The word cachexic – often spelt ‘cachectic’ – refers to having the symptoms of cachexia or something related to the condition. Cachexia itself relates to a significant loss of muscle mass and weight and is associated with several illnesses. In simple terms, it means ‘wasting’ of the body. At this moment, ‘cachexic’ is fitting for the state of politics in Nigeria’s foremost medical students’ association. Many refuse to behold the lamb of politics dying. Claiming that she is not ill is their easy way out. Claiming that her illness is apathy and apathy alone is an even easier way out. Neither is correct, so let us examine her health.
A foremost sign of a wasting state is one where freedom of speech and expression is restricted – not limited as most rights are but restricted. When the contents of one’s speech are restricted to that which the Government determines not to be ‘hateful’ – legality notwithstanding – and citizens’ access to public fora is withdrawn on a whim, and justification for these and more becomes ‘the best interest of the state’ — without the representatives of the said state — then there is restriction. For UIMSA, the Central WhatsApp group is the focal point of this restriction. As of Press time, the pinned message on the group is the ‘UIMSA Central WhatsApp Group Chat Rules’, a three-section hodge-podge of ambiguity and bewildering rule-making. It begins with five guidelines on respect, positivity, relevance, accuracy, and privacy, proceeds to a section on moderation, and concludes with additional tips. According to the President, these rules of engagement were supposedly not sent earlier “in his hopes that there would be no such instances of non-adherence to public decorum” but “had become imperative”. The subtext here is that it’s the Executive Council’s response to incidents in the group between the 25th and 27th of June, 2024. Some even spilled to the Alexander Brown Hall Whatsapp group, ‘We Are Brownites’. In the aftermath of the Chat Rules publication on the Central WhatsApp platform, there was pushback from a number of UIMSAites and a not-so-surprising level of support from some. Logic and common sense favour only one of these halves.
To better understand these proceedings, let’s revisit the incidents. On the 25th of June, around 9:44 PM, a fourth-year UIMSAite, Makuochukwu Okigbo, emerged on the Central Group with a series of incendiary messages. In these messages, he called out – albeit distastefully- the quietness of students to the ABH accommodation and power situation, laid curses, and used an expletive deriding the ‘Meet the Magic Makers’ video introducing the new set of UIMSA Executives in detail. Some UIMSAites berated his messages, with some seeing only humour in them. Less than an hour later, the President, Inioluwa John, responded to Mr. Makuochukwu’s messages, cautioning his language. He also explained the causes and measures being taken to fix both issues. Interestingly, Mr Inioluwa concluded by saying, “Messages like this are NOT acceptable on this group” and that “if he [Makuochukwu] would remain, he must abide by rules of public decorum“.
That was all, or so UIMSAites thought. On the 26th, and in response to another UIMSAite’s message of ‘Freedom after speech not being a basic human right’, Mr Makuochukwu wrote, “ It seems you have a garbled view of the freedom of speech which is expected given that you’re Nigerian and you barely enjoy such freedom. One should reserve the right to articulate one’s opinion without fear of legal sanctions, retaliation or censorship. Freedom of speech entails freedom during and after speech“. Two minutes later, the President responded, claiming that ‘he [Makuochukwu] needed to learn how to speak and that Makuochukwu hadn’t convinced him that he knew how to yet’. He closed it off with, “This group isn’t meant for unfettered, disrespectful speech, and I won’t entertain it any longer“, and removed Mr Makuochukwu from the group.
Outcry followed soon after, and amidst discussions on the group, the President ‘locked’ it. The arena of discourse then switched to individual class groups and the ‘We Are Brownites’ group for ABH residents. There, Mr Makuochukwu wrote a lengthy four-part diatribe – a portion of the title was lent for this piece. This led to even more discourse on the justifiability of his removal. On the 27th, the President sent the message below to the group, seemingly doubling down on the course of action taken, after which the Vice President sent in the rules given above.
As expected, more discourse followed: pushback from certain quarters and support from some. About sixteen hours later, the President returned with another message, apologised to ‘anyone who felt aggrieved by the matter’ and to ‘individuals who may have misinterpreted the actions’. He also restated the Executives’ role as group administrators, their welcoming suggestions for modifications of the current rules, a need for UIMSAites to dissociate from rumour-mongering, and finally, the fact that all is done ‘in the best interest of UIMSAites’.
So, back to the subject of freedom of expression. If UIMSA Politics’ cachexic state wasn’t apparent, it is now. The fact that the rules of engagement on the Central Group emerged from deliberation among all ten members of the Executive Council is worrying. ‘Avoid all personal attacks, insults, or offensive language’ ‘Promote a positive and encouraging environment. Focus on constructive criticism and helpful suggestions’. Did no one see the flaws in these? Expletives have always been used on the group, either as offensive or non-offensive language, for people to express themselves. Therefore, determining when exactly said line has been crossed is as subjective as it gets. The ‘Positivity’ guideline is even funnier. It assumes that the Central Group has to be a place of sunshine and roses, where real-world issues faced by UIMSAites won’t lead to outbursts or demands for change. Suggestions can not always be helpful. Criticism won’t always be towards proffering solutions. That’s not the job of UIMSAites, and it shouldn’t be made so.
The ‘Relevance’ guideline is also alarming. Why would relevance be limited to UIMSA, NiMSA, FAMSA, and IFMSA? And who determines what and what isn’t ‘relevant content’? Relevance should be based on what affects UIMSAites, local or otherwise. If a UIMSAite feels aggrieved with an individual’s behaviour in their Hall of Residence or finds a skit amusing online and wants to share it with the group, they should be able to. Except, of course, the Council assumes that any issue affecting a UIMSAite affects all UIMSAites, which would be illogical. Nothing highlights the sheer incredulousness of this point than the fact that, less than an hour later, going by this rule, more than ten UIMSAites had contravened. An opportunity to address improper content, such as gore, sexual content, etc, was right there for the taking. These are standard as per ‘public decorum’. Instead, the focus shifted to relevance.
