A critic is someone who evaluates, judges or analyses creative works, performances, or the social and political policies of an individual, group or organisation.
Criticism, on the other hand, involves expressing disapproval, highlighting perceived shortcomings or offering a reasoned assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of something.
But criticism is not always bad. It can be a valuable tool for correcting mistakes and promoting accountability when offered in good faith.
READ ON: NSC under attack: Who is after Dikko, Olopade?
But when driven by personal interests, hidden agendas or malice, it becomes something entirely different.
Recently, the leadership of the National Sports Commission (NSC) has come under criticism from a few individuals for reasons best known to them.
One of the most vocal critics is my colleague based in Ibadan, who took the lead with a series of articles he claimed reflected the views of sports stakeholders.
This was followed by a few more critical contributions from Jos, the Plateau State capital, and another piece whose place of origin I could not establish.
My Ibadan colleague’s latest contribution, in what appears to be another effort to portray the administration of Shehu Dikko and Bukola Olopade in a negative light, was published yesterday morning as an open letter to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, titled “Open Letter to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.”
Let me make this clear once again: nobody is sponsoring me to defend Dikko, Olopade or the National Sports Commission. I do not even personally know either of the two gentlemen.
ALSO READ: Sports stakeholders should applaud Dikko and Olopade, not other way round
My position is not driven by friendship, personal interest or any form of inducement. I am simply standing up for what I believe is the truth.
Some may choose to interpret my position differently, but I will not abandon my conviction just to please anyone.
I am doing this out of genuine appreciation for the work and contributions of NSC Chairman Shehu Dikko and Director-General Bukola Olopade.
I believe their efforts and achievements deserve recognition, just as their shortcomings, where established, deserve constructive criticism.
From the opening paragraphs of the letter, I began to sense that the underlying objective of these so-called stakeholders was to persuade the Presidency to properly constitute the NSC before Nigerian sports pays a higher price.
Honestly, I have no objection to the proper constitution of the Commission. In fact, I believe it would benefit from having all other statutory members fully integrated into its structure.
I also agree with the position expressed in the statement titled “The Need to Inaugurate the Full Statutory Membership of the National Sports Commission and Restore Institutional Accountability.”
The letter began by expressing respect for the Presidency and concern for Nigerian sports. Which the writer acknowledged that the restoration of the NSC had initially generated optimism among sports stakeholders, who expected institutional reforms, accountability, professionalism and sustainable development.
However, he quickly shifted attention to the Commission’s leadership and structure, questioning its composition, direction and operational priorities under Shehu Dikko.
He concluded his opening argument with a pointed question: Can an institution established by law effectively perform its duties without its full statutory membership and governance structures in place?
In what appeared to be an attempt to distance his argument from any personal dispute, the writer insisted: “Your Excellency, this is not a question of personalities. It is a question of institutional integrity.”
I have no problem with his first point, titled “A National Commission Cannot Be Reduced to Two Principal Officers.”
In fact, I find some of the arguments under this heading relevant to the need for a properly constituted Commission.
He argued that the NSC is a statutory institution, not a private organisation belonging to its Chairman and Director-General.
Referring to Section 2(1) of the National Sports Commission Act, 2023, he maintained that the law provides for a broad membership comprising representatives of sports institutions, government establishments, professional groups and other relevant stakeholders.
He particularly highlighted Section 2(1)(q), which provides for six Chairmen of State Sports Councils representing the six sports zones on a rotational basis.
He also cited Section 2(2), which provides for the appointment of the Chairman and members of the Commission by the President.
Furthermore, he referred to the Schedule to the Act, which establishes the institutional framework for conducting the Commission’s business and provides for a quorum of 10 members, including the six zonal representatives.
He then posed a series of questions to the President: “Your Excellency, where are these statutory members?
“Where are the representatives who should provide the necessary institutional balance, geographical inclusion and stakeholder participation?
“Why should a Commission established under an Act of the National Assembly operate without the full participation of the membership contemplated by that legislation?”
He consequently urged the President to appoint and inaugurate the outstanding members of the Commission in accordance with the Act.
He further argued that sports administration in a country with six geopolitical zones should not become the exclusive preserve of two individuals.
According to him, the Commission must reflect national representation, collective responsibility and institutional accountability.
However, he was careful to add that he was not suggesting that every vacancy automatically invalidates every decision of the Commission.
Rather, he warned that decisions taken without compliance with statutory requirements on meetings, quorum and proper authorisation could raise questions of legality and become subjects of judicial scrutiny.
I agree that the NSC should be fully constituted in line with the provisions of its establishing Act.
However, the absence of some statutory members should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that the Chairman and Director-General have usurped the Commission’s powers or that its entire administration is operating outside the law.
However, I totally disagree with his second point, in which he questioned Shehu Dikko’s previous administrative record without subjecting that of Director-General Bukola Olopade to the same level of scrutiny.
