By Olalekan Moyosore Lalude
Human justice is very prolix and yet at times quite mediocre; divine justice is more concise and needs no information from the prosecution, no legal papers, no interrogation of witnesses, but makes the guilty one his own informer and helps him with eternity’s memory.—Søren –Søren Kierkegaard
The last several weeks have seen an explosion of public conversations around sexual abuse, vulnerability, false accusations, and accountability that do not attend to privilege over Nigerian singer Simisola Bolatito Kosoko, known as Simi.
Social media greatly facilitated these conversations. In all of these, the vulnerability of children became a major concern, particularly in environments such as daycare settings. The environment of a daycare setting, which is an environment where trust is key, is often fragile.
Much of the reason for the heightened level of scrutiny for many of the daycares was due to the re-emergence of older X (formerly Twitter) postings made by Simi.
Netizens charged her with pedophilia, based upon two of her earlier postings, both from 2012 and 2013. At the time of those postings, Simi had been helping at her mother’s daycare facility while she continued to build her music career. The controversy not only sparked renewed discussion as to whether individuals should be held accountable for their actions online but also generated debate regarding the extent of the legal liability that may arise out of the actions of advocates, the degree to which advocacy and morality are consistent, and the extent to which an advocate must be truthful in order to lead successful public moral campaigns.
The backlash against Simi started when she publicly denounced rape in response to a claim by a TikTok user that they were raped, a claim later withdrawn as false. The vocal support from many people for her strong stance, which was in line with previous comments like ‘almost every woman I know has been sexually assaulted,’ gave rise to both positive reactions and negative reactions from others. Netizens criticized Simi for being too measured in how she responded to those urging her to equally condemn the false accusations of others; this led them to find some of her older social media posts that showed her to be lighter in tone than most would expect. Some of those older posts were about a four-year-old boy, David, at the day care where Simi worked, and he said he had a crush on her. The tweets were light-hearted, showing Simi playing with the children, including a four-year-old boy placing his head on her lap, or ‘bothering’ her in a playful manner, along with Simi musing about hugging, kissing, and cuddling kids. Many critics felt Simi was sexualising minors, with one tweet alleged to have joked about giving a boy child a ‘chance’ in a suggestive manner. Simi quickly jumped to defend herself on X, stating that during that time she posted freely about her life and saw children as ‘cute and lovable,’ with no intention of being perverse. In addition to defending herself, she stated that at the time she was not famous, so she did not feel the same pressure regarding how her words could be interpreted.
Under Nigerian law, determining Simi’s liability would involve reviewing the laws related to child sex crimes and internet activities. The Child Rights Act of 2003, which was derived from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, makes it an offense to commit any form of sexual abuse or exploitation of children; offenders can be imprisoned for no more than 14 years under section 32. The Act also enforces the principle of protecting the best interests of the child and restricts the creation, distribution, sale, display, delivery, movement, issuance, or possession of harmful publications likely to corrupt minors. Furthermore, the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act of 2015, specifically section 23, prohibits the production, distribution, transmission, selling, or possession of materials containing sexually explicit images or videos of a minor, whether real or simulated, with a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment or a fine of N20 million. Similarly, section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act addresses cyberstalking and harassment and potentially could include online content that poses a risk to a child’s safety.
The Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act of 2015 provides additional protection for individuals who are victims of sexual offenses, including those who are groomed or solicited. In Simi’s case, however, there is no evidence of the specific content she posted being explicit pornographic content or any other type of evidence of a crime being committed. Experts may argue that her posts, although they were written in a manner that was later deemed to be tasteless and insensitive, are more akin to a joke and therefore lack the level of lascivious exhibition required by the Cybercrimes Act. As yet, no formal charges have been laid. Even though the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons has begun an investigation, it appears unlikely that Simi will face legal consequences for her posts, at least based on how these types of posts have been interpreted by lawyers.
The real issue here is a larger moral issue; it is easy to downplay or dismiss potential problems when they interfere with your own story, especially during campaigns to stop sexual assault. Simi is outspoken. She has talked about Nigeria’s widespread sex crimes, but, by downplaying her old posts as just being funny youthfulness, she will likely damage her credibility. There are critics who feel if rapists are to be held accountable for their actions without making excuses, then there is the need to apply the same level of accountability to any content that could normalize child sex abuse, even if it was unintentional. Disregarding these fears as ‘faceless mob’ is ignoring the very real fear of possible depraved behavior in child care. According to UNICEF, one in four girls and one in ten boys in Nigeria have experienced sexual violence. The selective outrage, therefore, creates a double standard on morality.
Engaging in a moral campaign means one has to be honest; Simi’s story teaches this. People who speak to the public about issues, such as Simi does with consent and protecting children, shape society by influencing what we think about those subjects. For someone to come right, they need to demonstrate consistency, which could also be about admitting when they were wrong in the past, publicly changing, and putting as much effort into developing themselves as they do into defending their opinions against others. The fact that Simi refuses to regret her tweets defends her honor but also prevents her from growing as an advocate. Advocacy requires transparency and not defense, especially in a country trying to address unreported abuse at daycares. If Simi can use her tweets as a catalyst to develop programs to educate people, she can turn criticism into development, which will help establish that true advocacy occurs because of genuine authenticity, not because of being perfect.
Simi’s experience shows how important it is to recognize that once information has gone online, it is permanent. In Nigeria, where new laws are being enacted to regulate and limit the negative effects of using technology, there needs to be accountability in actions as well as words. While Simi’s experience is not one of proven guilt, it is a reminder that while advocating against the sexual molestation of children, one cannot ignore one’s own shadow. As conversations regarding accountability for sexual abuse continue, Simi’s experience can lead to greater protections for children and women, which will allow moral campaigns to be both credible and effective.
Olalekan Moyosore Lalude, PhD, CPPA (LSE), Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Wisconsin Int. Univ. College—Kumasi Campus, olalude@wiuc-ghana.edu.gh
