The Moral and Ethical Quandary of Public Figures Discussing Potential Assassination -By John Egbeazien Oshodi

The Profound Ethical Dilemma: Public Figures Deliberating Potential Assassination in Political Discourse—A Comprehensive Examination Illuminating the Moral Landscape and Necessitating International and National Rebuke

In an era marked by rapid information dissemination and heightened political discourse, it becomes imperative to delve deeply into the moral and ethical dilemmas that arise when public figures broach the subject of potential assassinations. The recent statement attributed to Femi Adesina, a former Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to ex-President Muhammadu Buhari, as documented in his book titled ‘Reflections of a Special Adviser, Media and Publicity (2015-2023),’ has ignited profound concerns. While the book may contain valuable insights and perspectives, it is essential to address the concerning topic within its pages, as it touches upon the moral and ethical facets of governance and political discourse.

Regardless of the nature of an individual’s alleged crimes or convictions, it is an ethical imperative that every human being is treated with respect and dignity, and their right to life is preserved. The mere mention of assassination in political discourse runs afoul of these core principles, plunging into an ethical abyss that should horrify any conscientious observer.

The psychological impact of words suggesting the potential assassination of an individual cannot be overstated. Such rhetoric can cultivate an environment rife with fear, insecurity, and psychological trauma. These effects extend not only to the targeted individual but also to those who bear witness to or hear such statements, perpetuating a cycle of distress and uncertainty.

Adesina reportedly writes, “That was why in the case of Kanu, I said the best was to subject him to the system. Let him make his case in court instead of giving a terrible impression of the country from outside. I feel it is a favor to give him (Kanu) that opportunity. Government could have mobilized to eliminate him where he was, but we did not do that.”
This statement raises profound moral questions when viewed from a moral standpoint. The notion of deliberating over whether to spare or assassinate an individual, regardless of their legal status or alleged offenses, reflects a chilling indifference to the value of human life. It undermines the foundational principles of justice, fairness, and due process.

Such statements should be a matter of concern not only at a national but also at an international level. Nnamdi Kanu’s continued detention, coupled with discussions hinting at violence, raises serious doubts about the government’s commitment to democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law. This should invoke international scrutiny and diplomatic efforts to ensure justice and the protection of human rights.

The discussion surrounding potential assassinations within political discourse carries profound implications for both peace and stability, not only within individual nations but also on a broader regional scale. This type of rhetoric has the potential to ignite violence, perpetuate ongoing cycles of conflict, and obstruct peaceful resolutions to political disputes. It is of utmost importance for international stakeholders to acknowledge these potential destabilizing effects and actively engage in conflict prevention and resolution efforts.

Nigeria has embarked on a complex journey in its transition to democracy, with the recent presidency of Muhammadu Buhari, a former military dictator, playing a pivotal role in shaping the nation’s political landscape. This transition reflects the aspirations of the Nigerian people for a democratic and inclusive society. It is our earnest hope that leaders like President Bola Tinubu, who have been exposed to liberal democratic values through their education and life experiences, will assume critical roles in guiding the nation towards a more democratic and inclusive future.

In contexts like Nigeria, where issues of poor human rights and a deficient justice system may contribute to a lack of accountability for dangerous words like the potential for assassination, the apparent lack of consequences for individuals like Adesina is indeed a cause for significant concern. In such environments, where the justice system may not function effectively, public figures making statements without facing scrutiny and investigation, as they would in more established democracies, exacerbates these challenges. This lack of accountability not only undermines the principles of justice and fairness but also erodes trust in democratic processes and institutions, hindering progress toward a more democratic and accountable society.

Nigeria, as one of Africa’s most populous nations and an economic powerhouse, aspires to play a prominent role on the global stage. This aspiration includes becoming a respected member of the democratic world, upholding democratic norms, and aligning with nations that share a commitment to freedom, justice, and human rights. Adesina’s statement raises questions about Nigeria’s adherence to these principles and its standing within the international community.

The international community, including the United Nations and influential democratic nations, plays a pivotal role in addressing and condemning such alarming statements. The principles of human rights, justice, and responsible governance are universal values that transcend national boundaries. When a public figure openly discusses potential assassination, it is imperative that the international community takes a stand.

In the case of Adesina’s statement, there is a clear need for rebuke and condemnation from reasonable minds globally. The international community, including democratic superpowers like the United States, has consistently advocated for the protection of human rights, the rule of law, and ethical governance. Such open words that suggest violence and assassination run contrary to these values and should not be tolerated.

