VITAL OBITER®
The Diary of a Roving Counsel

Dieko Afolayan recently celebrated his twenty-first birthday.

The son of filmmaker Kunle Afolayan shared photographs.

And the public commentary began.

His appearance. His upbringing. His parents. His choices.

Would these photographs have attracted the same scrutiny if his father were unknown?

Are we genuinely interested in Dieko, or merely in the attention his story generates?

I am increasingly troubled by what passes for thought leadership.

We all have opinions. Many of us have platforms. We can criticise and condemn.

But access to communication is not evidence of values.

We have unprecedented means of communication. Where is the corresponding commitment to responsibility?

Sometimes, what we celebrate as thought leadership is nothing more than THOUGHT TYRANNY.

Recently, at a meeting, a woman declared:

“My son can never come home with dreadlocks!”

I asked:

What value does wearing dreadlocks necessarily violate?

Discomfort is not proof of wrongdoing. Personal preference is not a universal moral standard.

I also read an account of someone reportedly being asked to remove his dreadlocks because the richest people in the world supposedly do not wear them.

Where is the evidence?

And even if it were true, since when did wealth become the measure of human worth or the authority on personal appearance?

We are becoming too comfortable dressing personal preferences in the robes of moral certainty.

Who appointed us the fashion police of other people’s lives?

Back to Dieko.

We see photographs. We form opinions.

But have we tried to understand his perspective?

Sometimes, people publicly declare:

“I don’t even need to listen to the full message!”

Really?

How do we claim to understand a message we have refused to hear?

How do we pronounce judgment on what we have not taken the trouble to understand?

And if we are genuinely concerned about someone, have we considered reaching out privately?

Perhaps sliding respectfully into their DM to ask a question, seek clarification or express concern?

Perhaps contacting someone close to them, where appropriate?

Not every concern requires private contact. And nobody is obliged to respond to our inquiries.

But why is public condemnation so often our first instinct?

Are we interested enough to understand?

Interested enough to help?

Or merely interested enough to comment?

Because people’s emotions are not content.

People’s vulnerabilities are not content.

People’s private lives are not content to be mined for clicks, reactions and applause.

We say, “He put himself out there!”

So what?

He has a right to express himself. We have a right to disagree.

But publishing a photograph does not authorise us to invent motives, pronounce on character or humiliate a family.

Consider journalism.

Someone publicly announces that he has become chairman of a company.

Reporting that announcement is straightforward.

But suppose we receive an allegation that he obtained the position through crooked means.

Do we simply publish it?

Or do we investigate, verify and make reasonable efforts to hear his response?

Reporting a public statement is different from publishing an accusation.

Not every public criticism requires prior consultation. But serious allegations demand evidence, fairness and care.

Why should those claiming moral or intellectual leadership operate without comparable restraint?

There is something even more troubling.

We do not know what people are going through.

Behind photographs and videos may be struggles we know nothing about.

What if the person we condemn is already emotionally distressed?

What if they are struggling with depression or thoughts of suicide?

What if they regret something they published and are trying to find their way forward?

We do not know.

Yet one comment becomes ten. Ten become hundreds. Soon, a human being becomes a public spectacle.

And we call it accountability.

At what point does accountability become cruelty?

We cannot claim to care about human dignity while treating human beings as disposable subjects of public entertainment.

Even when wrongdoing is established, accountability must not become a licence for dehumanisation.

Are we perfect?

Do we know what private conversations are taking place within other families?

What efforts are being made beyond public view?

A photograph is not a biography.

As a Christian, I remember Ezekiel 18:23, where God asks whether He takes pleasure in the death of the wicked rather than in their turning from their ways and living.

What a question!

If God’s desire is repentance and life, why should ours be humiliation and destruction?

Should correction not leave room for restoration?

And before we become preoccupied with correcting other people’s children, what about our own?

I remember 1 Kings 20:40:

“And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone.”

In that biblical parable, a man became distracted and lost someone entrusted to his care.

What a sobering lesson!

Are we becoming so busy scrutinising other people’s children that we neglect our own?

Public commentary does not raise children.

Advocacy does not raise children.

Parental presence matters.

When last did we sit with our children and genuinely listen?

When last did we seek to understand their world rather than merely impose ours?

Young people need role models. Certainly!

But we cannot beat people into becoming role models.

If we believe someone presents a poor example, let us demonstrate a better one.

Let our conduct speak. Let our values speak. Let our relationships speak.

We cannot teach respect through disrespect.

We cannot teach dignity through humiliation.

We cannot claim moral authority while abandoning fairness.

Freedom of speech is fundamental.

But freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility.

Thought leadership should illuminate, not intimidate.

It should challenge ideas without destroying people, interrogate conduct without inventing motives, and exercise courage without abandoning compassion.

Having an audience is not the same as having moral authority.

The ability to speak is not proof of wisdom.

The ability to condemn is not proof of understanding.

The ability to attract attention is not proof of leadership.

Otherwise, what we celebrate as thought leadership becomes thought tyranny.

So I return to my questions.

Are we genuinely interested in helping people?

Or have we become more interested in publicly judging them?

Are we seeking to build human beings or merely win arguments about them?

The true test of our concern is not how loudly we condemn.

It is how responsibly we engage.

Enlightenment is Superior to Enforcement®

Follower of Christ. Husband. Father.
Egalitarian. No-Judgment Zone Advocate. Goodwill Investor. Rebel with a Cause. Thriver. Culture-Led Family Strengthening Education and Child Safeguarding Attorney, Pioneer and Innovator. Value-Based Parenting Ideologue. Three Decades in the Saddle.