Titled “A Review of Shehu Dikko’s Previous Administrative Record,” this section focused almost entirely on Dikko’s tenure as Chairman of the League Management Company (LMC). It raised questions about the management of domestic league finances, payment of prize money, referees’ indemnities, club welfare and the league’s governance structure.
The writer argued that these issues deserved an independent institutional review rather than being dismissed as mere criticism.
He further questioned the mechanisms put in place to protect clubs, the accountability measures for outstanding referees’ indemnities and the safeguards established to prevent participating clubs from facing avoidable financial difficulties.
He also called on the NSC to publish relevant records of the LMC’s governance structure, board appointments and financial obligations during Dikko’s tenure.
While I have no objection to examining the previous administrative records of public officeholders, my concern is the apparent selectiveness of this approach.
Why single out Shehu Dikko for such scrutiny while leaving Bukola Olopade, the DG of the Commission untouched? Where is the fairness? Why Dikko alone? “I sincerely hope my suspicion is wrong.”
I hope it is not what I am thinking.
If the objective is to assess the competence, transparency and accountability of the present NSC leadership, it should be both for the Chairman and Director-General not be subjected to only one person.
You cannot demand institutional accountability while applying different standards to the two individuals leading the institution.
The third point, “The NSC Must Not Become a Substitute for Every Sports Institution,” is where I began to see what I consider the real direction of the writer’s argument.
By questioning the NSC’s role in relation to national sports federations, particularly the NFF, the writer introduced an issue that goes beyond institutional composition and accountability. It touches directly on the relationship between the NSC and the leadership of the federations.
Of course, the NFF has its own constitutional and administrative responsibilities. The same applies to the Nigeria Basketball Federation and other national federations.
Nobody is suggesting that the NSC should take over their day-to-day administration. But there is a difference between respecting the autonomy of sports federations and questioning the Commission’s statutory responsibilities in supervising and coordinating sports development.
And this is where I believe some critics have a problem. Many of us have our own reasons, which I will deliberately keep to ourselves, for disagreeing with the previous NFF leadership under Ibrahim Gusau and his team.
We watched Nigerian football struggle under their administration. The game suffered setbacks, while confidence in its administration became a major concern.
I strongly suspect that some of those now questioning the NSC’s intervention are uncomfortable with the prospect of losing the influence they previously enjoyed within the football administration system.
For those of us who welcome an opportunity to reset Nigerian football, the NSC’s intervention represents a chance to rethink the system, correct past mistakes and put the game on a new path.
The autonomy of federations must not become a shield against accountability, just as the supervisory responsibility of the NSC must not become an excuse for arbitrary interference. That is the balance we should be discussing.
His fourth point, “The NBBF Electoral Controversy Should Concern the Presidency,” is another argument I find difficult to accept, particularly when it appears to place the burden of a longstanding crisis on the present NSC leadership.
The controversy surrounding the Nigeria Basketball Federation did not start with Shehu Dikko and Bukola Olopade. It is an age-long problem that has survived different administrations. Why, then, should the present leadership be made to carry the blame for a crisis it did not originate?
Unless there is an agenda behind this selective emphasis, it begins to look like an attempt to give a dog a bad name in order to hang it.
What I find even more curious is the apparent silence over the NSC’s involvement in elections conducted by other national sports federations.
The Commission has overseen several other federation electoral processes that, according to available accounts, did not attract comparable controversy. Why are these developments missing from the writer’s assessment?
Why highlight the NBBF controversy while overlooking the other electoral exercises?
If we are going to assess Dikko and Olopade’s administration, let us examine the complete picture. Give credit where it is due, raise questions where necessary and apply the same standard across all federations.
One controversial election should not become the yardstick for judging the entire electoral record of the National Sports Commission.
On the question of lasting sports development structures, my friend should also have examined the failure of previous administrations to put the Moshood Abiola National Stadium, Abuja, and other sports facilities into good shape, despite repeated efforts and huge investments.
I also wonder why he did not mention the Dangote grant, whose whereabouts remain a subject of concern. What happened to that intervention, and why has it not received the same level of scrutiny?
We cannot discuss sustainable sports development while overlooking issues like these. If we are serious about moving Nigerian sports forward, our assessment must be comprehensive, consistent and fair.
We must examine the past, question the present and demand accountability from everyone involved.
On his appeal to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the writer made two demands that I wholeheartedly support:
“I am in support of the immediate constitution and inauguration of the full statutory membership of the NSC in accordance with Section 2 of the National Sports Commission Act, 2023.
I also want to ensure the inclusion of the six zonal representatives provided for under Section 2(1)(q), alongside all other statutory representatives.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with these demands. They are legitimate calls for compliance with the law.
However, I strongly disagree with his other prayers, which, in my view, go beyond constructive criticism and appear more like an attempt to witch-hunt and tarnish the image of an individual working hard to reposition Nigerian sports.
Shehu Dikko deserves better. To many of us, he should be celebrated as a hero, not subjected to this kind of treatment or portrayed as the villain.
