The author’s postulations about the implications of the passing of Abba Kyari, the President’s Chief of Staff, simply crafted scenarios premised entirely on insinuations and conjectures at best. Nothing about his arguments are unique to Buhari’s presidency.
In power relations, it is customary to see people justlings for influence at the corridors of power, if or when a powerful figure departs. And the deceased, Abba Kyari, under President Buhari, is not any different.
Nonetheless, Farooq’s routinely condecending assualt on the President’s abilities signify more of a biased mindset against the President, than anything else.
You may notice consistent similarities in the pattern of his previous attacks on Buhari with his latest onslaught after the news of the passing of the Chief of staff to President Buhari.
However, one decernible constant appears to be his sacarstic underestimation of the Presidents intellect — projecting him as a “mindless buffoon” incapable of self-awereness.
Nothing can be farther from truth than such malicious character assassination of the President, (deliberately) crafted to undermine his image and public appeal.
Certainly, we can argue that his intention was actually to float the idea of internal rift or power struggle is occurring in Presidency because of his death as the surrogate to the President, which is propostrous.
However, this explains his rather degrading depictions of the President, with remarks like: “an insentient being…barely aware he’s alive”.
A “breathing mannequin whose only reason for living is to prove he isn’t dead”
It is remarkably malicious to characterize a healthy President as braindead, as though he was in coma. It is atrocious and unprofessional.
What is disturbing is the audacity of ensnearing the President with obnoxious claims and lacking observable scientific justification for doing so.
It is classic character assassination, and nothing more.
The writer is not known to be a registered or licensed psychologists and a brain surgeon to present qualified opinions on anyone’s specific mental health situation.
Moreover, he made no efforts to cite informed professional assessments made by nuarologists or psychologists who (previously) had examined the President to have reached such (disturbing) diagnosis on his mental health.
Therefore, challenging his capacity to perform his constitutional duties, by invoking senility is dubiously premised.
In addition, basic decency aught to restrain his rather outlandish opinions, if not scientifically authenticated by experts. And disappointingly, his narrative massively breached the noble endeavor of presenting informed and measured arguments to advance knowledge and understanding in the sphere of political discurse. Instead it appears entirely sinister.
Ultimately, i believe we can challange the excesses of political office holders by insisting on on greater transparency and accountability to the public. But we must also do so by promoting fedelity to the truth in our observance of society.
