The Tony Blair-Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu issue can be imputed to mean, in context, that we must examine the motives of the one who always doth protest too much.

Nearly two weeks on, we still miss the archbishop's fiery condemnation of the Marikana tragedy.

Or am I squatting with the wrong people, who don't tell me otherwise?

The point is that the archbishop's condemnations operate as a linear function of one motive - to choose the weaker targets and avoid the contentious ones.

Should we perhaps look into Robert Mugabe's choice words on the archbishop as having some semblance of truth, or was the Zimbabwean president's slandering of the archbishop in the British media miscalculated and mean spirited?

Who can forget the character breakdown delivered by Mugabe to the British press that Tutu "is an angry, evil and embittered little bishop."

This is after the arch reportedly said: "I really feel ashamed in many ways because [Mugabe] used to be such a splendid leader."

But who are we to argue with the words uttered by the two old men? After all, they used to go to the same school in the Eastern Cape and each knows each one's jive honky manner.

They probably fought for the attention of girls, if not the admiration of the teachers.

The bottom line is that they know each other well and maybe the reason they can't stand each other is so school yard they would tell us with laughter if they chose to tell at all.

But now it seems that the archbishop has reached the end of his philosophical quotient. His decision to pull out from the Tony Blair gig sounds so sudden it's unreal.

Before Blair even landed in this country there was a mural in Sandton that advertised the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit with the faces of Blair and the Archbishop.

There were countless other promotions on other platforms and invitations sent out beforehand.

The archbishop knew well in advance that he was going to share the stage with one of the West's "snarling ogre" so-called leaders.

Whatever changed his mind at the 11th hour is not an issue he wants to delve into. He only cites Blair's support of the Iraq war as "morally indefensible".

But what kind of conscience attack hit the archbishop and why did it hit at the 11th hour?

The margins of probability are considerably wide that the archbishop was merely on some kind of publicity stunt.

Could it be that the arch didn't see the mural with his face on it or is he on something sinister that we are not privy to?

The problem is we don't really know what issues are.

We saw demonstrations led by Muslim group Al Jama-ah and we wondered whether this was a Muslim issue or human rights issue.

Is he just angry and embittered? If so, who with?

Is he taking a stand on a Muslim issue? If so, what's the agenda?

If it's a political rights issue, why ignore massacres going in his own back yard?

Or is this just a spirited attempt to gain some moral high ground?

Does such a thing still exist?

What exactly are you advertising, Arch?