we must examine every aspect of what is offered and continue to guard our freedoms every inch of the way.”
Comments are closed for this story.