Cardinal says Nigeria’s president has rejected bishops’ concerns about state of country
Cardinal John Onaiyekan reported that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria presented a candid assessment of the country’s economic, security, and political challenges to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on July 28. President Tinubu disagreed with the bishops’ diagnosis, stating that the economy was performing well and that he did not share their assessment. Despite the disagreement, the president acknowledged hearing the bishops’ concerns and responded directly to them. The bishops stressed their responsibility to speak truthfully to the head of state, emphasizing that they are not political actors but religious leaders. Cardinal Onaiyekan expressed hope that those close to the president will encourage further reflection on the bishops’ concerns.
about 2 months ago
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) presented a detailed assessment of Nigeria’s economic, security and political challenges to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on 28 July 2026. Cardinal John Onaiyekan, who conveyed the bishops’ message, said Tinubu listened but openly rejected the bishops’ diagnosis, insisting the economy was performing well. Onaiyekan emphasized that the document reflected extensive consultation among CBCN members and that the bishops felt a moral duty to tell the president the truth, even if it made him uncomfortable. 1
Bishops’ pastoral truth versus state political narrative
When bishops publicly challenge a government’s account of national events, the issue is not necessarily whether the Church is “entering politics.” The deeper question is whether political authority is being evaluated according to truth, human dignity, justice, and the common good. Catholic teaching recognizes the legitimate authority of the state, but it does not grant the state power to define reality without moral scrutiny.
In the Nigerian context, this distinction is especially important where bishops have raised concerns about insecurity, poverty, corruption, economic hardship, and the treatment of vulnerable people, while political leaders may present a more reassuring or defensive narrative.
Catholic teaching distinguishes the proper spheres of ecclesiastical and civil authority. Civil government is responsible for public order, law, security, and political administration. The Church is responsible for proclaiming the Gospel, forming consciences, defending moral truth, and serving the spiritual and human dignity of persons.
The principle is not separation in the sense of mutual indifference. Rather, the Church and state are each to serve the human person within their proper competence. Christus Dominus teaches that bishops are independent of civil authority in the exercise of their apostolic office, while also recognizing that they should cooperate with public authorities for the social and civil prosperity of their people.
This means that bishops may legitimately speak about political realities when those realities affect:
Their intervention is pastoral when it seeks to protect persons and promote the common good rather than to obtain political office or partisan advantage.
A state narrative often emphasizes policies, statistics, security operations, economic programs, or constitutional authority. These matters are not irrelevant, but they can become morally inadequate if they obscure the experience of ordinary people.
The bishops’ pastoral perspective begins with the question: What is happening to the human person?
Pope John Paul II described the bishops’ ministry as extending both to the faithful of their dioceses and “to the nation as a whole,” and he encouraged them to exercise courageous and steadfast leadership in proclaiming salvation. The Church’s public witness therefore cannot be limited to sacramental or internal ecclesial affairs when grave social conditions place human beings at risk.
The pastoral voice is particularly attentive to people who may disappear from official discourse: the poor, victims of violence, displaced families, children, the elderly, prisoners, minorities, and those whose testimony is politically inconvenient. The Church’s credibility depends partly on whether her proclamation is visibly connected with service, reconciliation, and the defense of those who suffer.
Thus, when bishops describe insecurity or hardship differently from government officials, the disagreement should not automatically be dismissed as partisan opposition. It may reflect a different moral vantage point: the state asks whether it has acted within its legal authority; the Church also asks whether the results respect the dignity and safety of the people.
Catholic teaching does not support political chaos or contempt for lawful government. Bishops are to encourage obedience to just laws and respect for legitimately constituted authorities.
However, this teaching includes an important qualification: obedience is owed to just laws, not to every governmental claim or policy simply because it is issued by those in power.
The Church’s traditional account of the relationship between Church and state holds that each authority is supreme within its own proper order and subject to limits defined by its purpose. Matters belonging to the civil and political order fall under civil authority, while matters concerning divine worship and salvation belong to the Church.
In social and political matters, bishops do not possess a special revelation about every economic forecast, military assessment, or administrative decision. They may therefore need to distinguish carefully between:
But the absence of technical expertise in every policy area does not silence the bishops’ moral responsibility. A bishop need not be an economist or security analyst to insist that people must not be abandoned to hunger, violence, family separation, corruption, or arbitrary treatment.
A political narrative normally seeks to establish legitimacy. It may stress that:
Some of these claims may be valid. Catholic teaching recognizes that nations have the right to protect their borders and preserve public order. For example, the U.S. bishops affirm that governments may take measures against irregular immigration, provided that the human rights of all are respected.
