You are at it again, attempting to impose your own misunderstanding of someone’s views on the readership.
Quote @ author: “when displaying leadership was consequential to have prevented a civil war in our country, during the political impasse in December 2016, Mr. Sallah paid his dues beyond the call of duty.”
The author, as far as I can see, referred to a specific period (during impasse) and claim that Mr Sallah paid his dues beyond the call of nature in providing the quality of leadership that prevented our country decending into civil war.
How could you interprete this statement to mean that “Mr. Sallah is the only one who prevented civil war or successfully helped the country…..” I think that’s the figment of your own imagination as a result of refusing to acknowledge the role that Mr Sallah played and the quality of his leadership during the impasse, and nothing exposes your grudge against Mr Sallah than your claim that, “Mr. Sallah spoke on behalf of coalition and whatever he said was never his personal opinion only but it was collective ideas or strategies of opposition coalition.”
Indeed, you have a point here, as Mr Sallah was the spokesperson and official voice of the coalition and it would, thus follow that whatever he said was reflecting the views or positions of the coalition. However, your inconsistency and insincerity becomes evident when go further and remind ourselves of your position during the coalition’s National Assembly Elections dilemma.
Whilst you so brazenly claim now that Mr Sallah was speaking on behalf of the coalition during the impasse, as the spokesperson, you have not held the same views when he spoke about the independent, non partisan candidates for the NA Elections, though he was still the same spokesperson of the coalition. May I now ask you whether Mr Sallah was transmitting the position of the coalition, at the time, when he informed the nation about the independent option at the NA Elections?
If yes, would you now say that those who provided a counter option went against the coalition option, and thus, betrayed the coalition partners?
If no, would you explain why, as spokesperson, “Mr Sallah was not speaking his opinion only but whatever he said was collective ideas or strategy of coalition”, in one instance, but (I would assume from you) he was speaking his own mind, and not that of the coalition, in another instance?