National Assembly shames itself over Bobrisky

In the previous piece I published regarding popular crossdresser and transsexual Bobrisky, actual name; Idris Okuneye, I indicated that if there is a way her antics have proved useful, it is how much they manage to disclose us to us. When Bobrisky was brought up to the National Assembly, she did it once more. She deserves praise for exposing the inanity of our legislators. Not that we didn't already know they are basically overpaid harlequins, but witnessing the entire drama of them inviting a social media influencer to a supposed investigative panel—who arrives with another clown cosplaying a "native doctor"—confirmed that the organisation they represent has possibly irreversibly declined.

When the lawmakers called someone who had only disclosed a taped discussion, what did they expect? This character didn't have any stake in the outcome and didn't conduct any fact-finding to gather the data. All that was revealed in the exposé was a conversation between fictitious pals that someone had used to pressure Bobrisky into paying a debt. Even when the bill was paid off, he chose to make the tape public because he was already completely infatuated with Bobrisky. That is the persona that legislators have called to the "hallowed chamber." They invited Bobrisky as well, who was wise enough not to attend. They didn't stop there. Why were they pairing the two against each other, and what was their actual goal? Is the KoŁkoʁroŁ Alá now the NASS?Te?

I understand, I promise. Given the public interest sparked by the leaked recording, they intended to address the Bobrisky matter; but was that the best course of action? Their lack of seriousness demonstrates how little they value their moral obligation and constitutional authority. I am confident they will discover genuine studies done by serious individuals at the libraries of either NIPSS in Kuru, Jos, or the many think tanks in the nation if they are interested in changing our carceral system. Why overlook that in order to go after a "influencer" on social media? Nothing that has been made public thus far is particularly novel. In December of last year, all of us were present when the EFCC, the DSS, and the National Correctional Service publicly fought over who should have custody of the former CBN governor, Godwin Emefiele. Why would three agencies be jostling over the detention of a rich inmate if not because they see him as an opportunity?

Journalist Fisayo Soyombo conducted an investigation on the corruption that permeates the Nigerian jail system, which he released in 2019. This individual genuinely committed self-inflicted imprisonment in order to validate his claims of corruption within the Nigerian penal system. He should have been called if the NASS had needed someone who had firsthand knowledge of how corrupt the criminal justice system had become. Why chase after people whose interest in this area is merely surface-level while ignoring those who have made genuine attempts to research these issues? These are individuals who have made a career out of using the internet, and this whole thing is just another show to appease a reticent audience.

Let me make it clear: I have nothing against a thorough probe into the matter. Yes, both the EFCC and the jail service ought to be investigated with a view toward reforms. I also believe that a reassessment of the process for obtaining presidential pardons is necessary. In any case, there has always been suspicion surrounding the group of Nigerians who are granted presidential pardons. Even if the accusations arising from Bobrisky's leaked recording are widely known, they are nevertheless serious enough to require a thorough investigation. The levity of the MPs' invitation to confront social media personalities—who are sometimes at odds with one another—is what is completely intolerable. They turn a serious issue of institutional collapse into pure entertainment by also inviting a large group of journalists and broadcasting the meeting on television. Those kinds of issues are best resolved by confronting the liable institutions, not individuals whose roles are merely symptomatic of the larger systemic rot.

Considering the involvement of the EFCC and the purported N15 million bribe, I think this is a case worth looking into. The more shocking thing about their self-justification for dropping the money laundering allegations against Bobrisky was what it showed about them and their investigative methodology. The money laundering case against Bobrisky was allegedly abandoned because of her confessional declaration that her company, Bob Express, was not registered with SCUML and was not providing returns to the agency, according to EFCC prosecutor Bilikisu Bala. That intrigued me, now that portion.

Considering the involvement of the EFCC and the purported N15 million bribe, I think this is a case worth looking into. The more shocking thing about their self-justification for dropping the money laundering allegations against Bobrisky was what it showed about them and their investigative methodology. The money laundering case against Bobrisky was allegedly abandoned because of her confessional declaration that her company, Bob Express, was not registered with SCUML and was not providing returns to the agency, according to EFCC prosecutor Bilikisu Bala. That intrigued me, now that portion.

Considering the involvement of the EFCC and the purported N15 million bribe, I think this is a case worth looking into. The more shocking thing about their self-justification for dropping the money laundering allegations against Bobrisky was what it showed about them and their investigative methodology. The money laundering case against Bobrisky was allegedly abandoned because of her confessional declaration that her company, Bob Express, was not registered with SCUML and was not providing returns to the agency, according to EFCC prosecutor Bilikisu Bala. That intrigued me, that part piqued my interest.

Thus, it's not as if there was ever any evidence to support Bobrisky's initial arrest and allegations of money laundering. After her detention, they forced her to make some self-disclosures because the Naira mutilation offense—for which she was ultimately imprisoned—was too little to warrant public outcry. Based only on her own comments, they then accused her of a crime! Again, let me express that. They had nothing significant against Bobrisky before the arrest. However, they reasoned that if they held her long enough and gave her a good shake while in their care, one or two of the things that they could use against her in court would ultimately come off.

It's possible that some of their guys proceeded to use the allegations as leverage to get money from her, even after they eventually understood the money laundering case would not succeed. They exploited the fact that she might not have known there was insufficient evidence to accuse her of money laundering in order to demand a bribe. Thus, their prosecutor Bala was not precisely lying when he said that the money laundering accusations had been "legally" abandoned. They had no substance in the first place, but they had to be brought up because the EFCC was frantic to accuse Bobrisky of something so dramatic that it would hide the very aspect of her that was hurting them: her sexuality.

Should that be the precise sequence of events, it clarifies a great deal about why the EFCC has been a useless organisation; they are so corrupt that they are unable to take a stand on any subject at any point in time. Remember that the language of the legislation does not limit their authority over former Kogi governor Yahaya Bello, even though Olu Olukayode, the chairman of the EFCC, is wringing his hands and complaining about how they created a "backdoor" for Bello. Where else does it happen that an investigating agency needs the help of an accused to complete their job to the level they would practically be begging for the attention of the person they are intended to prosecute? Finally, after months of complaints from the EFCC, Bello walks into their headquarters and walks out while the officials look on like a headless mannequin in a lingerie store. They were paralyzed by their own lack of moral backbone. Shame!

Although we lack objective proof regarding Bobrisky's demand for the money and its distribution, the tape contains sufficient details to persuade anyone who has been observing the pattern of events that the claim could not be untrue. Bobrisky was not provoked to go on a tirade, then why did she lie to the EFCC on a tape that she was unaware would surface? Furthermore, the information regarding the EFCC is probably true as well, given that certain details of her story—specifically the part about being housed in a private jail—have been verified by prison authorities. In any event, the only reason people are enthused by this is Bobrisky. There is nothing novel about this scandal. Even though one cannot dictate what topics people chinwag on social media, should lawmakers not be too serious to give institutional gravitas to every silliness?