By Toks Oguntuga
I doubt if there is anyone in Nigeria who has not heard of the sack of the Chaplain of Chapel of
Christ the Light, Venerable Femi Taiwo. His sack has been attributed to the First Lady of Lagos
state Deaconess Bolanle Ambode who was alleged to have been angered by the Chaplains refusal
to administer the anointing oil on her first during the anointing service held in the church.
As interesting as this story appears there are few missing links that cast a doubt on the credibility
of the whole story and the journalistic objectivity employed so far. It is a truism that there are
three sides to a story: your side, my side and the truth. This connotes that all sides to a story must
be heard before passing judgement. There are four major dramatis personae in the chaplain’s
sack story. They are the Chaplain, the Church’s governing council, the Lagos State government
and the First Lady of Lagos State. It is quite disturbing that while attempts were made to get the
side of the story of three dramatis personae, one was glaringly ignored.
The Chaplain when asked his of own side of the story declined to do so. He was reported by the
Punch newspaper to have said “If you have any inquiry, direct it to the church. But one thing I
can say is that I have tried as a pastor to live above board. It will not be right engaging the church
or the government on the pages of a newspaper.” It beggars belief why someone who we are
made to believe have been unfairly treated will refuse to state his own side of the story.
The Punch correspondent reported he attempted to reach members of the governing council for
their views but all including the Assistant Chaplain, Very Rev. Ayo Oyadotun refused to
comment. The position of the Lagos state government – the employer of Chaplain Femi Taiwo
was sought and has been well reported. According to the Commissioner for Information and
Strategy, Steve Ayorinde, “the former chaplain had been queried a number of times in the past
for conduct unbecoming of his office. The culmination of various indiscretions led to the
Governing Council of the church issuing yet another query that led to his being relieved of his
post. This has got nothing to do with the First Lady. The chaplain is looking for an excuse to
cover his insouciance. It’s nothing but cheap blackmail.”
In all the reports related to this story, published by the Punch newspaper, one is yet to see where
the reporter has attempted to get the First Lady’s side of the story. Not even the usual “we called
the First Lady’s phone repeatedly but she did not pick her phone or we sent her a sms but we are
yet to get a response as at the time of going to the press.” The refusal of the Punch reporter to
get the First Lady’s side of the story is a clear abuse of journalistic objectivity. Objectivity in
journalism entails fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship. Where is fairness
when no attempt is made to hear from a party to a story? The Punch newspaper has published at
least six news reports on the chaplain sack saga without any singular report providing the first
lady’s side of the story. To any critical reader, this calls to the question the fairness,
disinterestedness, factuality and nonpartisanship of the reporter.
Also worthy of one’s consideration is the source credibility of the people whose views the Punch
reporter depended on to write his report. The reporter depended largely on the conjectures of a
few church members who may not necessarily know the whole truth. For example, one church
member who asked not be identified according to the reporter claimed “the reason Taiwo got the
sack was not stated in the letter, adding that the action was not unconnected to the visit of the
governor’s wife.” The church member went further to contradict himself by saying “whatever
you are hearing is what members of the church believed could have happened.” Interestingly,
what a few church members “believed could have happened” may not be the truth.
Another church member was reported to have said “there was nothing official in that sacking. No
investigation, no query, nothing. We had an anointing service on that Sunday. The following
day, the venerable was served the sack letter”. But the sacked chaplain indeed confirmed in
another report published by the Punch newspaper that he once had “issues” with the governing
council after which he apologised. In an interview with Rt. Rev. Michael Adeyemi, the head of
the African Church, Ifako Diocese, and the boss of the Presiding Chaplain of the Chapel of
Christ the Light, Ikeja, published on the 28th of May, 2017, he was asked what he knew about the
events that culminated in the sack of Venerable Femi Taiwo. He stated thus: It was on Monday,
May 15, that Venerable Taiwo called me that there was a development in the chapel and that he
was coming to see me. He came and showed me the sack letter, saying that his appointment had
been terminated. However, before now, there have been some issues in the chapel. He said the
governor’s wife called him and the chaplain, who was his assistant, to see her. The two of them
went there and they had a good interaction. There was no problem. That (incident) happened in
the first week of May. He said some members of the governing council then called him to know
why he went to the First Lady’s office and he explained to them that he and his assistant were
invited. The council then told him he shouldn’t have gone to see her and that he should have
allowed them to resolve any issue. The council then asked him and his assistant to write an
apology letter, which they did.
The foregoing provides interesting angles and questions to the story. What are the issues in the
chapel for which the Chaplain was invited? Was he really invited or he breached protocol by
going straight to the First Lady without recourse to the governing council? If no protocol was
breached, why was there a need for an apology letter from the chaplain? How was the
displeasure of the governing council expressed to the chaplain? Was it verbal or in a written
form? If one writes an apology letter in the civil service the request for it to be written must have
been communicated via a letter. So can the chaplain’s claim that he was never issued a query be
true? It appears someone is economical with the truth here. These questions are the grey areas
upon which the punch reporter should have shed more light. But unfortunately, these were not
done. The Punch reporter relied on hearsays and conjectures of a few church members who may
be ignorant of the real causes that led to their pastor’s sack. The reporter rather desperately
framed the story as one of a defenseless chaplain bullied by a power-hungry First Lady.
To any critical reader, the Punch newspaper’s reports on Venerable Femi Taiwo’s sack, fail the
objectivity test on many fronts. There are too many loopholes that were left unattended. While
one will not want to teach the Punch reporter his job, he should be admonished to strive for
objectivity in future news reports. Objectivity in journalism aims to help the audience make up
their own minds about a story, providing the facts alone and then letting audiences interpret
those on their own. Therefore to maintain objectivity in journalism, journalists should present
the facts whether or not they like or agree with those facts. Objective reporting is meant to
portray issues and events in a neutral and unbiased manner, regardless of the writers opinion or
personal beliefs rather than deliberately framing a report to make one party in the story look like
an oppressed and the other an oppressor.
Toks Oguntuga
Ikeja, Lagos