Re: David Hundeyin and Dialogue Earth: Addressing misinformation, By Donald Amaeshi

David Hundeyin

I do not intend to hold a brief for either of the parties. Clearly, I am the least qualified person to speak for Mr Hundeyin, who does not shy away from standing up for himself — wherever and whenever he deems it fit. That said, like or hate him, Hundeyin is one individual you can’t help but give audience to when he discusses an issue, either in writing or in person. I have followed and fact-checked his works, which are often controversial and can be passed off as works best suited for cinematography.

It is an extremely tall order to join a conversation between David Hundeyin, a respected writer and, I dare add, a seasoned intelligence analyst, and Professor Chukwumerije Okereke, a globally recognised climate science scholar. Though this is a daunting task, as one who has straddled the two sides of the divide for some time now, I feel compelled to contribute to the discourse.

I have spent more than 15 years in corporate investigations and intelligence and the last three years researching the implementation of climate action strategies in Nigeria. Therefore, aside from a fair understanding of the theoretical climate change arguments, as proffered by Western management scholars, I also have experience conducting ground-level research in Nigeria, which includes the identification and utilisation of various human assets.

I do not intend to hold a brief for either of the parties. Clearly, I am the least qualified person to speak for Mr Hundeyin, who does not shy away from standing up for himself — wherever and whenever he deems it fit. That said, like or hate him, Hundeyin is one individual you can’t help but give audience to when he discusses an issue, either in writing or in person. I have followed and fact-checked his works, which are often controversial and can be passed off as works best suited for cinematography. In all cases that I have checked, his works stood the test. So, I was greatly taken aback by Professor Chukwumerije Okereke’s submission that “it is clear that David thinks climate change is a religious belief, and it is obvious that this informed his interpretation of the brief he received and the commentary he provided.”

On reading Professor Okereke’s response to Hundeyin, two paradoxical positions jumped at me. First, he may have interpreted Hundeyin’s use of “religious belief” literally, rather than as a metaphor for the supposed fervour with which some climate advocates approach the topic. Second, his response could be misinterpreted as a public relations effort to cover up a major gaffe or failure in a clandestine intelligence operation. This type of effort is not out of place. This line of thought came to the fore because, in his argument in defence of the Western NGOs, one would have expected to read instances where the NGO in question had pressured the global North to move away from dirty fossil fuels.

On reading Professor Okereke’s response to Hundeyin, two paradoxical positions jumped at me. First, he may have interpreted Hundeyin’s use of “religious belief” literally, rather than as a metaphor for the supposed fervour with which some climate advocates approach the topic. Second, his response could be misinterpreted as a public relations effort to cover up a major gaffe or failure in a clandestine intelligence operation. This type of effort is not out of place.

However, given Professor Okereke’s stature in the global academe, I do not believe any of these is the case. This then leads me to suspect that a gap in knowledge of intelligence operations planning and execution might be responsible for the mischaracterisation of Hundeyin’s position as sensationalist or a “misinterpretation of the brief.” Since it has not been refuted that the International NGO approached Hundeyin, a valid question would then be: Why did they choose him instead of writing the article themselves or outsourcing to an unknown ghostwriter? The answer to this question will be one of my contributions to this debate.

The first answer is Hundeyin’s very critical position on Aliko Dangote and the refinery project places him in a strategic position to propagate this information warfare against the refinery. The second is his pedigree and followership. Hundeyin commands a large number of online and offline followers. For instance, I heard about the tweet at the centre of this discussion in an offline meeting, even before seeing it online. This suggests his works are pervasively discussed. This gives him an incredible reach and places him on a pedestal from which he can shape and inform public opinion. Anyone with such standing or soft power is attractive to the intelligence community. Therefore, if an international NGO did approach Hundeyin, it would be due to his ability to amplify their message more effectively than a generic public relations campaign. So, I would say, let’s not throw away the baby with the dirty water. There may be some truth in Hundeyin’s interpretation of the brief.

Despite being provocative, Hundeyin’s position on climate change is not far from the preliminary findings of my ongoing doctoral research. The findings indicate that climate change means different things, depending on who you speak to. For instance, on the one hand, the financial services sector in Nigeria views it from an entrepreneurial lens. For them, it is an opportunity to develop “green products” or climate-friendly banking products like green consumer loans, green project finance, etc. On the other hand, the oil and gas industry generally believes that the Nigerian economy is not ready for the energy transition because there is a misalignment between our policies and the regulatory environment, which makes it cheaper to pay penalties for gas flaring than to embark on the modification of the sociotechnical systems in the oil and gas industry. There is also the issue of distrust of the regulators, including their technical competence, alongside the significant factor in Nigeria – corruption.

…the conversation between Mr Hundeyin and Professor Okereke exposes the disconnect between the theory and practice of climate change and climate action, or town and gown in general. While Mr. Hundeyin’s position appears outlandish, it is not far from the truth, even though it scathes the sanctity of the climate change discourse. This further orchestrates the call to seek alternative views to the Western problematisation and conceptualisation of solutions to societal issues. 

Everyone agrees that the oil and gas industry significantly contributes to climate change in Nigeria and beyond. However, before the advent of Dangote Refineries, the major players in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector are primarily from the global north. Given this context, Hundeyin’s argument raises an important question: Why hasn’t the international NGO in question pressured these Western companies to be more responsible in Nigeria? I doubt there is any evidence of them advocating for these companies to adopt the same environmental practices and measures they use in their home countries. This issue ties into a point made by another of my interview participants from the oil and gas sector, who argued that climate change, as framed and pushed by the West, is inherently unjust. The participant noted that the West industrialised off the back of dirty energy sources and is now imposing climate agendas on countries like Nigeria that have contributed minimally to global emissions. Recent decisions of some Western countries to switch back to coal elucidates this hypocrisy.

In all of these, I have come to realise that what is responsible for the divergent opinions on a supposedly science-based concept is what is referred to as psychological distance. This is about how far away something feels to us. It can be about how far something is in time (like something happening tomorrow versus next year), in space (like something nearby versus far away), or how real or likely something seems (like something certain versus something just imagined). While climate change is a reality, how can you convince a barber who needs to power his gasoline generator to make money to feed his family that his actions are responsible for the flooding that has become common in Nigeria? Or how do you expect a region of the world that produces less than two per cent of the total emission of greenhouse gases in the world to bear the greater responsibility? While psychological distance helps explain the situation, it can also be the problem here.

In summary, the conversation between Mr Hundeyin and Professor Okereke exposes the disconnect between the theory and practice of climate change and climate action, or town and gown in general. While Mr. Hundeyin’s position appears outlandish, it is not far from the truth, even though it scathes the sanctity of the climate change discourse. This further orchestrates the call to seek alternative views to the Western problematisation and conceptualisation of solutions to societal issues. We really do know little about how climate action is framed from an African perspective. More work needs to be done in this area.

Donald Amaeshi is a PhD candidate at the Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town, South Africa. He has extensive experience in corporate investigation and intelligence.