Nigeria And The Danger Of Judging Without Facts

When Emotion Displaces Evidence
Why a country cannot build justice or accountable leadership when its citizens take sides before the truth is established.

By Otunba (Dr.) Abdulfalil Abayomi Odunowo

A simple image on social media reveals a profound national weakness. Two boys hold onto the same tyre. One is smiling; the other is crying. The caption says: “Judge Wisely. Who owns the tyre?”

Many people immediately reach a conclusion. The crying boy is assumed to be the rightful owner, while the smiling boy is presumed to be the thief. But the image provides no facts. Who bought the tyre? Who possessed it first? Was it borrowed, given away, or stolen? Without those answers, any firm conclusion is nothing more than speculation.

This reflects a recurring problem in Nigeria’s democracy: conclusions are often drawn before evidence is established.

A Culture of Instant Judgment

Nigerians discuss politics and public affairs passionately. Opinions spread more quickly than investigations. A headline appears, and judgment follows at once. An allegation surfaces, and supporters quickly embrace it. At times, even credible evidence is rejected simply because of where it comes from. Identity takes precedence over truth.

The central issue stops being “What actually happened?” and becomes “Whose side am I on?”

This is not a minor intellectual weakness. Any society that cannot distinguish evidence from allegation will also struggle to tell accountability apart from persecution, legitimate criticism apart from propaganda, and genuine achievement apart from publicity.

History provides plain examples. In 1999, Salisu Buhari became Speaker of the House of Representatives after submitting a forged certificate and a false age. Within weeks, documentary evidence led to his resignation and conviction. The issue was resolved by facts, not sentiment. In 2012, Farouk Lawan, once praised as an anti-corruption crusader, was filmed soliciting a $3 million bribe. The video evidence outweighed his political reputation. By contrast, several high-profile media trials have later fallen apart because evidence was lacking, leaving damaged reputations and weakened public trust.

Again and again, media trials and partisan assumptions have moved faster than due process, only for courts to acquit the accused or for cases to be quietly abandoned.

Emotion may indicate distress. It cannot establish ownership or prove guilt.

Loyalty in Place of Thought

Too often, political loyalty determines how events are interpreted. An action condemned under one administration is defended under another. The same policy is applauded or attacked depending on who introduced it. Principles that change with political advantage are not principles at all; they are merely convenience.

The 2022–2023 naira redesign showed this clearly. Supporters defended it as necessary reform, while opponents described it as sabotage. Only later did more complete evidence emerge about the process, the hardship it caused, and questions surrounding legality and consultation. Long before the facts became clear, public debate had already divided itself along political lines. The same tendency appears in fuel-subsidy scandals, disputes over currency policy, and corruption allegations: allegiance often comes before evidence.

A healthy democracy demands the opposite. Policy should be judged by its merits, regardless of party. Allegations of misconduct should be examined through law, not political affiliation. A valid concern raised by the opposition should not be dismissed simply because of its source. Intellectual honesty requires people to admit when an accusation is false, even when it is made against a political rival.

Evidence, Not Mere Narratives

The gap is perhaps most damaging in economic debate. Government points to growth figures, revenue, and reform indicators. Citizens point to food prices, transport costs, and pressure on household finances. Both realities can exist at the same time. Aggregate growth may occur alongside widespread hardship. Revenue may increase without any immediate improvement in public services. Inflation may ease while prices remain high.

The responsible questions are concrete and measurable: Are real incomes recovering? Are productive jobs being created? Are public revenues being converted into better infrastructure, health, education and security? Who gains, who carries the burden, and over what period? These questions require data, historical comparison, and transparent assessment not press releases alone, and not isolated personal experience alone.

Context also matters. Policies have origins, timelines, and inherited constraints. Institutions outlast administrations. Fair judgment requires distinguishing between what a government inherited and what it chose, between intention and implementation, and between short-term pain and long-term outcomes. Without that discipline, history becomes a weapon instead of a source of understanding.

The Discipline This Requires

Serious public discourse depends on a few disciplined habits:

• What evidence supports this claim?
• What has been established, and what remains under investigation?
• What measurable result has been delivered?
• Can the claim be independently verified?
• Would I apply the same standard if those involved belonged to another party?

That final question exposes prejudice. Democracy is not made stronger by unquestioning loyalty. It is strengthened by citizens who can separate political commitment from blind partisanship.

Leaders also have a responsibility. Governments must not treat every criticism as hostility. The opposition must not treat every achievement as something embarrassing that must be denied. Institutions auditors, courts, legislatures, regulators must be free to determine facts without political pressure. Justice cannot rest on whichever side shouts the loudest.

There is also intellectual courage in admitting uncertainty. In a culture that demands instant opinions, saying “I do not yet have enough information” is often the most responsible answer. Not every allegation can be settled through television debate or social-media judgment. Not every policy can be fairly assessed within a few weeks. Sound judgment requires patience and the willingness to revise conclusions when evidence demands it.

The Tyre Belongs to the People

Another possibility is often ignored: the tyre may belong to neither boy. In Nigerian politics, competing claims by parties and personalities can distract from the central issue the welfare of citizens. Public resources are not private property. Public office is not a hereditary entitlement. The national treasury is not a reward for political victors. The true owners are the Nigerian people.

Until the facts are known, neither the smiling boy nor the crying boy can be declared the owner. National judgment must follow the same rule.

A nation that judges by emotion rewards appearances. A nation that judges by loyalty shields injustice. A nation that insists on evidence gives truth, fairness and accountability a real chance.

Before you judge, establish the facts.
Before you condemn, examine the evidence.
Before you choose a side, ask whether you have heard the whole story.

Otunba (Dr.) Abdulfalil Abayomi Odunowo
Public Affairs Commentator and Advocate for Good Governance, Accountability and National Development.