Dear Dr. Moses Ochonu,

Your recent defense of Farooq Kperogi’s apology to Mrs. Aisha Buhari demands a blunt and honest rejoinder. You portray Kperogi’s public apology as a “humane act” and insist it was not a retraction of any falsehood. In your telling, Mr. Kperogi merely showed compassion by apologizing for publicizing a true but “sensitive” private matter, all while “standing solidly” by the truth of his claim. This interpretation is but one way to spin the situation – and unsurprisingly, it’s the way someone firmly in Kperogi’s corner would see it. For many of us outside the echo chamber, however, Kperogi’s episode comes off as yet another instance of his penchant for the salacious over decorum, and your response exemplifies how those who travel in the same crowd often see their own narrow view as the only view.

Let’s break down why your one-sided narrative falls flat, and why both Farooq Kperogi and your defense of him deserve a serious rebuke.

One Apology, Two Interpretations

You assert that Kperogi’s apology “is not a retraction” and that he still stands by the factual accuracy of his Facebook post about Mrs. Buhari’s alleged divorce. You even challenge anyone with evidence to the contrary to come forward, suggesting that no one (including the former First Lady) has disproved his claim. This is a brazen inversion of responsibility. Kperogi lobbed an unverified, deeply personal allegation into the public sphere without offering a shred of concrete evidence. It is not the public’s job to prove a negative or to “supply a contrary narrative” simply to disprove his gossip. In fact, official voices did address the claim: a former aide to Mrs. Buhari, Alhaji Sani Zorro, directly “relayed Mrs. Buhari’s position that her marriage remained intact until President Buhari’s death.” Mrs. Buhari herself, through that statement, strongly denied any divorce took place, affirming she was married to the President until his final breath. Kperogi’s own apology post tacitly concedes this point by acknowledging that Aisha Buhari has the sole authority to define the status of her marriage and that her account “should be respected as supreme.” In light of this, your insistence that “neither Aisha nor her spokespeople have challenged the veracity” of the divorce story is not only misleading but patently false.

What about Kperogi “standing by” his information? You cite his confidence in a “trusted source with unimpeachable integrity.” Pardon me, but that is a flimsy defense. As a journalist (and a professor of journalism, no less), Kperogi should know that no source is beyond error – and certainly no rumor is fit to publish without verification. Your portrayal of him as merely guilty of indiscretion (sharing a truth that should’ve stayed private) conveniently sidesteps the real issue: the information was uncorroborated, unprofessional hearsay. By his own admission, Kperogi’s source never intended the story to go public, which means even he knew it wasn’t solid enough to withstand scrutiny. That’s likely why, after the outcry, Kperogi hastened to emphasize that “Mrs. Buhari’s own account should be deemed supreme” and that he would “not contest” her assertion that no divorce occurred. If that isn’t effectively walking back his claim, what is? Your interpretation that nothing was retracted is but semantic gymnastics. The reality recognized by most observers is that Kperogi’s initial post was speculative and insensitive, and his belated mea culpa was aimed at quelling the storm he stirred, not at reinforcing the truth of his scoop.

Moreover, you lavish praise on the “sincere, human, empathetic” nature of Kperogi’s apology – as if it were some rare act of nobility. Let’s be clear: issuing an apology for a grave mistake is the bare minimum expected, not an extraordinary heroism warranting applause. Farooq Kperogi himself called his Facebook post “one of the worst and cruelest lapses of judgment” of his life, causing “profoundly painful consequences” for Mrs. Buhari. This admission didn’t materialize out of thin air or purely from the goodness of his heart; it came after massive public backlash and likely the realization that he had crossed every line of decency and possibly exposed himself to legal liability. In other words, Kperogi did the right thing only after doing the wrong thing and being called out for it. Framing that as evidence of his saintly conscience – of “being good and humane above being truthful and right,” as you put it – is perversely upside-down. A truly humane journalist would have exercised restraint and ethics before causing such hurt, not after. Your one-dimensional spin ignores the broader context and conveniently paints Kperogi as the victim of his own empathy. It’s a narrative that simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Kperogi’s Penchant for the Salacious Over Decorum

You attempt to isolate this incident as a one-off lapse from an otherwise upright truth-teller. But Farooq Kperogi’s track record betrays a consistent penchant for sensationalism – a taste for the salacious detail or lurid claim, often at the expense of decorum and professionalism. This is not a baseless personal attack; it’s well documented in his past writings and public posts. Consider a few examples from his own history that highlight this pattern:

