In recent days, veteran Nigerian entertainer-activist Charly Boy unleashed a blistering critique of political commentator Reno Omokri — accusing him of “using people’s suffering to buy appointment.” His remarks are part of a wider conversation about activism, credibility and political convenience in Nigeria.
The spark: Omokri’s evolution on Christian-genocide claims
The genesis of the confrontation lies in Omokri’s shifting stance on the tragic death toll of Christians in Nigeria. At one time, he openly accused the administration of then-President Muhammadu Buhari of allowing genocide against Christians and urged international intervention. Over time, however, Omokri reversed course, rejecting the notion of genocide and arguing instead that insecurity in Nigeria affects all religions — Muslims and Christians alike.
This flip-flop resurfaced recently online, provoking Charly Boy’s wrath. According to one report:
> “When I see how far some people fit go … You wan use people’s suffering buy political appointment? You dey twist stories of Christian killings, one minute you cry ‘genocide’, next minute you say ‘no genocide’ all because your stomach don move to another camp.” — Charly Boy (via Facebook)
Charly Boy accuses Omokri of opportunistic activism: adopting a high-moral posture when it suits one political camp, then reversing when another pays better.
Why this matters: credibility of public advocates
The episode throws into relief a broader dilemma: when public activists vanish into the corridors of power, can their integrity survive? Charly Boy’s complaint suggests that Omokri may have transitioned from critic to political operative — and in the process, abandoned consistency.
Omokri has offered quantitative arguments, pointing out that some statistics show reductions in killing and that in certain incidents more Muslims than Christians have died — thereby diluting the genocide narrative. But to his critics, this looks like an about-face, not a considered update based on fresh facts. The core question from Charly Boy is: Are you standing for principle or standing for appointment?
The context: activist culture and recruitment into power
It is not unusual in Nigeria for vocal critics of government to be co-opted into governance structures. Omokri’s shift has thus triggered suspicion: is he still an independent voice of dissent, or has he become a “useful voice for hire”? Charly Boy’s indictment is clearly framed in terms of betrayal of suffering — using the grief of victims as currency for access.
For many Nigerians, the moment is resonant because calls for accountability, transparency and consistent activism remain fragile in a context of shifting allegiances and political realignments. The line between genuine advocacy and transactional advocacy has blurred.
Omokri’s side: defence & shifting terrain
Omokri has not remained silent either. He has, for example, initiated actions to hold social-media users accountable for threats against the family of former presidential candidate Peter Obi — offering a ₦3 million bounty for information. He also petitioned the Inspector-General of Police over threats to his own life.
In his recent commentary, Omokri argues that insecurity is indifferent to faith — and that by focusing on one religious identity he might be narrowing the lens through which national crisis is viewed.
But this still begs questions
Consistency: Why publicly accuse a government of genocide, then later deny genocide when the political winds shift?
Motivation: If the focus is genuinely on reducing all violence, why emphasise the Christian dimension earlier?
Credibility: When an activist crosses into being a political commentator with partisan alignment, how is impartiality preserved?
Charly Boy is effectively arguing that activism should not be transactional — you don’t raise the suffering of others as a stepping-stone into governance.
Wider implications: what it tells us about Nigerian civic culture
1. The danger of “activist-appointment” syndrome — where vocal critics are eventually absorbed by power, and their earlier positions soften or reverse.
2. Public memory & brand damage — For Omokri, the resurfacing of his earlier tweets accusing genocide means his current messaging is viewed sceptically.
3. Need for independent civil society voice — Charly Boy’s role here underscores the importance of watchers-on-the-watchers; even activists get challenged.
Final thoughts
In a country where grief is still fresh in many communities, whether Christian, Muslim or otherwise, how public figures engage with tragedies is deeply important. To claim you represent the victimised and then pivot when convenient colours your brand.
Charly Boy’s statement serves as both call-out and caution: if you are going to speak for the silenced, your voice must remain consistent — not become fodder for the next appointment. For Nigerian blog readers, this story offers a micro-case of how activism, politics and personal ambition can collide — and why citizens should keep a sharp eye on the “advocates” claiming moral high ground.
0 Comments