Adewale Ajadi writes in NEXT:

Is it not possible that in a heated polity Mrs. Yar’Adua sees herself as isolated and her husband as threatened; viewing each delegation that approached Saudi Arabia with the same cynicism that is abroad across the land and drinking from the same sectional cesspool from which the national psyche is daily watered; she would watch life ebb out of her man, her insecurity and loyalty driving choices that are now the source of criticism? Is it possible that this is a wife fighting for her husband the best way she knows how?

In this aspect the restraint of the Acting President, which is seen in some quarters as slowness and even cowardice, takes the shape of wisdom and humanity, standards that are rarely ever prominent in our win-lose public life. It is possible to see the fingerprint of misogyny all over the glee of the attacks on Mrs. Yar’Adua.

I feel that this is a possible understanding of the situation Mrs Yar’Adua is in, and I said as much in a somewhat rambling post (forgive me, a combination of lack of sleep and too much coffee sometimes takes its toll).

And in relation to the constitionality of how the Acting President was appointed:

As things stand it will be difficult under the provisions of the current Constitution to justify the creative process with which the Senate fashioned an acting president, an action, which was not only laudable and in fact heroic in the context, but also not necessarily constitutional. It is a mark of the institutional progress that even though a president had been missing for three months, there was a process that kept the affairs of state grinding even if slowly. It stands to reason that what we need is a far less ambitious document.

That is also my stance. Indeed, it is a sign of institutional progress that the country has been able to muddle through a very difficult situation and come out of it with something that we all might not agree with, but that somehow works. It is also impressive that the country was run quite well all through the time that there was no president, something that made me write, cynically, that we probably do not need a president.

These are really impressive things that should be highlighted. Agreed, we need to have discussions on recent and ongoing happenings, but reducing things to sensationalism only distracts from the issues that really need focus. Sensationalism sells paper, but does it really serve the public?

See Akin’s blog for a similar take.