In the hall of rich shame, Abike’s bigoted endorsement stands tall: Abike’s reckless, bigoted behaviour of endorsing a tweet that Ezelinwu himself admitted was deliberately provocative must not be dignified. It does not fall within the realm of ‘grace.’ It not only mocks grace, it cannot stand within the threshold of decency and dignity anywhere in the world. It is offensive, reprehensible. So, within decent minds and environment, it ought to retreat hurriedly into ‘rich shame’ which it truly deserves. For this reason, Ezelinwu’s narrative and defense is a masterclass in ignorance, utter incompetence and disgrace. If this was the hall of ‘rich shame,’ Abike’s bigotry may stand tall because it lacks decency and dignity. But in a hall of decency and accountable duty, such bigotry will crumble.
By Elsie-Bernadette Onubogu
A riposte is meant to be a clever response to a criticism. In that piece on Abike Dabiri-Erewa’s recklessness, I provided readers with a thorough analysis of the reason for the write up. Did I expect a riposte? Frankly, given the flock of ‘stomach infrastructure’ minions Nigeria is currently breeding, I did. What I didn’t expect was a response from someone who made no attempt to address the issues, worse still dug graves of shame.
The purported riposte from Callistus Ezelinwu titled, ‘Grace under duty…,’ where he struggled to find a definition of hate speech jolted me. In today’s digital world, artificial intelligence will give you not just a definition but variations as per societies or nations.
Then again, Mr. Ezelinwu’s inability to explain or understand what constitutes hate speech may well be the reason why the ‘birds flock together.’ He wants intelligent and decent people of Nigeria and the international community to read this as standing tall in graceful duty. He got it wrong.
Abike’s reckless, bigoted behaviour of endorsing a tweet that Ezelinwu himself admitted was deliberately provocative must not be dignified. It does not fall within the realm of ‘grace.’ It not only mocks grace, it cannot stand within the threshold of decency and dignity anywhere in the world. It is offensive, reprehensible.
So, within decent minds and environment, it ought to retreat hurriedly into ‘rich shame’ which it truly deserves. For this reason, Ezelinwu’s narrative and defense is a masterclass in ignorance, utter incompetence and disgrace. If this was the hall of ‘rich shame,’ Abike’s bigotry may stand tall because it lacks decency and dignity. But in a hall of decency and accountable duty, such bigotry will crumble.
Like a gift that keeps giving, it’s clear that Ezelinwu, in his defense of the indefensible, and Abike that he wants to defend, further reveal their glaring lack of knowledge and skills required to represent Nigerians in the Diaspora, and worse still to represent Nigeria at the international level. Evidently, the ‘defended’ lacks the capacity to defend herself. Thus, she resorts to the flock of the ‘pandemic of idiocy’ who have perfected ‘sycophancy’ as the only gateway of survival in Nigeria.
Let me reiterate, Abike Dabiri’s urgent removal is non-negotiable, and cannot be overemphasized because:
a) By endorsing such denigrating tweet and indeed forwarding it (to promote its reach), her actions damaged not only the Tinubu administration’s reputation, but also the reputation of Nigeria with Abike’s face as its representative within the global community;
b) Her actions were unprovoked. They are a clear message of intolerance, disrespect, and hatred, which fuels violence;
c) Abike Dabiri’s actions and endorsement is a revelation of her lack of awareness of the duty and responsibility that the office demands….- be well versed in global norms, as well as possess the skill-set required as interpretation of its country’s stance on issues. Her actions suggest she either lacks the requisite knowledge, or she chose to ignore that scared duty…, or worse still, this is the Tinubu administration’s stance;
d) As an officer tasked with leading or representing Nigerians in the Diaspora, she failed to exemplify values, ethics, respect for rights and the dignity of the human person. Abike Dabiri’s actions must not be excused or covered up.
READ ALSO: Grace in duty: Why Abike Dabiri-Erewa stands tall
Abike Dabiri-Erewa: When duty is betrayed, a price must be paid
Abike Dabiri-Erewa: Beyond redemption
RIGHT OF REPLY: Lilian Onoh and her endless wars of vendetta
Abike Dabiri’s right of reply: A confirmation of ethnic hatred
In the riposte, Mr. Ezelinwu queried, what is hate speech? Playing clever by half, he could not define it simply because, artificial intelligence says: “Globally, definitions vary, but generally include expressions that attack, demean, or incite hatred, discrimination, or violence based on protected characteristics like race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.”
Assume for a minute we ignore ‘artificial intelligence,’ its definition, and look to what Ezelinwu claims to be ‘context’ – particularly for that ‘office that Abike Dabiri-Erewa is supposed to represent (diasporans – which connotes – Nigerians within the international community), I believe the next best place to find an acceptable definition should be within the apex international organization that regulates the affairs of the international community – the comity of nations – otherwise known as the United Nations (UN).
