Last week- precisely on 4th of March- Kannywood actress, Rahma Sadau, was suspended by the Motion Pictures Practitioners Association of Nigeria (MOPPAN) for publicly claiming she was de-casted from Adam A Zango’s movie, Duniya Makaranta, after she rejected his romantic advances.
The announcement garnered criticisms from filmmakers; Aminu Saira, Yaseen Auwal, Umar UK, for example, publicly denounced the suspension. This revolutionised a social media campaign against the suspension. Well, as cynical as this may sound, I am here to say something nice about the suspension, so listen very carefully. I think MOPPAN were right about one thing: Rahma Sadau’s misbehavior does ‘warrant’ a punishment- probably less severe than the one given, probably more- but the actress deserves to be punished.
Ultimately, the aim of Punishment is maintenance of public order. When an individual’s intentional action results in somebody else’s discomfort, the scale of Justice is out of balance, and sanctioning that individual restores that balance; hence, Rahma Sadau should pay for her action. The aim of punishment can also be prospective, for it serves as a warning to others and reduces likelihood of future transgressions, thereby promoting social harmony.
Of course she apologised, but apology doesn’t completely revoke punishment. Still, were it a mere abuse, her apology would probably be on equal footing with her misdeed, but it was ‘defamation’, which is far too detrimental to the harmed party, and too insoluble in apologetic solvent; her comments were aimed at damaging his reputation, making them too offensive to go unpunished. That aside, human being of whatsoever status deserves some degree of respect, her comments were too disrespectful.
“the punishment,” some people would say, “is one-sided.” One will have hard time invalidating this assertion, for even a cursory examination of the affair points to this. To begin with, I think pardoning Ali Artwork was not only wrong, it was ridiculous.
As a matter of fact, the whole affair was/is of little interest to me, which might be why when I looked at it, what interested me more than what happened was what didn’t happen. After Adam A Zango laid down his case, you had expect Ali Nuhu to come floating off the mountains scrutinizing every claim Zango made and tearing his pieces apart. Instead, he remained SILENT, and the more I thought about it, the more it made sense to me.
Instead of ranting and raving about Zango’s comments, Ali Nuhu allowed his true colors to shine through keeping quiet. People may interpret your silence as weakness or fear, but it takes courage to say nothing; here lies your strength. The strong are not always known for their strength, but their discipline and restraint. After all, Silence, they say, is one of the most difficult arguments to refute.
Stooping to his level to depend himself would be a defeat already. “I won’t dignify that with a response” applies here. His response would give Zango’s words an authority they hardly deserve and would become a stumbling block to future resolution. Most third parties would grasp that he didn’t respond not because what Zango said was right, but because his comments hardly warrant a response.
Silence, also, leaves him much less open to further onslaught. Had he spoken, he would have given other snipers consent to fight him, to quote him out of context. Words are powerful and so is knowledge. When you tell people what you are thinking or doing, you are making a decision to empower them with information- and you may unintentionally be giving them ammunition to exploit you. Ali Nuhu’s silence was an excellent choice.
If you are still excitedly talking about this rift, don’t be surprised to see Ali Nuhu posting his picture with Zango tomorrow on Facebook. Silence is golden, exercise it!!!
Written by: Anas Abdullahi