More thought appeared to have gone to the last two guidelines than the previous three. Under ‘Accuracy’, UIMSAites are to ‘only share accurate and verifiable and refrain from spreading rumours and misinformation’ while ‘Privacy’ is a charge to ‘respect the privacy of others, and avoid sharing personal information without content’. Straightforward, objective suggestions. The only concern with this would be who gets to determine accuracy when there’s a conflict of interest with the Council or other arms of the Association. However, that’s negligible given the mechanisms to counter this, such as UIMSAites themselves and the Press.
The regulations stipulate a maximum of two strikes, with monitoring to be carried out by The Executive Council; again, futile. It also states, “If a disagreement arises, UIMSAites are to address it privately with the person involved”. This defeats the purpose of a public forum. Disagreements are expected in a space with two or more people. Civility while disagreeing is what should be prioritised. The diversity of individuals within the association and of discourse on the Central Group make it inevitable for clashes of ideology, belief, or the less mundane like sports — itself not exemption of ideology – to occur. Considering this is the only platform where large-scale real-time inter-class interactions can occur, this guideline almost appears to be aimed at forestalling disagreements in public view. “A senior party might get embarrassed, so let it be private’. The cachexic lamb, silent, in the name of saving face.
Away from this, another sign of a wasting state is one where accountability stands on shaky legs. The lamb of politics sways with uneven hindquarters; her head evading owning up to her faults. As of the time of this publication, no direct apology had been made to Mr Makuochukwu for his removal. Both apologies made by the President were to individuals who felt “aggrieved by the matter” and “who may have misinterpreted the actions [measures to prevent further escalations]”. In both places, the President failed to own up to his mistake. There was nothing to indicate that he — and the Executive Council, by extension — believed their actions were wrong. Instead, we got an emphasis on the intent, whereas both the intent and outcome were questionable. The mark of leadership is acceding to both right and wrong, not to followers who ‘feel wronged’. If you can’t guarantee that, constituents trusting your intent would be at their own risk. We have witnessed leaders sin against the populace in the name of the populace. Repeating these patterns makes us no better off than them, and so the labour of the heroes-to-come might already be in vain.
It didn’t help that executives in a class’ WhatsApp group distanced themselves from the decision made by the President. This suggests an arbitrary decision-making process. At this point, the spotlight falls on the Association’s legislature. Weeks after this incident, there has been no indication that the Chat Rules would be brought up on either floor or that the President would at least be questioned for decisions made – apologies notwithstanding. That very few Senators or Honorables, and none from the leadership of those Houses, failed to call out the Executive Council on their actions also speaks a lot. Efforts should have been made privately if public call-outs were not feasible – even that is questionable. The expected excuse would be that the constitution wasn’t breached and that the WhatsApp group doesn’t fall within the purview of customs. But our dear common sense remains. More explicit, defined rules guiding the administration of the Central Group must be created. They must be included within the constitution to avoid ambiguity and selective administration.
Open your eyes, ye UIMSAites, ‘Cachexia looms!”. UIMSAites now play class politics in every and all matters. In the days and weeks following the saga, there has been a noticeable divide along class lines on this and other subjects. There’s a culture of individuals backing their classmates who contest or hold positions within and outside the association simply because of a shared ‘2k2x’. This then extends to supporting whatever decisions these people make. It occurs on the Senate and Congress floors. It appears at the Hall level. It even happens at the UI SRC level. As recently as last month, the ABH Hall Assembly had a mini-crisis, a secondary result of class alignments in voting. Knowing the structure of student politics, backing your own is understandable. After all, there are no political parties. But if we must, let it be after proper analysis, not blindly. Seeing walls of defence along class lines demolished by the simplest of examinations was saddening.
Four days ago, a similar situation as UIMSA’s occurred on the Brownites group. A Brownite was ejected from the group for using an ‘inappropriate emoji’ in reaction to a message from the Hall Chair. As expected, most individuals supporting this action were from one class. The defence? Tradition and respect. The UIMSA Press has written extensively on this subject (here, here, and here), but it appears insufficient, so we must restate: Traditions exist to be broken. We have gone past the era of seniority as an end-all. Decisions can not be defended simply because they are the norm. And if they must be, then let the norm be one said defenders would be comfortable with, were the roles to be reversed. Don’t go on Twitter stoking up flames of inter-class conflict. Don’t blame the system as if it were some imaginary construct. Don’t build up resentment for an unworthy cause; supporting the disease.
The lamb is wasting, and this time, apathy is not the only cause. Freedom of speech and expression are under attack. Accountability is selectively provided. Many are sacrificing good leadership on the altar of class unity. The more hilarious ones suggest that individuals who want to complain about difficulties with accommodation, electricity, etc., are better off doing so in one-man protests or open letters. And that anything a UIMSAite wouldn’t say to the Management’s face, they shouldn’t be able to say on the group. It’s a conundrum but not a bleak situation.
“He/She who comes to equity must come with clean hands” Demands can be made without resorting to distasteful language. It’s even more impactful when criticism and complaints are made in civil, concise writing. For administrators, the above paragraphs can be referenced. Removal can’t be arbitrary, and the same applies to locking groups. We commend the pro-active response of ordinary UIMSAites and some legislators when these anti-democratic actions were taken in June. Now, the buck lies with the leadership of these bodies. At the very least, chastise privately and insist that the right thing be done.
Worthy is this lamb of politics, but she is not to be slain or slowly waste on. And for posterity’s sake, UIMSAites must see this, too.
.