It was to that apex organization (UN) which Nigeria is a member that I pulled the definition of ‘hate speech in my article.’ For the avoidance of doubt, the United Nations defines “Hate Speech” as: “In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.”
To provide a unified framework for the UN to address the issue globally, the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as…“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.” https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech
Furthermore, the UN states: ‘Hate Speech’ has three (3) important attributes:
Hate speech can be conveyed through any form of expression, including images, cartoons, memes, objects, gestures and symbols and it can be disseminated offline or online.
Hate speech is “discriminatory” (biased, bigoted or intolerant) or “pejorative” (prejudiced, contemptuous or demeaning) of an individual or group.
Hate speech calls out real or perceived “identity factors” of an individual or a group, including: “religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender,” but also characteristics such as language, economic or social origin, disability, health status, or sexual orientation, among many others.
From the above three listed attributes which I underlined, Ezelinwu will do himself and – Abike, real ‘grace in duty’ to understand what constitutes hate speech. Past this learning, perhaps, he will understand why and how Abike Dabiri betrayed the duty.
From the attributes, Abike’s endorsement was: 1) through an image – emoji; 2) it was online; 3) discriminatory, biased, bigoted, demeaning of a group; 4) a call out to a group – ethnic. Abike’s emoji endorsement satisfies all three attributes.
Perhaps, the next best thing should be the Nigerian courts/judiciary to test their credibility if any in interpreting this endorsement.
In the second paragraph of his narrative, Ezelinwu stated: “To brand a reaction to a provocative tweet as “dereliction of duty” is not only laughable but a dangerous distortion of what duty really means. No duty was betrayed. If anything, duty has been carried out with diligence and distinction.”
From the above quote, Ezelinwu unwittingly admitted that Abike’s reaction was to a ‘provocative tweet.’ The question is, what made the tweet Abike reacted to provocative? Could it be because it falls within the domain of hate speech? Does a laughing emoji to a ‘provocative tweet’ signify diligence of duty? Like the birds who flock, Ezelinwu says, its laughable.
Yet in defense, Ezelinwu cited a quote about a storm in a teacup. Again, unwittingly, he exposes Abike’s obvious ignorance about emojis, their import, the global recognition and regulations therein. To provide assistance on the global position, I will repeat verbatim the paragraph in my piece ‘Duty Betrayed’ as follows: the courts and the international community increasingly accept emojis as evidence because they are integral to modern digital communication. The endorsed hate speech via a tweet on the X platform is part of today’s digital communication, with a lightning reach. By using that platform, Abike intended to spread hate speech.
“A Canadian judge has ruled that the “thumbs-up” emoji is just as valid as a signature, arguing that courts need to adapt to the “new reality” of how people communicate as he ordered a farmer to pay C$82,000 ($61,442) for an unfulfilled contract.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/06/canada-judge-thumbs-up-emoji-sign-contract.
This judgment was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has given a thumbs-down to hearing a legal case involving an emoji. The country’s highest court dismissed an application by farmer Chris Achter to appeal a decision by the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan in the South West Terminal Ltd Vs Achter Lahd, 2023 SKKB 116 (CanLll) case. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/cp-supreme-court-rejects-emoji-1.7592988
By Ezelinwu’s admission, Abike endorsed a ‘provocative tweet.’ There is little doubt any competent court will declare those 18 ‘laughing emojis’ as endorsement of the tweet’s content.
So, to claim as he and Abike want us to believe, that, this was ‘grace in duty’ is not just an insult to every Nigerian, but indeed, to any person with a sense of decency. Perhaps, this viewpoint may fly within the circus of ‘sycophants and dingbats’ that Nigeria is breeding, certainly not with decent and intelligent people around the world.
Abike’s chief defender tacitly admitted that both lack knowledge and skill-set required for the position she holds. Consequently, I can safely conclude and reiterate that, Abike does not understand hate speech nor today’s digital world, and she is not fit for that office.
From the three attributes of hate speech above, Ezelinwu will do himself and Abike the real ‘grace in duty’ by going back to study and procure what is clearly requisite knowledge to represent Nigeria/ns abroad.
In doing so, both will understand why and how Abike by her intentional endorsement of a provocative tweet, betrayed duty for which responsible and accountable government ought to have relieved her from the post. For which, Abike herself ought to retreat into the hall of rich shame.
- Elsie-Bernadette Onubogu is an independent consultant, international lawyer, public policy & mainstreaming expert. An erstwhile Senior Policy Advisor with the United Nations, she investigated war crimes, rape and sexual assault as part of her work with the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. She served as a Senior Gender, Peace and Governance Expert with the Commonwealth, and was appointed in 2015 by the UK Government to serve as a deployable civilian expert. A trailblazer in global diplomacy, she holds the distinction of being the first Nigerian woman invited to address the United Nations Security Council on issues of International Peace and Security.
