Nobel laureate prof. Wola Soyinka treated President Muhammadu Bukhari harshly after the bandits kidnapped more than 300 schoolchildren in Katsin.
According to him, the abduction shows that Bukhari is not responsible to the government.
He said that the recent “abduction of the country’s children once again” in the “land of Bukhari” is “a slap in the face to the commander-in-chief.”
He spoke against the backdrop of the kidnapping of students from a boys-only public high school in Katsina state last Friday; hometown of Bukhari.
Soyinka condemned the security challenges they face in the country on Tuesday in a statement entitled “INFRADIG – Presidential Punishment”.
He added that when the President was summoned by the National Assembly to come to him amid growing insecurity in the country, he (Bukhari) initially did not consider the challenge below the norm.
He said the President viewed the invitation as a polite invitation to preserve “the tattered remnants of his Democratic Born Again camouflage.”
“To get to the present, General Bukhari responded to the invitation of the National Assembly to come in for a chat. At first, she didn’t think of it as slippers. He responded to a polite invitation to urgently reflect on the concerns of the people still struggling to preserve the tattered remnants of the Born Again democratic camouflage.
“However, his withdrawal of consent once again prompted a terrifying account of the situation, which I warmly presented: Bukhari does not answer. Whoever it was, this segment of kabbalistic control cornered him on his way to the legislative chambers and called: Don’t! Their invitation is flip flops! He gave up.
“Below the dignity of the commander-in-chief! Good. The opportunist killers interviewed – Bandits / Boko Haram or anyone else – then took up the challenge and responded in their own language: abducting the country’s children again. They hit him in the face, in his native land, mocking him: see if this is more suitable for your dignity, ”he said.
He noted that he and others used the word “Infra dignitatem” for any situation that indicates an insult to his dignity or a statement that does not deserve a response.
He said: “This word once featured prominently in Nigerian stenographic repertoire. In fact, I grew up thinking that it was just one word, not two, and I also thought it was English, not Latin: Infra dignitatem!
“I joined others in applying shorthand to any situation where I felt that my dignity was offended, that the job was below my status, an inconspicuous person, or an unworthy statement of response. Sometimes, of course, it came in handy when it was impossible to come up with an adequate answer. Then, acting like the others, I hissed, shook my head contemptuously, and walked away, spitting out one final sanction: Infradig! “
The nation is at war, according to the playwright, given that the latest female student kidnapping is related to the kidnapping of female students from Chibok in Born April 14, 2014 state.
Soyinka said, “If only this latest outrage were a personal contest of insults between rebellion and power – alas, its resonance is felt much further! blood from every sensitive citizen. More than five years after Chibok, we still have to anticipate and take action against recurrence. We continue to provide innocent protection en masse at low cost to agents of darkness and despair.
The government refuses to acknowledge that, as has been said repeatedly, the nation is at war. He fights from within and demands decisive measures, far from spasmodic reactions after a terrible act, if there is still a desire to save what is left of the nationality. The appropriate expression here is thinking outside the box.
He also denounced what he called trivial responses to direct calls for the government to take action against insecurity.
The Punch quoted him as saying, “When others do that, they deserve more than they are rewarded with platitudes like ‘The government won’t churn.’ The presidency will not be blackmailed. Stop politicizing the question. The President strives to preserve the integrity of the nation. We will not be forced to abandon our commitment to national unity. The sovereignty of the nation is non-negotiable…. and so on until nausea.
“Has anyone been seen marching with a counter melody? Of course, from time to time we are attacked by such minority rhetoric, but is “unity” seriously at stake? Does such predictable rhetoric touch upon any existential anxiety for millions of people? Or are we confronted at the most primal level with the growing question of the nation’s ability to feed itself, even on its own?
“When defenseless farmers are attacked, what’s the difference, fifty or a hundred? – killed in one fell swoop, harvesting, the simple assumption that they met death because they did not seek military cover, does not speak about the difficult situation of the nation and its urgent need to “think outside the box”? What is tragically demonstrated on a daily basis in all spheres of citizen survival is the need to redefine the structural existence of a nation – starting, of course, with the imperative to guarantee that very existence. The rest is waffles. Vaseline massage of a malignant tumor. National Infradig! Again, the people are complaining and waiting. “