ABDUL MAMUD’S FICTIONAL NARRATIVE: WHEN INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY BECOMES A TOOL OF CHEAP PROPAGANDA A REJOINDER BY HON. SOLOMON SELCAP DALUNG, ESQ.

ABDUL MAMUD’S FICTIONAL NARRATIVE: WHEN INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY BECOMES A TOOL OF CHEAP PROPAGANDA
A REJOINDER BY HON. SOLOMON SELCAP DALUNG, ESQ.

I have read with utter disbelief the intellectually embarrassing concoction published on Facebook by one Abdul Mamud, apparently in a desperate attempt to defend Hon. Abike Dabiri-Erewa. Ordinarily, I would have ignored such an exercise in historical distortion, but when fiction is shamelessly dressed in the garments of personal experience, silence becomes dangerous. His narrative failed the elementary litmus test of credibility because it was founded on falsehood from the very beginning. I was admitted directly into 100 level to study Law at the University of Jos, not through a Diploma programme as he falsely insinuated. This is an incontrovertible fact that can be verified from university records. Yet, with astonishing intellectual recklessness, Mamud proceeded to construct an entire narrative upon an erroneous premise. One wonders how a supposedly enlightened mind could sacrifice elementary verification on the altar of personal loyalty. An intellectual who abandons facts to accommodate sentiments does not defend the truth; he merely lends his reputation to the propagation of falsehood.

Even more ridiculous is his alleged recollection of an examination incident on 24 September 1991. There was no examination at the University of Jos on that date because of the ASUU strike. My first-semester examinations commenced on 3 January 1992. How, then, could an incident involving me have occurred during an examination that never took place? This elementary contradiction exposes the fundamental weakness of his account. Furthermore, I have never met Abdul Mamud, to the best of my recollection, nor can I remember ever encountering him during my undergraduate years. I only heard about his name and his struggles with the university authorities. Whatever experiences he may have undergone are entirely his, and I have neither the inclination nor the authority to dispute them. However, he cannot manufacture an encounter with me, invent a chronology and expect the public to accept his imagination as historical evidence. If he genuinely witnessed what he alleges, let him produce verifiable particulars. Otherwise, his account remains an unsupported narrative masquerading as personal testimony.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never subscribed to the philosophy of destroying the academic future of students through indiscriminate expulsions. Even as a lecturer in the Faculty of Law, University of Jos, I consistently opposed expulsions as sanctions for examination malpractice and advocated corrective disciplinary measures. My conviction has always been that educational institutions exist to develop human potential, reform character and administer justice, not merely to destroy destinies. It is therefore particularly disappointing that Abdul Mamud, whose name I associated with struggles against institutional injustice, could lend himself to a narrative that misrepresents my convictions and academic history. What manner of intellectualism abandons reason, suppresses chronology and substitutes political convenience for verifiable facts? Scholarship without integrity is merely decorated ignorance, while activism without fidelity to truth becomes another instrument of oppression. If Mamud genuinely believes in justice, he should appreciate that the same standards of fairness he demands for himself must apply to others.

I suspect that my comments concerning Hon. Abike Dabiri-Erewa may have offended Mamud’s personal or political sensibilities, thereby transforming me into an imaginary enemy deserving of public vilification. If so, that is his burden, not mine. I reserve the constitutional right to criticise public officials without seeking permission from their admirers, defenders or political associates. Abike Dabiri-Erewa is not above criticism, and Abdul Mamud is certainly not the custodian of my academic history. The apparent desperation to defend her through an account riddled with factual contradictions raises legitimate questions about the motivation behind his publication. Has intellectual independence become so negotiable that individuals reputed for scholarship can descend into the murky waters of partisan propaganda? I cannot establish whether he acted independently or at anyone’s prompting, but the quality of his narrative invites serious scrutiny. If he has chosen to become a defender of political interests, he should at least have the intellectual discipline to distinguish advocacy from fabrication. No amount of eloquence can rehabilitate a falsehood, and no reputation, however celebrated, can confer legitimacy upon an invented history.

Finally, I challenge Abdul Mamud to produce credible evidence supporting his claims, particularly the alleged examination incident of 24 September 1991 and the circumstances he purportedly attributed to me. Let him produce university records, examination timetables or reliable contemporaneous evidence instead of hiding behind the convenient anonymity of distant recollections. If he cannot substantiate his allegations, intellectual honour demands a public retraction. I have no personal quarrel with him, but I will not tolerate the reckless falsification of my history merely because I expressed an opinion about someone he may hold in high esteem. My life is not a fictional manuscript available for political editing, and my reputation is not a sacrificial offering on the altar of anyone’s personal loyalty. Abdul Mamud may defend Abike Dabiri-Erewa with every intellectual resource at his disposal, but he must not manufacture my past to justify his present sentiments. The tragedy of intellectual dishonesty is not merely that it deceives the public, but that it diminishes the credibility of those who ought to illuminate society with truth. Abdul Mamud, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to invent my history. When intellectuals abandon truth for propaganda, they cease to be defenders of conscience and become casualties of their own contradictions.

SOLOMON SELCAP DALUNG, ESQ.