• *2018, “Jibril from Sudan” Rumor: When an absurd conspiracy theory floated that President Buhari had died and been replaced by a body double, Kperogi ostensibly debunked it – but not without adding his trademark venom. He dismissed the tale as an “implausible absurdity,” yet in the same breath mocked Buhari as “not a clone, but a clown.”. In other words, even while purporting to correct misinformation, he couldn’t resist a cheap, insulting jab. This blending of fact with ridicule typifies Kperogi’s style and shows a relish for scandalous tone over respect.
• 2025, Dancing on Buhari’s Grave: Immediately after President Buhari’s passing a few week ago, Kperogi again leaned into provocative sensationalism. He publicly mused about whether Nigerians should “forgive” Buhari or outright “celebrate his death,” suggesting that if the man had died while in office, public celebration would be “justified”. Such commentary goes beyond tough critique – it normalized a grotesque kind of grave-dancing and contradicted basic decency in a time of national mourning. Even as he claimed not to rejoice in anyone’s death, Kperogi fanned the flames of division and spite, reflecting a personal vendetta overriding any sense of propriety or compassion.
• July 2025, Aisha Buhari Divorce Claim: In perhaps the most egregious example, Farooq Kperogi posted on July 16, 2025 that Mrs. Aisha Buhari had divorced the late President before his death. He presented this as factual, yet cited no official documents or on-record sources, only an anonymous tip from someone he deemed credible. To bolster the story, he pointed to tenuous, circumstantial hints – such as Mrs. Buhari allegedly not immediately traveling to see her ailing husband – and spun them as “evidence” of a secret split. This claim was invasive, poorly sourced, and extraordinarily hurtful to a grieving widow. It was, in the words of one journalist, a “thoughtless post” that served no public good but to generate clickbait and confusion during a period of national grief. By broadcasting such an intimate allegation without verification, Kperogi violated fundamental journalistic ethics and chose sensational gossip over basic humanity.

These incidents paint a clear picture: Farooq Kperogi has habitually prioritized shock value and scandal over decorum and diligence. He is, as I noted in my piece that you responded to, a “social media provocateur” who thrives on controversial claims and toxic innuendo. The pattern is unmistakable – time and again, Kperogi opts to magnify rumour as truth and treat sensitive personal matters as fodder for sensationalism. This is the broader context you conveniently ignore while lionizing his “humane” apology. Kperogi’s own peers in the media have called his Aisha Buhari post “distasteful and hugely irresponsible,” noting how it betrayed a pursuit of clickbait over ethics. Far from being a lone mistake, this kind of salacious storytelling is part and parcel of Kperogi’s brand.

Narrow Views from the Same Crowd

It is no secret, Dr. Ochonu, that you count Farooq Kperogi as a friend and ideological fellow traveler. You openly admit you “have spoken to him” about this incident, and your write-up reads less like independent analysis and more like a character reference for a buddy. There’s nothing wrong with loyalty to a friend, but when that loyalty blinds you to basic facts and broader perspectives, it becomes a problem. Your response exemplifies how those who traffic in the same circles often reinforce each other’s narratives while dismissing all outside voices as misguided or malicious. You accuse “others” of harboring an “anti-Kperogi agenda,” suggesting that anyone criticizing his actions must simply be out to get him. This is a textbook example of echo-chamber thinking. You’ve essentially insulated your viewpoint (and Kperogi’s) from valid criticism by attributing it all to personal bias in Kperogi’s detractors, without considering that the criticism might be coming from a place of principle, not prejudice.

Let’s set the record straight: Many commentators who reprimanded Kperogi had no personal axe to grind. Their agenda, if any, was upholding decency and truth. They include respected journalists and observers who found his post wildly inappropriate. For instance, Premium Times reported that “some observers had described [Kperogi’s] initial post as speculative and insensitive.” Another columnist bluntly noted that even if the divorce story had been true, airing it served no purpose except “to cause unnecessary confusion” and pain, especially coming “at the expense of respect, verifiability, or dignity.” These are hardly the words of a conspiratorial anti-Kperogi cabal – they are reasoned judgments from people who don’t share your cosy proximity to the man. By waving away all such feedback as “anti-Kperogi agenda,” you reveal a narrow, self-serving outlook: only those in yours and Kperogi’s little club can possibly be right, while everyone else must be a hater or fool. It’s common knowledge that when one runs exclusively with a like-minded crowd, one’s perspective becomes myopic. Unfortunately, your defense of Kperogi is a prime example of this blinkered groupthink.

A Rebuke to Farooq Kperogi’s Irresponsibility

Farooq Kperogi deserves condemnation not for who he is, but for what he did in this saga. You, Dr. Ochonu, ask us to commend him for apologizing. Sorry, but no – basic accountability is not optional. The real issue is the recklessness of his initial actions, which your narrative conveniently downplays. Kperogi, a seasoned academic and columnist, knew better (or certainly should have known better) than to publish an unverified bombshell about a person’s private life. Yet he went ahead, likely because the story was too juicy to resist, and because it would generate the kind of buzz and debate he craves. In doing so, he trampled on standards of accuracy, fairness, and respect for privacy that journalists are sworn to uphold. As one analysis put it, he “violated every one of those standards” by prioritizing a sensational scoop over proper verification. It was reckless and irresponsible, and it inflicted real harm – plunging a mourning family into further distress and sparking “unwelcome speculation” about their personal lives.

