Apostle Johnson Suleman has issued a pointed statement following actress Halima Abubakar’s public apology, declaring that “forgiveness isn’t memory loss” while maintaining his distance from the reconciliation attempt. This development adds another layer to what has been one of the most controversial celebrity-clergy disputes in recent Nigerian history.
The clergyman’s response, posted on X (formerly Twitter), came hours after Abubakar’s extensive public apology for what she admitted were false allegations and defamatory statements against him and his ministry. You all stop calling my phone. Forgiveness is not memory loss! Status quo maintained! AJS,” Suleman wrote, effectively drawing a line under the possibility of immediate reconciliation.
The controversy, which first erupted in 2022, saw Abubakar make several serious allegations about her relationship with the clergyman. Over a three-month period, she had detailed claims about their alleged affair, including assertions that Suleman had proposed marriage to her seven times and even conducted a wedding introduction with her family, all while allegedly concealing his marital status.
Abubakar’s recent apology had appeared comprehensive, acknowledging the falsity of her allegations and expressing deep regret for any harm caused to Suleman’s ministry, family, and particularly his wife, Dr. Lizzy Suleman. The actress had hoped her contrition might “repair the damage to an extent,” but Suleman’s response suggests the path to complete reconciliation may be more complex.
The clergyman’s emphasis on the distinction between forgiveness and memory loss raises important questions about the nature of public reconciliation. Religious studies scholar Dr. Chioma Nwankwo notes, “In religious contexts, forgiveness is often presented as a spiritual imperative, but Suleman’s response highlights the practical challenges of balancing spiritual principles with the need to protect one’s reputation and ministry.”
The situation has particular resonance given the details of Abubakar’s previous allegations. During the height of the controversy, she had claimed that Suleman presented himself as separated from his wife and that she had actually encouraged him to reconcile with his spouse. These claims, now admitted as false, had created significant public interest and speculation about the private lives of public figures.
Suleman’s instruction for people to “stop calling my phone” suggests that the apology has sparked a flood of intermediary attempts at reconciliation, highlighting how public figures often face pressure to demonstrate forgiveness publicly, even when they may need time to process and respond to such situations.
The response has generated significant discussion about the nature of public apologies and forgiveness in Nigerian society. While some view Suleman’s stance as appropriately cautious, others debate whether it aligns with religious principles of forgiveness and reconciliation.
As this story continues to evolve, it serves as a cautionary tale about the long-term consequences of public allegations and the complex nature of forgiveness in the digital age. It also raises important questions about how public figures can balance personal feelings with public expectations when navigating controversial situations.
