But what brought us to this sorry pass was her recent appearance in Lagos, where she mounted a spirited defence of herself following criticism by popular Arise Television anchor, Rufai Oseni
By Fred Chukwuelobe
Hon. Abike Dabiri-Erewa, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM), is a former broadcaster and member of the House of Representatives. Over the years, her public comments on some Nigerians, particularly Igbo people who run into trouble with the law abroad, have attracted criticism. She is not alone among public officials whose utterances have raised questions about fairness, prejudice and responsibility.
But what brought us to this sorry pass was her recent appearance in Lagos, where she mounted a spirited defence of herself following criticism by popular Arise Television anchor, Rufai Oseni.
The controversy centred on a smiling emoji she posted on X in response to an offensive post by a social media user who described Igbo people as “monkeys.” Oseni took issue with Dabiri-Erewa’s reaction, arguing that it appeared to dignify an insulting generalisation against an entire ethnic group.
At an event in Lagos organised to celebrate Kike Abati’s 20th anniversary in the media industry, Dabiri-Erewa attempted to explain her action, insisting that she was merely laughing at the post. She also took a swipe at journalists, declaring that the profession had “gone to the dogs.”
“And let me tell you, some journalism is going to the dogs. There’s no journalism anymore. There are no standards. There are no values.
“The journalists that we were trained [by] are going to the dogs. There must be values. There must be standards. And not everybody is a journalist, please. That profession is destroyed,” she lamented.
With due respect, ma’am, your criticism of journalism would carry greater weight if you first examined the implications of your own conduct. It is difficult to condemn the decline of professional standards while dismissing concerns about a public reaction that many people considered insensitive to an ethnic group.
When you post a smiling emoji beneath an offensive statement, what exactly are you communicating? Depending on the context, such a reaction could convey amusement, mockery, approval, contempt or even gloating. You may not have authored the offensive words, but your response can reasonably be interpreted as lending them some measure of acceptance.
Madam, by posting a smiling emoji beneath the woman’s post, you risked giving the impression that you found her remark amusing or acceptable. Whether or not that was your intention, the reaction was bound to attract scrutiny, especially given your public office and the responsibility that comes with it.
That is the point you should have addressed, rather than turning your frustration against the journalist who questioned your conduct.
As for your diatribe against journalism, the profession upon which you built a career and which helped bring you to where you are today, you are right about one thing: professional standards have come under pressure in the age of social media.
Today, virtually anyone can publish information, share opinions and present themselves as a journalist, regardless of their training or adherence to professional ethics. Misinformation, online abuse and irresponsible commentary have become serious challenges. These developments demand greater vigilance from media practitioners, regulators, media organisations and public officials alike.
However, rather than dismissing the profession in sweeping terms, you ought to reflect on how public officials contribute to the quality of public discourse. The influence of those in positions of authority comes with an obligation to exercise restraint, demonstrate fairness and avoid conduct that could encourage prejudice or deepen ethnic divisions.
Your reaction to the offensive post was particularly troubling because it concerned an entire ethnic group. No individual should be reduced to a stereotype because of their ethnic identity, and no public figure should appear to trivialise such an insult.
Had you condemned the woman’s crude generalisation, you would have sent a clear message that ethnic prejudice has no place in responsible public discourse. You would also have demonstrated the kind of leadership expected of someone who represents Nigerians, including those who may feel targeted or marginalised by such remarks.
As the Igbo proverb reminds us, an elder should not sit at home and watch a tethered goat give birth without intervening. Those who occupy positions of authority have a responsibility to correct wrongdoing, especially when their words and actions carry considerable public influence.
You could have used the moment to discourage ethnic stereotyping and remind Nigerians that disagreement with individuals must never become an excuse to insult entire communities. Instead, your response has fuelled a controversy that might have been avoided with a simple clarification or an unequivocal condemnation of the offensive remark.
My dear ma’am, journalism was not thrown to the dogs simply because journalists questioned your conduct. A free press must be able to hold public officials accountable, just as journalists themselves must remain subject to scrutiny over their professional standards.
Rufai Oseni’s criticism should therefore be judged on its merits, not on whether it was directed at you. Public accountability cannot depend on whether the person asking difficult questions is a friend, ally or fellow professional.
Your displeasure with Oseni may stem from your belief that he misinterpreted your reaction. If so, the appropriate response would have been to explain your intention clearly and address the concerns his criticism raised. Dismissing journalism as a profession in decline does not resolve the issue.
Indeed, the media profession faces genuine challenges, but its imperfections should not become a convenient shield for public officials who are confronted with legitimate questions about their conduct.
It is never too late to acknowledge a mistake, clarify an intention and take steps to repair the damage caused by an ill-judged public reaction. Doing so would not diminish your standing; rather, it would demonstrate the humility and responsibility expected of a public servant.
Admit the error, where there was one, learn from the controversy and move on. That would be a more constructive response than condemning an entire profession because one of its practitioners dared to call you to account.
Fred Chukwuelobe, FNIPR