Re: On Differentiating Crime From Free Speech

Share on Social media

By Ishowo Oluwatosin.

What Mallam Rafiu Ajakaye is saying is simple. Freedom of speech is assured, but freedom after the speech is not guaranteed. Such invention is not bizarre in history. Over the years, propaganda has been a tool of both ruling and opposition, as seen in Hitler’s Germany.

The mistake people like Hitler made and even Athens in the execution of Socrates was that they made people martyr out of guilty people. Today should not be about the limitation of human rights but the simple definition of what is wrong or right from both sides.

Most importantly, the law of conscience is greater than that of government. The *”science of blindness”* invented in that piece is evident. It’s as political as what anyone has ever written on the same issue and the people suffering at the moment are not those in government but citizens whom both sides are trying to confuse on morality, ethics and legality.

What the legal case points to is that “a clear conscience fears no accusation” is a stupid and useless cliché. A popular invention in Kwara State in 2019.

This is in no way justification of whatever might have happened, but is everyone not guilty? Both ancient and recent supporters/enemies of respective sides?

Mallam Rafiu Ajakaye has no conscience by vindicating his people, especially when people like Solace, Purity Boom and many others are within his circle. Harbouring such questionable elements within one’s government has defeated whatever common sense that needed to be made out of the issue. No one should be disappointed, conscience has been exiled. However, it’s important to use “censor”, it tells us what is right or wrong and makes it clear that it is our choice to tilt arguments towards our sentiments and be ready to go all offensive in forcing a narrative. Is he not on WhatsApp and other social media platforms to see the activities of his people, or it is legal for them to do so or fail to caution them because they possess an instrument of the state and using it as security and immunity?

This does not need to be narrowed down to blame games or redesigning as intramural debates. Facts are facts, what is morally wrong from both sides can’t be legally correct. Trying to make it legal by marketing to citizens is a desperate attempt to give what is wrong legitimacy using the concept of “majority buying the idea”.

It’s not a defence or attack against or for anyone, if we don’t have conscience again, let us use our censors. 2023 is a different discussion entirely and it’s too early for psychoanalysis of what will or would be. There is a very important matter before us and should not be used to sell the 2023 narrative but address it.

We’re all caught up in a crowded situation and a train is coming, the best action is to push the fattest amidst us into the rail line? Then start debating whether it was right or wrong or such sacrifice was necessary to protect the majority? What needs to be addressed should be addressed, the State doesn’t belong to the ruling or opposition, it belongs to the people and they don’t deserve the media pollution they are being conditioned to over the years from both sides.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *