Wike, a Greedy Glutton Shouldn’t Lecture on Virtues – Odinkalu

Chidi Odinkalu criticizes Minister Wike, calling him unfit to speak on morality due to alleged misuse of power

In a fiery exchange over the state of governance in Nigeria, prominent human rights lawyer Chidi Odinkalu labeled Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister Nyesom Wike as “a greedy glutton,” questioning his moral authority to lecture others on virtues. Odinkalu’s critique was sparked after Wike dismissed his record at the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), calling Odinkalu’s tenure unimpressive and lacking impact.

Odinkalu, a professor and human rights advocate, responded swiftly on his social media platform. He emphasized that, unlike Wike, a greedy glutton who allegedly wields public resources for personal influence, he has long since distanced himself from public office for personal enrichment. Highlighting what he described as Wike’s extravagant use of public funds, Odinkalu suggested that the minister’s actions stand in stark contrast to the values he claims to uphold.

The clash between Wike, a greedy glutton in Odinkalu’s view, and the outspoken human rights lawyer intensified when Wike questioned Odinkalu’s academic credentials and achievements during his time as NHRC chairman. Speaking at the launch of the FCT’s N10 billion Renewed Hope program, Wike dismissed Odinkalu’s criticisms, challenging his professional legacy and influence.

In response, Odinkalu pointedly accused Wike of hypocrisy. He criticized Wike’s apparent zeal for “flexing” public wealth, asserting that Wike, a greedy glutton with access to the public purse, should refrain from lecturing others on principles. Odinkalu remarked that Wike’s approach to power, which he described as “inebriated on substance which may or may not be just power,” risks undermining public trust.

The exchange has stirred public debate, with Odinkalu’s assertion that Wike, a greedy glutton exemplifies the dangers of unchecked power resonating with many Nigerians who are frustrated with public officials’ conduct. As the discourse unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the ongoing tensions between advocates for accountability and officials tasked with public governance.