Accountability or Humiliation? When VDM’s Attack on Apostle Arome Crossed the Line

 

Whatever power one believes in, whether the convictions of VeryDarkMan or the spiritual calling preached by Apostle Arome Osayi, does not make anyone immortal or above accountability.

Everyone has his or her own calling and convictions. But no one should become a threat to the existence, dignity or freedom of another person simply because their beliefs differ.

You can disagree with Apostle Arome Osayi’s position that Nigeria has a national calling toward revival. You can challenge his theology, question his interpretation and present a completely different argument about Nigeria’s development. That is part of a healthy society.

But correcting or challenging someone through body-shaming, ridicule and mockery of a physical condition is an entirely different matter.

If the law provides a remedy for such conduct, the appropriate institution should determine whether a legal wrong has occurred. And even where the courts have not been involved, there remains a moral dimension to how we treat other human beings. No man is immortal, and no position of influence gives anyone the right to disregard human dignity.

Apostle Arome's message about Nigeria's calling is ultimately for people to listen to, examine and either accept or reject. But was Arome merely an ordinary revivalist whose ideas deserved to be dismissed with insults? His message has a deeper spiritual and intellectual framework, and people who encounter his teachings are free to engage with them critically.

The irony is that the same society demanding innovation, creativity and the development of human capacity should also understand that intellectual disagreement does not require personal humiliation.

We have seen traditional and religious leaders across different cultures worship in their temples, preach to their followers and defend their beliefs. That does not give someone from another movement the right to publicly disgrace, ridicule or body-shame them simply because they disagree with their worldview.

This is precisely why societies establish laws and standards of conduct to regulate behaviour and protect the dignity and rights of individuals.

There are people and organisations in the Western world, including figures such as James O'Keefe and organisations such as Project Veritas, whose activities have at various times centred on exposing institutions, challenging public figures and demanding accountability. Whatever one's opinion of their methods or controversies, the broader lesson is that a movement built around accountability does not have to abandon basic human dignity in pursuit of its objectives.

Nobody is saying VeryDarkMan has not raised issues that deserve public attention. Nobody is saying people should not be held accountable for actions considered harmful to the public.

But accountability has a standard.

When criticism descends into personal humiliation, especially the mockery of someone's physical condition, the argument itself begins to lose its moral force.

VeryDarkMan has built considerable influence around speaking boldly and confronting people and institutions. With that influence comes responsibility. There is a difference between speaking truth to power and humiliating a person because you disagree with him.

The criticism of Apostle Arome's argument could have remained focused on prayer, innovation, science, technology and nation-building. There was no need to make his physical condition part of the argument.

For me, that is where the line was crossed.

And perhaps the greatest lesson is this; we can challenge a person's ideas without destroying the dignity of the person who holds them.

Christianity itself teaches the possibility of forgiveness. So, even in strongly condemning what was said, there should still be room for reflection, correction and forgiveness.

Accountability should expose wrongdoing. It should not become an excuse for humiliation.

Abioye Tosin Lawrence

Publisher | Memorist | Public Commentator

Advertisement

Advertisement