No, Mr. Kperogi’s apology does not wash all this away. We can acknowledge his remorse, but let’s not pretend it’s a golden act of virtue. He himself admitted that “the truth of this information is now far less significant than the hurt” caused by publishing it – a tacit admission that printing it was never in the public interest to begin with. This is key: there was no compelling public interest served by his disclosure at all. It was gossip, dressed up as “insight,” and it backfired spectacularly. In the end, Kperogi had to eat crow and retract the claim in all but name (since accepting Aisha Buhari’s word as “supreme” means his original story is effectively nullified). His belated contrition, while better than nothing, does not erase the damage done, nor does it excuse the lapse in judgment that led to the fiasco. A scathing editorial rightly summed it up: “Farooq Kperogi’s conduct in this affair was appalling. He harmed a family in mourning, disrespected the truth, insulted dissenters, and retreated only when cornered.” That is the legacy of this incident – not the sanitized fairy tale of a noble truth-teller who momentarily tripped over his big heart that you, his buddy, is struggling to sell.

A Rebuke to Your Defense and Final Thoughts

Dr. Ochonu, your attempt to whitewash Kperogi’s blunder is as disappointing as the blunder itself. Instead of grappling with the ethical failures at hand, you chose to attack strawmen and present Kperogi as some martyr of empathy. You praise him for having a “conscience” and “certain principles of human decency”, as if these traits are so rare that we must shower adulation on anyone who displays them after being caught in the wrong. Do you not see how low a bar that sets? Kperogi’s apology was necessary, yes, but hardly sufficient. To then twist it into a virtue signal – “look how kind he is, valuing humanity over truth!” – is frankly absurd. It implies that spreading unsubstantiated private information about a grieving woman is fine, so long as you feel bad about it later. No, that doesn’t get a cookie.

Furthermore, your loyalty to a friend should not cloud your judgment of right and wrong. Sometimes our friends err, and in those moments true intellectual honesty calls for holding them to account, not concocting elaborate excuses. By doubling down that Kperogi’s underlying info was true (something you cannot prove and which key parties have refuted), you do him no favors – you only prolong the controversy and make him look even more like a trafficker in dubious gossip. By dismissing every critic as “mischievous” or biased, you ignore the genuine concerns many have raised about journalistic integrity and compassion in public discourse. Ironically, while you decry others for “pretending the apology is for falsity”, you are pretending that Kperogi’s original act was perfectly fine and that all the fuss is just an agenda. Such denialism is a disservice to the truth.

At the end of the day, the facts and principles stand: Kperogi had no business airing that alleged divorce story, and doing so was a gross lapse in judgment. The timing and manner of it were, by all reasonable measure, “especially insensitive” and purely for sensational effect. The onus was on him to verify extraordinary claims – he did not. The onus is on you, as a public intellectual, to acknowledge these realities – you did not. Instead of introspection, you offered deflection. Instead of promoting accountability, you spun a narrative of self-justification. This is unacceptable.

So, I urge you to stop spinning, Dr. Ochonu. Farooq Kperogi’s apology is not the moral triumph you paint it to be; it is a testament to his own guilt and error. His “humane act” would not have been needed at all if he hadn’t first committed an inhumane act of public indiscretion. And your one-eyed defense of that sequence only undermines your credibility. It’s time to take off the blinders of camaraderie and recognize this episode for what it is: a cautionary tale in unethical sensationalism and the echo chamber of those who enable it.

In conclusion, both Farooq Kperogi and his cheerleaders, especially you, Dr. Ochonu, must learn that truth and decency are not partisan options to be toggled at convenience. Kperogi must remember that being a journalist and scholar comes with the duty to be responsible, not just the power to titillate the public. And you, Dr. Ochonu, should remember that being a friend or admirer does not mean defending the indefensible. Sometimes the kindest, most “humane” act is to hold our friends accountable when they err, rather than to indulge their follies and call it virtue. The narrow view from inside Kperogi’s circle may comfort you, but it does not change the broader reality that this was a debacle entirely of his own making. No amount of spin can erase that, and no apology – however worded – can take away the fact that it should never have happened in the first place.

Boldly and resolutely submitted,
Bukola Adeyemi, Oyeniyi – a concerned observer who refuses to buy the one-sided spin Dr. Ochonu is trying very hard to sell.