The international ramifications of such statements cannot be overstated. In an interconnected world, words uttered by public figures carry weight beyond national borders. The open discussion of potential assassination raises concerns among international allies and diplomatic partners. Powerful democratic nations, which often champion human rights and the rule of law, must carefully consider the implications of such rhetoric. It has the potential to strain diplomatic relations, disrupt international cooperation, and undermine trust in the commitment to shared values.

The international human rights community should take a proactive stance in this matter. Advocacy organizations, human rights defenders, and civil society groups must not only condemn such statements but also demand accountability. The protection of human rights transcends boundaries, and the targeting of individuals with veiled threats of violence should be met with a united front. International pressure can play a pivotal role in ensuring that those responsible for such rhetoric face consequences and that the rights of individuals like Nnamdi Kanu are safeguarded.

This writer of this response holds no bias or personal support for Nnamdi Kanu. Instead, the focus is on Adesina’s comments, as well as the government under President Buhari, and the potential implications of their statements. There is a call for international scrutiny and the need for responsible discourse. Such rhetoric is unacceptable not only in Nigeria but in the global community of democratic nations.

The international community, including influential democratic nations like the United States, should closely monitor Nigeria’s developments and engage constructively with its leaders to uphold democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law through diplomacy.

In regions characterized by perceived weaknesses in their justice systems, the issue of accountability provides a platform for powerful individuals to make inflammatory statements without being held accountable, thereby eroding the foundations of justice and fairness.

President Tinubu, with an American education and exposure to democratic values, can promote a more democratic and accountable political culture in Nigeria by advocating for a strong justice system and protecting freedom of expression.

In response to the troubling nature of these comments, it may be prudent to consider measures such as limiting the distribution of the book, ‘Reflections of a Special Adviser, Media and Publicity (2015-2023),’ in libraries. This approach is not intended as an act of censorship but rather as a thoughtful response to content that could be viewed as promoting harmful discourse or misinformation. Such a measure would serve as a clear message that the international community highly values ethical and responsible communication, particularly when it involves discussions that touch upon potential violence and assassination, especially when it comes to vulnerable and impressionable young minds. The overarching aim is to foster a society where respectful, lawful, and constructive dialogue is not just an option but a foundational principle. It is essential to create an environment where the safety, dignity, and rights of individuals are safeguarded without compromise. In this endeavor, the international community plays a pivotal role in holding public figures accountable for their words and actions, particularly when they have the potential to incite harm or undermine the principles of justice and human rights.

In conclusion, Adesina’s statement, discussing the government’s decision not to assassinate Nnamdi Kanu but to arrest him, extends beyond national concerns. It delves into the ethical, moral, and diplomatic dimensions of governance and political discourse. It is imperative for the international community, guided by democratic principles, human rights advocacy, and a commitment to global peace, to address such statements.

As the Nigerian people continue their journey towards democracy, these disturbing words from a former federal government official do not contribute positively. Nnamdi Kanu has been in detention since 2021, and in light of Adesina’s unsettling words, it is crucial to safeguard his human rights. Leaders like Tinubu, who have been exposed to liberal democratic values through their education, are expected to prevent Nigeria from descending into chaos.

The global stage, including African nations, serves as a platform for rational minds to unite, uphold shared values, and promote responsible and ethical communication. This collective effort aims to uphold justice, human dignity, and the preservation of fundamental rights.

It is my heartfelt wish that individuals like Adesina, recognizing the evolving nature of African democracies, act responsibly and avoid taking Africans and Nigerians for granted. As a growing democracy, we must collectively reject violence and harmful rhetoric. I fervently pray and hope that no one should endorse or utter such words again. I extend my best wishes to Mr. Adesina and encourage him to exercise greater care in both his words and actions in the future.

Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi, born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, is an American-based police and prison scientist, forensic psychologist, and legal psychologist. He’s a government advisor on forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA and the founder of the Dr. John Egbeazien Oshodi Foundation for Psychological Health. With a significant role in introducing forensic psychology to Nigeria through N.U.C. and Nasarawa State University, he’s also a former Secretary-General of the Nigeria Psychological Association. He’s taught at esteemed institutions like Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Nova Southeastern University, and more, and is currently an online faculty member at Weldios University, Nexus International University, and Walden University. John.Oshodi@mail.waldenu.edu