Yet a political narrative becomes morally deficient when it treats enforcement as a sufficient answer while ignoring the people affected. The bishops explicitly reject approaches that place disproportionate emphasis on punitive sanctions, undermine family unity, reduce humanitarian protection, or fail to provide viable solutions for people living in prolonged insecurity.
The same reasoning applies more broadly to governance. Security cannot be reduced to military deployment; economic policy cannot be judged only by official growth figures; and national sovereignty cannot be invoked to evade responsibility for human suffering. The state’s authority exists for the common good, not for the preservation of its own image.
It would be inaccurate to describe the bishops’ position as merely a competing “counter-narrative.” The Church does not claim that every episcopal statement is infallible or that every policy proposal is binding on Catholics. Rather, the Church brings moral criteria to political judgment.
Pope John Paul II taught that the Church’s dialogue with the world must not be dialogue for its own sake, but a dialogue rooted in truth and ordered toward the truth that liberates and saves. He warned against allowing prevailing cultural assumptions to condition the Church in ways the Gospel does not permit. The bishops’ task is therefore neither to repeat the state’s message nor simply to oppose it. Their task is to ask whether public action corresponds to truth about God and the human person.
This truth has several dimensions:
The bishops’ 2023 legislative priorities express this approach by linking immigration to human life and dignity, affirming both a natural right to migrate and the right of nations to maintain their borders. They call for legal pathways, family unity, due process, humanitarian protection, and attention to the causes of migration.
A bishop’s moral criticism does not necessarily entail endorsement of one party, candidate, or comprehensive policy package. Pope Paul VI offered an important model during the Nigerian civil war. He affirmed that the Church must declare the need for peace and reconciliation, but added that it was not necessarily the Church’s role to propose a detailed political plan.
This distinction is essential. The Church may say:
At the same time, Catholics may prudentially debate the precise structure of a security policy, taxation system, immigration program, or constitutional reform. The Church’s moral principles guide political judgment without eliminating the legitimate role of democratic deliberation.
A government may respond to episcopal criticism by accusing bishops of being partisan, uninformed, foreign-influenced, or socially disruptive. Such accusations should be examined carefully rather than accepted automatically.
The Second Vatican Council states that bishops enjoy freedom and independence from civil authority in carrying out their apostolic office, and that they must not be prevented from communicating with the Holy See, other ecclesiastical authorities, or their own faithful. Pope John Paul II similarly taught that bishops must be able to speak according to the Gospel’s norms of freedom and charity, following the example of the apostles who refused to remain silent about what they had seen and heard.
This does not give bishops permission to make reckless accusations or disseminate unverified claims. Pastoral authority requires accuracy, prudence, charity, and a willingness to correct errors. Pope John Paul II emphasized that bishops must protect the faithful from confused ideas and should promptly refute error while reaffirming authentic teaching.
The proper response to criticism, therefore, is not intimidation or dismissal, but transparent engagement: publish evidence, answer the substance of the bishops’ concerns, and demonstrate how policies serve the common good.
Catholics can assess a conflict between bishops and government officials by asking several questions:
Are official claims consistent with the lived experience of citizens, independent evidence, and the testimony of affected communities? Political communication must not manipulate fear, conceal suffering, or portray critics as enemies merely because they speak inconvenient truths.
The bishops’ immigration teaching illustrates the relevant balance: legitimate border control must be pursued with respect for human rights, family unity, due process, and humanitarian protection.
The common good is not identical with the interests of the government, ruling party, or dominant group. It includes the conditions that allow all persons and communities to flourish, especially those who are most vulnerable.
A healthy political order distinguishes opposition from treason. The Church’s public ministry may cooperate with authorities while also challenging policies that harm people. Christus Dominus holds together both collaboration with public officials and episcopal independence.
Bishops must ensure that their interventions are informed, united where possible, respectful, and concretely connected to service. The Nigerian bishops’ emphasis on listening, dialogue, and strengthening ecclesial institutions reflects the importance of a credible and participatory pastoral witness.
The contrast between bishops’ pastoral truth and a state political narrative should not be reduced to “Church versus government.” The state has legitimate authority to govern, secure borders, enforce just laws, and preserve public order. The bishops, however, retain a distinct responsibility to measure political action against the truth about the human person and the demands of justice.
The Catholic position is therefore neither blind obedience to government nor automatic opposition to it. It is principled cooperation combined with moral independence. Bishops should collaborate with legitimate authorities for the good of society, but they must also speak when official narratives conceal suffering, weaken accountability, or treat vulnerable people as expendable.
A government serves its people most faithfully when it welcomes truthful scrutiny. A Church serves society most faithfully when she speaks that truth with courage, accuracy, charity, and a concrete concern for those who suffer.