✓ Why Rev. Fr. Clement Agama’s Latest Rejoinder Misses the Point and Misplaces Responsibility
By Comrade Amawu Cletus Albert Amawu
Journalist | Publisher | Public Affairs Analyst, writing from Calabar
Rev. Fr. Clement Agama’s latest publication, titled “The Ghostwriters of Compromise: A Philosophical and Theological Response to Amawu Cletus and Akpala Beatrice,” is undoubtedly eloquent in language and ambitious in philosophical and theological references. However, beneath the sophisticated prose lies a regrettable attempt to personalise an issue that ought to have remained focused on ideas rather than individuals.
It is therefore necessary, not because I seek controversy, but because my name has been unnecessarily dragged into a dispute that neither originated with me nor revolves around me, to set the record straight.
ALSO READ:
I Am Not the Subject of Your Disagreement
The first and most fundamental question remains unanswered:
Why is Comrade Amawu Cletus Albert Amawu being introduced into what is essentially a disagreement between Rev. Fr. Clement Agama and Beatrice Akpala?
My only identifiable role was that of a journalist and Publisher of EpistleNews, the platform that published a rejoinder titled:
“RE: REV. FR. CLEMENT AGAMA’S RESPONSE MISREPRESENTS BEATRICE AKPALA’S POSITION, IGNORES CONTEXT AND REPLACES FACTS WITH EMOTION.”
Publishing an article neither makes me its ghostwriter nor its intellectual sponsor.
If every publisher automatically becomes the author of every opinion appearing on his platform, then by the same reasoning every newspaper proprietor must answer personally for every editorial, column and opinion published in his newspaper. Such reasoning is neither logical nor intellectually defensible.
A publisher provides a platform; the responsibility for the content rests with its author unless expressly stated otherwise.
To label me a “ghostwriter” without a shred of evidence is not philosophy. It is conjecture.
A Serious Allegation Requires Serious Proof
Throughout his lengthy philosophical exposition, Rev. Fr. Agama repeatedly refers to me as Madam Beatrice Akpala’s “proxy”, “surrogate”, “ghostwriter” and “mercenary pen”.
Those are grave allegations.
Yet nowhere in his article does he provide a single piece of evidence to support them.
Classical logic teaches that assertions without proof are merely assertions.
In law, they amount to allegations.
In journalism, they offend the principles of fairness.
In theology, they violate the commandment against bearing false witness.
One would have expected a priest who invokes philosophy, theology and ethics to appreciate that reputation is sacred and should never be sacrificed on the altar of speculation.
Is This the Voice of Prophecy or the Language of Personal Vilification?
Rev. Fr. Agama proudly describes himself as a “Prophetic Voice for the Common Good.”
That description naturally invites scrutiny.
The prophetic ministry in Scripture was never characterised by personal attacks or attempts to malign innocent individuals. The prophets confronted injustice courageously, but they equally upheld truth, fairness and integrity.
One must therefore ask:
How prophetic is a voice for the common good when it becomes a vehicle for campaigns of calumny against persons who are not parties to the dispute?
How does falsely branding a publisher as a “ghostwriter” advance justice?
How does imputing motives without evidence strengthen democracy?
How does attacking personalities rather than arguments promote the common good?
These are legitimate questions that deserve honest answers.
My Catholic Formation Teaches Me Better
Permit me to speak personally.
Long before journalism and public affairs became part of my vocation, I was nurtured within the Catholic faith.
By God’s grace, I served faithfully as a Sacristan in my home parish.
I had the privilege of mentoring several altar servers who, today, have answered God’s call to the priesthood and are serving faithfully in different parts of the Church.
That formation taught me profound respect for the sacred office of the priesthood.
It also taught me that priests, like every other human being, are accountable to truth.
Respect for the cassock does not require silence when falsehood is directed against one’s person.
Indeed, authentic Catholic teaching encourages fraternal correction, justice and charity.
It is therefore in that same spirit of charity that I respectfully disagree with Rev. Fr. Agama’s unjust characterisation of my person.
Why the Singular Obsession with Beatrice Akpala?
Another question continues to trouble many discerning observers.
Why does every discourse on the developmental challenges of Ukelle ultimately narrow down to one individual, Beatrice Akpala?
Is she the only political office holder Ukelle has ever produced?
Is she the highest-ranking political figure to emerge from the area?
Has every public official before and after her discharged their responsibilities so perfectly that she alone must carry the burden of decades of developmental deficits?
No serious student of political history would answer these questions in the affirmative.
Developmental challenges are rarely the product of one individual.
Communities evolve through successive administrations, multiple elected representatives and numerous government institutions.
Reducing the entire historical experience of Ukelle to one personality oversimplifies a far more complex reality.
Constructive criticism is healthy.
Selective outrage is not.
The Danger of Personalising Public Discourse
Public discourse is healthiest when it interrogates policies, governance and measurable outcomes.
It becomes unhealthy when individuals are elevated into convenient symbols upon whom every societal frustration is projected.
That approach neither advances democracy nor strengthens accountability.
Instead, it breeds division and distracts from the systemic conversations that genuinely deserve public attention.
Journalism Must Not Become a Casualty
As a journalist and publisher, my commitment has always been to providing a platform for robust, lawful and responsible public engagement.
Publishing opposing opinions does not amount to personal endorsement.
Neither does it transform the publisher into an invisible author.
To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand both journalism and freedom of expression.
If Rev. Fr. Agama disagrees with the arguments contained in the published rejoinder, intellectual honesty demands that he engage the substance of those arguments rather than manufacture a fictional “ghostwriter” to prosecute.
Let Us Debate Ideas, Not Invent Villains
I harbour no personal animosity towards Rev. Fr. Clement Agama.
Neither do I seek to diminish his constitutional right to speak on matters affecting his community.
Indeed, democracy flourishes when diverse voices are heard.
However, that same democracy demands fairness, evidence and intellectual discipline.
Dragging my name into a disagreement where I neither authored the disputed article nor acted as anyone’s proxy serves no public interest.
It merely diverts attention from the substantive issues requiring mature engagement.
The debate should remain where it belongs, on facts, policies, governance and accountability, not on unfounded assumptions about individuals.
If we are truly committed to the common good, then let us pursue truth with evidence, disagree without malice, and criticise without calumny.
That, indeed, is the higher calling of both journalism and the prophetic vocation.
Hope you find the Above publication useful, Calabargist will love to keep you updated via our newsletter by subscribing with your email.
