Digital Misconduct and the Erosion of Public Trust: The Urgent Case for Removing Abike Dabiri-Erewa

 

By Ben Ahanonu

The sustained public demand for the removal of Abike Dabiri-Erewa from her position as the Chairman of the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM) highlights a profound, systemic crisis of accountability within contemporary public communication. As a high-ranking public official serving under the administration of President Bola Tinubu, Dabiri-Erewa occupies a role where her platform is never merely a personal outlet. Instead, it functions as an explicit extension of state authority. Consequently, such a position demands absolute sensitivity, deep institutional responsibility, and an unyielding respect for all Nigerian citizens, completely irrespective of their ethnic or regional backgrounds.

When an official of this calibre interacts with online material that describes the Igbo people using deeply dehumanising slurs—labelling them with derogatory epithets and attaching laughing emojis to the interaction—the ensuing public outrage cannot be dismissed as a minor misunderstanding or an internet overreaction. For a significant segment of the population, particularly the Igbo community, this digital action felt less like a benign, casual engagement and far more like the official validation of ethnic hatred from the highest levels of governance. This incident underscores how social media has weaponised political discourse in Nigeria, transforming what could be isolated remarks into state-sanctioned narratives that alienate entire regions and weaken the fragile bonds of national unity.

The primary defence put forward by her supporters and communication team—that she did not author the original insult but merely responded to a commentator with an emoji—deliberately skirts the core issue of digital amplification. In modern public discourse, the mechanics of social media mean that sharing, retweeting, or reacting positively to hate speech acts as a direct endorsement. By engaging playfully with hostile content, an official effectively magnifies the reach of toxic rhetoric, lending institutional weight to ideas that actively threaten national cohesion.

Furthermore, the defence that the specific word "Igbo" was omitted in certain strands of the immediate conversation fails to satisfy critics. The broader context of that digital engagement, and the highly charged atmosphere surrounding it, heavily and unmistakably targeted a specific ethnic nationality. In a volatile digital ecosystem, public officials cannot afford to plead ignorance regarding the contextual implications of their interactions, as every digital footprint from a public office holder carries the weight of policy and state attitude. This lack of situational awareness online does not just damage personal reputations; it erodes the fragile social contract that holds a multi-ethnic federation together, breeding deep-seated resentment amongst groups who feel targeted by the apparatus of the state.

This controversy becomes significantly more stark when viewed against the broader standards and rhetorical positions of the current administration. The federal government consistently calls upon ordinary citizens to practise responsible civic behaviour, curb fake news, and show respect for public institutions. However, it simultaneously struggles to enforce that very same ethical decorum internally among its political appointees. This apparent double standard creates a severe friction point in state-citizen relations. When citizens are lectured on patriotism while state actors appear to indulge in or tolerate divisive behaviour online, the moral authority of the government is severely weakened. The NiDCOM incident has thus become a case study in how the digital misconduct of a single official can compromise the collective messaging of an entire administration, making government anti-hate speech campaigns seem hypocritical and hollow. This internal contradiction suggests a culture of impunity where proximity to power shields officials from the standards imposed upon the public.

Furthermore, this incident has brought into sharp focus the increasingly adversarial relationship between public officials and the mainstream media. This friction was vividly demonstrated in the highly publicised clashes between Dabiri-Erewa and prominent media figures, most notably Arise News presenter Rufai Oseni. Rather than de-escalating the situation through a clear framework of accountability, a transparent explanation, or a conciliatory statement, the official response shifted the focus elsewhere. The discourse was systematically redirected toward criticising journalistic standards, questioning the motives of interviewers, and labelling the widespread public backlash as a coordinated smear campaign. This defensive strategy is a common political tactic, but it rarely succeeds in restoring public trust. By attacking the messenger, the institution missed a vital opportunity to address the underlying hurt felt by the public, further alienating a media corps that is essential for transparent democratic governance and the preservation of free speech.

Supporters of the NiDCOM Chairman are quick to point to her extensive career history as a shield against these criticisms. They argue that her decades of service as an accomplished broadcast journalist, combined with her years of building NiDCOM from the ground up, demonstrate an undeniable commitment to a united and prosperous Nigeria. From their perspective, her track record of intervening in the plight of Nigerians stranded abroad—regardless of their state of origin—should outweigh an isolated digital misstep. They view the intense call for her sack as an unfair, politically motivated exaggeration designed to overshadow her tangible achievements in diaspora engagement, warning that removing her would disrupt the vital institutional networks she has spent years establishing.

Conversely, critics, civil society groups, and cultural organisations argue that the damage done to public trust is too significant to be ignored. In a multi-ethnic nation like Nigeria, where historical grievances and ethnic tensions remain close to the surface, the language used by leaders carries immense weight. For many citizens, the minimum expectation for any public official embroiled in a sensitive matter of this nature remains a direct, unreserved public apology. Such an apology must explicitly acknowledge the emotional distress caused to the targeted community and reaffirm the principle that public service must remain a position of absolute trust, equity, and fairness for every single Nigerian. Without this vital gesture of accountability, the chasm between the government and the governed will only continue to widen in the digital age, establishing a dangerous precedent where official ethnic insensitivity goes completely unchecked.

I stand with Rufai Oseni.

Prince Ben AHANONU

Principal Partner

Ben AHANONU and Associates

Email: benahanonu@gmail.com