Good morning, Nigeria.

Selective outrage has become one of our favourite national traditions.

Outrage here is not always moral.

Sometimes, it is seasonal.

We are furious when our enemies misbehave and suddenly philosophical when our friends do worse.

Principles are loud in public and negotiable in private.

We don’t always ask whether something is wrong.

We ask who did it.

If it is our person, there is context.

If it is their person, there is corruption.

Same action.

Different vocabulary.

When Principles Have Conditions

We like to believe that our principles are fixed.

We believe in honesty.

We believe in accountability.

We believe in justice.

We believe that people should be held responsible for their actions.

At least, until someone we support does something that requires us to reconsider.

Then the language changes.

“He made a mistake.”

“You don’t understand the situation.”

“Let’s hear his side.”

“They are only attacking him because they don’t like him.”

Suddenly, context becomes very important.

But when the same thing is done by someone we dislike, there is no need for context.

There is only outrage.

There are hashtags.

There are insults.

There are demands for consequences.

The moral standard becomes very clear.

Until our side needs it to become complicated again.

The Problem With Selective Outrage

The problem with selective outrage is not simply hypocrisy.

It makes accountability almost impossible.

If wrongdoing is wrong only when the other person does it, then we are not really defending a principle.

We are defending a team.

That creates a dangerous habit.

People begin to understand that consequences depend less on what they do and more on who is willing to defend them.

Friends protect friends.

Supporters protect leaders.

Groups protect their own.

And everyone finds a reason why their own side deserves another chance.

Meanwhile, the same behaviour from the other side becomes evidence of everything that is wrong with the country.

We cannot build a fair society that way.

Justice cannot depend on friendship.

Accountability cannot depend on political loyalty.

And morality cannot change simply because the name attached to an action has changed.

Same Action. Different Vocabulary.

Perhaps we should try something simpler.

Before asking, “Who did it?”

Ask:

“Is it wrong?”

If the answer is yes, then the standard should remain the same.

It should not matter whether the person is our friend, our leader, our colleague, our relative or someone we cannot stand.

The standard should survive the identity of the person being judged.

Otherwise, we are not defending principles.

We are simply defending our people.

Good morning to a country where selective outrage has excellent customer service.

The complaint is always answered.

The standard, however, depends on who is calling.