Kwam 1 and 2: A Philosophical Inquiry

By Valentine Obienyem

Recently, news emerged that music icon Kwam 1, with apparent impunity, obstructed an airplane at the airport – a serious safety violation – and was allowed to leave without consequence.

Subsequently, Comfort Emmason, an ordinary citizen and an “unknown,” was accused of a far lesser offense, yet was apprehended, detained, and brought before a court.

What standard of justice can justify this disparity? Plato reminds us that justice is rendering to each their due. If this is true, are we to accept that Kwam 1’s due was freedom, while Comfort Emmason’s due was arrest, detention, and arraignment?

The ancient Scythian philosopher Anacharsis once observed, “Laws are like spider webs; they catch the weak and poor, but the rich and powerful break through them.” His words resonate powerfully today.

A pertinent modern framework for understanding this paradox is John Rawls’ Theory of Justice. Rawls asks us to envision a “veil of ignorance” – a hypothetical state where we are unaware of our own wealth, fame, class, or social position. Behind this veil, we would construct a society with impartial laws, knowing we could just as easily be powerless as powerful.

Rawls’ first principle grants equal basic rights to all: the same law for both the mighty and the meek. His second permits inequality only if it benefits the least advantaged members of society. In this instance, however, the scales are clearly unbalanced: Kwam 1’s exemption benefits only himself, while Comfort Emmason’s punishment further disadvantages her.

Justice, in its purest form, is blind to identity. In Nigeria, it seems to recognise faces, names, and bank accounts. It has long abandoned its sword and scales, and now genuflects before privilege.