Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, has clarified his position regarding public commentary on the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Speaking in an interview with BBC News Yoruba, Soyinka stated that he will not issue an assessment of the government at this time. He explained that his remarks often face misrepresentation and distortion, which has led him to adopt a cautious approach.
“I have been asked that question by several people,” Soyinka said. “I don’t want to answer because it seems as if there’s nothing one says that won’t be twisted, and I’m tired of that. So, I want to take my time. When it’s time, I will write my view on that.”
Professor Soyinka has long been recognized as one of Nigeria’s most influential voices on governance, democracy, and human rights. He has consistently offered sharp critiques of successive administrations, including those of former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, Goodluck Jonathan, and Muhammadu Buhari. His refusal to assess the Tinubu government at this stage marks a departure from his usual practice of early commentary.
The Nobel Laureate emphasized that he prefers to observe developments carefully before making any public judgment. He noted that he will share his perspective when he considers the timing appropriate, and he intends to do so in writing to avoid misinterpretation.
Soyinka’s remarks have generated significant interest among Nigerians and the international community. Many observers view his opinions as a moral compass for national leadership. His decision to withhold assessment underscores the complexity of Nigeria’s current political climate and the sensitivity surrounding the public.
During a recent visit to President Tinubu’s Lagos residence, Soyinka presented a seven-point agenda aimed at strengthening governance and addressing national challenges. He reiterated his commitment to constructive dialogue and reform, while maintaining his independence as a public intellectual.
Professor Wole Soyinka has chosen not to assess President Tinubu’s administration at this time. He explained that repeated misrepresentation of his comments has influenced his decision. He intends to provide a written appraisal of the government when he considers the moment appropriate. His stance reflects both caution and a desire to ensure clarity in public discourse.