NewsRescue
While we wait for the Harvard University Hutchins Centre for African and American Research to release the full video of professor Wole Soyinka’s most recent statements about Nigeria’s political landscape and predictions based on trends, the “Predicting Nigeria, Electoral Ironies” speech/text; we present here what he has said before about those who vote for PDP, a party he has called a “nest of assassins,” and Jonathan, a person he has described unreservedly as a total and dangerous failure.
Professor Soyinka angrily denied some harsh and surprising statements in which he was quoted to have chastised Nigeria’s industrious Igbo’s as being people who vote for their ‘personal’ self interest only, aka, stomach; however what he really said is yet to be released to the public.
We cannot confirm if he in any way hinted what was taken to refer to the Igbos who according to April 28th election results voted 99% for exiting president Goodluck Jonathan responsible for a deadly pogrom and the worst era of clueless governance, corruption, looting and economic collapse in Nigeria’s history.
Did Soyinka perhaps refer broadly once again to those who voted for Buhari without specifically mentioning the word “Igbo?” Or did he not at all make reference to the 28th election event and chastise those who voted for Jonathan as quoted.
Based on antecedence, professor Soyinka in 2014 said of whoever votes for Jonathan:
“Only four sets of people can vote for the PDP:
(1) Those who are intellectually blind,
(2) those who are blinded by ethnicity,
(3) those who are blinded by corruption and therefore afraid of the unknown, should power change hands, &
(4) those who are suffering from a combination of the above terminal sicknesses”
In February of this year, Soyinka said that anyone who votes for Jonathan or promotes the voting of the now displaced leader was a “terrorist,” equivalent of a Boko Haram member dwelling in Sambisa forest.
theCable.ng who released the purported statement has retracted and issued an apology, however the question remains; where did this purported statement come from?