In Defence of Opinion, Identity, and Intellectual Honesty
By Pastor Stanley Ajileye
I received the rejoinder titled “The Battle for Objectivity, Debunking Stanley Ajileye’s Opinionated Narrative on Kogi Governorship” with a smile. Not out of condescension, but out of clarity.
I smiled because my original article bore my name. The rejoinder did not.
- Advertisement -
Why the anonymity? Why the sudden shyness? Why the fear of authorship?
A faceless response is often a confession in itself. It suggests either a lack of conviction in the argument being advanced or an unwillingness to be held accountable for one’s own words. Any article I cannot proudly sign, I will not write. The people who raised me in this profession, men of courage and conscience like Bayo Onanuga, Babafemi Ojudu, Dapo Olorunyomi, Kunle Ajibade, and Seye Kehinde, would be ashamed of me if I hid behind anonymity while throwing stones. Journalism is not an act of cowardice. It is a calling of courage.
The faceless author may therefore want to first resolve the question of professional integrity before questioning mine.
I also smiled because the writer hurriedly challenged my professionalism by demanding “neutrality” from an opinion article. That alone betrays a troubling ignorance of basic journalistic genres. Am I not entitled to an opinion? Does being a journalist strip me of the right to express a reasoned viewpoint?
Perhaps the writer requires a refresher course.
There are different forms of journalistic writing. There is straight news, which demands balance and attribution. There are features, which allow interpretation. And there are opinion articles, where a writer is not only permitted but expected to take a position, marshal arguments, and defend a point of view. To demand neutrality from an opinion piece is to reveal a lack of training, or worse, intellectual dishonesty. The faceless author should indeed go back to school.
Ordinarily, I do not dignify rejoinders with responses. I make this exception purely for educational purposes, for the benefit of the writer and others who share similar confusion.
More importantly, the rejoinder failed spectacularly to debunk the substance of my article.
Let us restate the facts, facts the rejoinder itself inadvertently confirmed.
First, I stated clearly that the invitations to the meetings in question were deceptive, because they did not disclose the true purpose of the gatherings.
Second, the first invitation was circulated as a call for an Okun Security Parley.
Third, the second invitation was framed as an Okun Unity and Peace Advocacy Meeting.
Fourth, I stated that when attendees arrived and the agenda was twisted into an endorsement exercise, some participants openly protested and staged walkouts.
These were the pillars of my opinion, formed after direct conversations with individuals whose faces appeared in the now viral video.
Ironically, the rejoinder validated my position when it admitted, and I quote in substance, that protests and walkouts did occur, but dismissed them as “a natural part of politics.”
If dissent and walkouts did happen, as the rejoinder concedes, then what exactly is being disputed? Why the outrage? Why the moral panic?
One cannot, in the same breath, acknowledge the facts and condemn the man who stated them.
My pen is not blind. But more importantly, it is not faceless. It is fearless. It is accountable. It stands openly behind every word it writes.
Let everyone remain in their lane.
History, time, and truth will do the rest.
(DEMOCRACY NEWSLINE NEWSPAPER, JANUARY 15TH 2026)
