How social media influencers have ended up becoming judge, jury and executioner

By Titani Chalira*

It is painful to be accused of bad things which you know you did not do. Let alone, you do not have a chance to explain your side of the story. Apart from the pain, as an accused you lose opportunities and your name is tarnished. It is fair as an accused to expect that your rights will be respected. This explains why the threshold for proving accusations is raised and the person making the accusations is the one who bears the brunt of proving the allegations they make.

However, the common narrative has been that the accused sometimes take advantage of the protection that the right to be heard provides. The accused insist that no suspected wrongdoing linked to them should be disclosed until they are given a chance to be heard. The accused in other instances cover the trails of their wrongdoing to make the task of dis-charging the burden of proof on the part of those making allegations impossible. The accused are in many cases people who wield a lot of power. It is therefore difficult to disclose the wrongdoing they get involved in due to fear of retaliation.

Because those involved in wrongdoing resist accountability; people resort to disclosing the information they have through social media platforms. Social media is preferred because they do not have to bear the burden of proving the allegations. This is why social media has been awash with names of people who are accused of corruption. But it is dangerous for social media influencers to become judge, jury and executioner.

The unfairness of the accusations of corruption without providing supporting information is a major concern. While it is important to protect the rights of individuals who are being accused of corruption and any other form of wrongdoing, there is need to tread carefully to avoid protecting people who may actually be doing wrong things.

The people disclosing information about wrongdoing on social media know that there are government institutions that receive reports, assess reports, investigate reports and prosecute cases. However, they are put off by the dominant perception that public officials in charge of these institutions pander to the whims of the appointing authority. The institutions lack independence. For instance, agencies like the anti-corruption bureau and the office of the director public prosecutions are not trusted.

ACB is seen as an institution that only pursues cases of political interest to the political party wielding power at any given particular time. The fear comes when those who reveal information on social media starting asking themselves what if this information affects those with power. Clearly, the people revealing the information know that the reports on wrongdoing which they may submit would be handled in a compromised manner. So, they resort to social media.

The people who have information about wrongdoing doubt if the agencies charged with receiving and assessing the information received will do their work to investigate. There are times after assessing they may be required to send the reports to agencies with the mandate to investigate the reports. At that level, there is also possibility of blocking the reports or colluding with the agencies to frustrate the reports.

The prosecution has its own issues as well. The agency prosecuting may be influenced by those with power and cases may not move at an expected pace. Sometimes because of the power of those involved it is suspected that they are able to collude with the judiciary to have the cases dragging or turn in their favour. The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has also been associated with the practice of discontinuing cases of those with political power or linked to the government at a particular time.

In most cases, the office of the DPP pursues cases that are of interest to the ruling party. How the process to follow through cases happens is not known to people, there is lack of transparency. For those whose cases close successfully they find themselves out under questionable pardons. This is a testament of the range their power can get to.

People who have resorted to using social media to reveal corrupt activities or any form of wrongdoing are deliberate about it. They know the formal structures are not receptive of their information or that the information they may submit can help the culprits to be forewarned and forearmed. The open method of revealing the information to the media is strategic. The first thing it does is to protect the person revealing the information through public sympathy.

People who get riled up by the information revealed develop a connection with the person revealing the information. They are able to provide protection to people who reveal the information in whatever ways possible. The second thing that happens is that the people who are accused fail to retaliate because their targets by this time are widely known and as suspected culprits, fingers may point at them first. In a way this acts as protection.

Influencers are sharing everything on social media (Photo Credit: Internet)

The revealing of the information through social media bypasses the lengthy processes that are used in the institutions mandated to deal with the wrongdoing. Instead of the agencies receiving and assessing reports before investigation, agencies are moved by public anger to rush through the assessment and the knowledge from the public acts the reception stage. They are forced now to go straight into investigations. This brings accountability to public officials who could otherwise have gone without it.  Since most of the accused are influenced by shame not guilt; they are afraid to have their image tarnished. The revelations of corrupt activities serve as a deterrent.

Even though it is good for people to reveal information through social media, it becomes hard to regulate and balance the interests of the people who are accused. The use of social media platforms is problematic because there is no regulation or time to assess the information using objective standards. What passes in line with their perception of things is shared. People’s names are mentioned in some cases with zero evidence. The court of public opinion convicts them. They lose their good names and some may end up losing opportunities.

It should be encouraged on the part of those who reveal information to always be mindful that the court of public opinion is ruthless and not any information that passes as gossip should be shared. People may have developed trust on them and could easily swallow everything and act on it.

The people who are accused should also be vigilant because the law helps those who take the first steps to get protection from the law. They should be able to institute court proceedings and perhaps this will make people who are revealing information on social media to think twice.

The fact that people are resorting to social media tells a story about the loss of trust people have on agencies that are supposed to receive the information and act on it. It is a call for a whistleblower protection law which will create an enabling a dn safe environment for people to report wrongdoing to relevant authorities.

The law commission is already working on developing legislation for the protection of whistleblowers and witnesses. The process started in 2023 July. It has gone through all the stages of the law reform and development process.

The special law commission consulted and has deliberated on the information they collected. They have made their findings and developed a bill. They will in the near future share their findings to the public and eventually submit their work to the ministry of justice. The hope is that it will move to parliament at the right time and end up becoming a law that will improve the reporting ecosystem for whistleblowers and give them the required protection.

The protection of whistleblowers is important; but whistleblowers on their own must learn to take the first steps to protect themselves. Self-protection entails knowing one’s rights, keeping records safe, considering to remain anonymous, hiding screens, creating emails with fake names and secure, not investigating concerns and not providing identifiers.  Those revealing people on social media must take this first step.

The levels of impunity, corruption and all forms of wrongdoing must be dealt with in this country if anything is to move in the right direction. People revealing information through social media must not be discouraged. Instead, they must be protected and, in some cases, they must be trained to be responsible users of social media platforms. It is not a war that can be fought by one person. Everyone must be involved and play their part.

The rights of the people mentioned without justification must be safeguarded. The people who have been accused and are trying to hide behind those whose rights should be protected for being unjustifiably mentioned must be exposed. The whistleblowing ecosystem must be made safe and the law commission’s work must lead to a law that will facilitate reporting of wrongdoing by all citizens alike. Reporting wrongdoing before it gets out of hand will help those who report wrongdoing through social media to stop being judge, jury and executioner.

*Chalira is a regular contributor to The Lamp magazine.