By Felix Ofulue
Few African intellectuals have built a reputation for fearless moral intervention quite like Wole Soyinka. For decades, he functioned not merely as a literary icon but as a public conscience, unyielding, often abrasive, and unapologetically critical of power. From military dictatorships to civilian administrations, Soyinka’s voice has historically been sharp, unsparing, and impossible to ignore.
It is precisely this history that makes his perceived restraint, if not outright silence, on the administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu both surprising and, to many observers, deeply troubling.
A Legacy of Ferocious Critique
Soyinka’s record as a critic of governance failures is well established. He has consistently taken strong positions against perceived injustice, corruption, and abuse of power, often at personal risk.
During the presidency of Goodluck Jonathan, Soyinka’s criticism was relentless and biting. At one point, he famously likened Jonathan to the biblical “Nebuchadnezzar,” invoking imagery of tyranny and impunity, particularly in response to the siege of Nigeria’s National Assembly and broader governance failures.
He was equally vocal during earlier eras. He condemned flawed elections, even calling for their cancellation in 2007 due to widespread irregularities. He consistently spoke against corruption and authoritarian tendencies across successive governments, both military and civilian. His literary works themselves, such as Chronicles from the Land of the Happiest People on Earth, serve as biting satire of Nigeria’s ruling class and systemic corruption.
This long-standing pattern cemented his reputation as a moral gadfly, one who “spared no one.”
The Tinubu Era: Silence or Selective Intervention? Against this backdrop, Soyinka’s posture toward the current administration appears markedly different.
To be clear, he has not been completely silent. There have been moments of criticism. For example, he openly rebuked President Tinubu’s handling of protests, describing aspects of the government’s response as reminiscent of “colonial-style repression.”
However, even sympathetic observers concede that such interventions have been sporadic rather than sustained, measured rather than scathing, and largely reactive rather than agenda-setting.
A commentary in Punch notes that while Soyinka has spoken on certain issues, his tone lacks the “characteristic edginess” that defined his earlier critiques.
More critically, the sweeping, systemic condemnation that marked his engagement with previous administrations appears absent. Years into Tinubu’s presidency, the anticipated comprehensive “scorecard” Soyinka once promised has yet to materialize, a gap that has not gone unnoticed.
Looking at the different regimes and eras, Professor Wole Soyinka’s record of activism show a stack contrast. Under the military, it was open defiance, one that even earned him imprisonment. With civilian regimes, before President Goodluck Jonathan, his criticism was systemic with calls for electoral annulment. Under Jonathan, Professor Soyinka’s attack was relentless, fiery and symbolic denunciation. This record forms that backdrop of the different views from both his admirers and critics on his tepid, muted tone and lack of sustained engagement on Tinubu’s administration given the wholesale state capture that we have witnessed.
This shift has fueled a growing perception that something fundamental has changed—not just in Soyinka’s tone, but in his role.
Possible Explanations: Between Speculation and Reality
Several explanations have been advanced; some plausible, others more speculative.
Soyinka himself had indicated in the past that he prefers to allow new administrations time before issuing judgment. However, with the Tinubu government now several years in office, this justification appears increasingly strained in the eyes of critics.
At over 90 years old, Soyinka may simply be choosing his battles more selectively. A lifetime of activism could naturally evolve into a more measured, less combative engagement.
It would be inaccurate to describe total silence. His critique of protest repression shows he remains willing to speak—just not with the same frequency or intensity as before.
Soyinka’s visible interactions with the current president have also raised questions about whether proximity to power has softened his stance. Whether this reflects influence, diplomacy, or mere coincidence remains open to interpretation.
The Burden of Moral Consistency
At the heart of the debate lies a deeper issue: expectation.
Soyinka is not just another commentator. He is a symbol—of resistance, intellectual independence, and moral courage. As such, any perceived inconsistency invites scrutiny.
Critics argue that silence (or restraint) in the face of hardship, wanton nepotism and governance challenges undermines his legacy. His moral authority, once seen as universal, now appears selective.
Some defenders counter that no individual is obligated to respond to every political moment. His occasional interventions prove he has not abandoned his critical role entirely.
The question is not simply whether Wole Soyinka has been silent on Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The evidence suggests he has spoken, but less often, and less forcefully.
The real issue is whether this represents a deliberate strategic recalibration, a natural evolution of an aging intellectual or a troubling departure from a legacy of uncompromising truth-telling.
For many Nigerians, including this writer, the answer remains unresolved. But the discomfort persists because when a voice long associated with fearless dissent grows quieter, the silence itself becomes a statement.
Felix Ofulue can be reached via fofulue1@yahoo.co.uk
