The danger in excusing the attack on Charly Boy

by Alexander O. Onukwue

For his protests against the continued stay of President Buhari in London, Charly Boy has been attacked twice in the space of ten days.

First, it was the tear gas attack that was used to disperse him and his group for supposedly being infiltrated by miscreants, according to the Police.

Pictures and videos from that episode at the Unity Fountain showed an uncomfortable–looking Charly Boy on his belly, with reports that he collapsed. The Police PRO, in his interview on Channels TV, described Mr Oputa as “over-dramatizing” the effect of the incident, that the tear gas could not have had any effect on him.

Then there was the Wuse Market clash where he reportedly only managed to escape being lynched. There are ethnic colourations to the incident that has created a kind of battle line between those who defend Charly Boy’s freedom to take his protest to the market and those who feel he has been too abusive to the President.

Summarily, he is being blamed for the misfortune he has had to bear for his movements. Should that be a concern for all?

As some have observed on social media, the trend of taking sides when violence is meted out to an individual does not provide anyone with immunity from becoming a subject of attacks tomorrow.

A case in point will be the LAUTECH stalemate which has kept thousands of students at home since 2015. Not every person had bothered to raise it or partake in the conversations about it, until the ASUU strike began.

There is a danger in keeping mute when an incidence seems not to come close to one’s home, because when it does, the neighbours could easily assume that the doors are locked as usual.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

cool good eh love2 cute confused notgood numb disgusting fail