0
0
Kawas Draws Fresh Support As Lere Olayinka Condemns Attacks Over CBCN’s Political Position
Wike’s aide says criticism of the CBCN President-General should not become a campaign to discredit his clerical identity
The controversy surrounding the Charismatic Bishops Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) and its President-General, Archbishop Leonard Bature Kawas, has taken another turn, following a strong reaction from Lere Olayinka, Senior Special Assistant on Public Communications and Social Media to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike.
Olayinka, in a statement shared on his official X (Twitter) and Facebook accounts on Monday, September 14, 2026, criticised what he described as the reaction of some supporters of NDC presidential candidate, Peter Obi, to Kawas following the CBCN’s endorsement of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for the 2027 presidential election.
His comment focused particularly on what he described as the transformation of Kawas from an accepted Christian cleric into a target of attacks simply because his current political position differs from Obi’s supporters, who are known for online mob action against anyone that dares says anything contrary to their political stance.
Reacting to the controversy, Olayinka wrote:
“He wasn’t a FAKE BISHOP here. He became a fake bishop because he stopped supporting their FAKE MAN.”
He added that Kawas was now experiencing what, in his view, other public figures have faced after refusing to align themselves with Obi’s political movement.
While Olayinka’s language was strong, the central point of his intervention was that a disagreement over a presidential candidate should not automatically become an attempt to discredit a person’s professional, religious or personal identity.
Olayinka’s comments come at a time when Kawas and the CBCN have faced intense criticism across social media following their endorsement of Tinubu.
The criticism has gone beyond disagreement with the endorsement, with some online commentators questioning Kawas’ status and describing members of the conference in derogatory terms.
Olayinka argued that this type of reaction raises a broader question about the boundaries of political disagreement.
A person may disagree with a bishop’s political choice, challenge the reasons given for an endorsement or even strongly oppose the candidate being supported. But, as reflected in Olayinka’s intervention, those disagreements are separate from establishing whether the person is genuinely a Christian cleric.
That distinction is important in a democracy, where political choices can legitimately differ without turning every disagreement into a personal campaign of discrediting.
The controversy has also brought renewed attention to the way public figures are treated when their political positions change or when they take positions different from those expected by sections of their previous supporters.
Olayinka’s argument is essentially that Kawas should be judged on the substance of his present position rather than subjected to personal attacks because he has taken a political position that some Nigerians oppose.
The reaction also challenges the tendency on social media to turn political disagreement into a question of personal loyalty.
In the Nigerian political environment, where religious leaders, traditional institutions, civil society groups, professional organisations and other influential voices routinely express opinions on national issues, disagreement with a particular position is not in itself evidence of dishonesty or lack of credibility.
In a related development, Olayinka also criticised Rufai Oseni over an image which he alleged had been digitally generated using AI, or manipulated to place a political symbol associated with Tinubu on Archbishop Kawas’ mitre.
According to Olayinka, the image was being used to ridicule the CBCN President-General in the context of the ongoing political controversy.
He subsequently displayed what he described as the original mitre worn by Kawas, arguing that its actual design did not contain the political inscription appearing in the circulated image.
Olayinka accused those responsible for circulating the disputed image of attempting to ridicule Kawas because of his political position.
The issue is particularly significant because manipulated and AI-generated political images have become an increasing problem in Nigeria’s online political space. Independent fact-checking has recently established that at least one viral image involving Rufai Oseni and an alleged Tinubu endorsement was AI-generated and did not represent an authentic statement by him.
That broader development reinforces the need for caution before treating politically charged images circulating on social media as authentic.
There is a legitimate place for political criticism, satire and even sharp disagreement in a democratic society.
But deliberately presenting a manipulated image as an authentic photograph can create a different problem if it is intended to make the public believe that something actually happened when it did not.
For a religious leader such as Archbishop Kawas, whose public identity is inseparable from his ecclesiastical office, an altered image involving his ceremonial vestments can carry a meaning beyond ordinary political criticism.
That is why Olayinka’s intervention has placed emphasis on the need to separate legitimate criticism of CBCN’s political position from material that may be designed primarily to ridicule or embarrass its leadership.
The controversy has placed Archbishop Kawas and the CBCN under an unusually intense level of social-media scrutiny.
Yet political disagreement with a Christian organisation does not remove the organisation’s right to participate in public discourse.
Likewise, supporting a particular political candidate does not give opponents the right to determine whether the leaders making that choice are entitled to retain their religious identity.
The more constructive approach is to interrogate the decision itself: What did the bishops consider? What reasons did they give? What expectations do they have from government? What issues do they intend to advocate for?
Those questions can be debated vigorously without reducing the conversation to name-calling or attacks on personal identity.
Olayinka’s intervention ultimately places the Kawas controversy within a wider debate about political tolerance.
Nigeria’s democracy is built around competing ideas, candidates and viewpoints. Religious leaders, like other citizens, can hold political opinions, while members of the public retain the right to disagree with them.
But disagreement becomes less productive when it turns into a campaign to delegitimise individuals simply because they have chosen a different political path.
For Archbishop Kawas and the CBCN, the immediate controversy may continue, but the larger question raised by the latest development is one that goes beyond the 2027 election:
”Can Nigerians disagree politically without attempting to destroy the reputation, identity or dignity of those who hold a different view?”
That remains a question for the wider political and religious community—not just for CBCN and its critics.
ARISE NEWS247
Unfiltered Truth. Unmatched Depth.
Average Rating