By Amawu Cletus Albert Amawu
The ongoing controversy surrounding Ms. Beatrice Akpala and the driver involved in the incident at Igoli, Ogoja, deserves a more balanced and factual conversation.
From the account available to us, the vehicle belonging to Beatrice was properly parked when the driver drove directly into it, scratching and damaging the vehicle. What has made the matter even more contentious is the allegation that, rather than showing remorse or taking responsibility for the damage, the driver allegedly proceeded to assault Beatrice and her companion and subsequently sought to whip up public sentiment and sympathy around the incident.
If that account is correct, then the narrative currently circulating on social media requires serious reconsideration.
RESPONSIBILITY CANNOT BE REPLACED BY SENTIMENT
The fundamental question is simple: Who caused the damage?
If the vehicle was stationary and properly parked, and another driver drove into it and caused the damage, responsibility should naturally follow the facts of the incident.
READ ALSO: We’ve a governor that understands the system, winning is certain for APC – Hon. Oden Ewa
The fact that the person alleged to have caused the damage may be financially disadvantaged does not automatically transfer the cost of the damage to the owner of the vehicle.
Poverty deserves compassion. But poverty does not erase responsibility.
Neither should public sympathy be used to obscure the circumstances that led to the incident.
THE ₦2.2 MILLION REPAIR ESTIMATE
There has also been considerable discussion surrounding the reported repair estimate of more than ₦2.2 million.
It is important to state that, based on the information available, this figure was not simply manufactured by Beatrice. The reported assessment was carried out by an automobile company.
If anyone believes the estimate is excessive, the proper and responsible approach is not to attack Beatrice personally. The appropriate response is to obtain another professional assessment and establish the genuine cost of restoring the vehicle.
That is how disputes should be resolved, with evidence, expertise and transparency.
GOVERNMENT VEHICLE DOES NOT MEAN NO ONE IS ACCOUNTABLE
Another argument being advanced is that the vehicle is government property and, therefore, Beatrice should simply forgive the driver.
That argument requires careful reconsideration.
Government property is public property. It belongs, ultimately, to the people.
If public property is damaged through negligence, should those responsible simply walk away because taxpayers will eventually bear the cost?
Certainly not.
There must be accountability for public assets. If a government vehicle is damaged, the appropriate procedure should be followed to determine liability, insurance obligations and the proper means of restoring the vehicle.
The fact that Beatrice works as a media aide to the Governor does not, by itself, extinguish her rights as an individual. Public office does not mean that a person loses the right to demand accountability when her property or personal safety is affected.
THE ₦250,000 BAIL CLAIM: LET US NOT INVENT FACTS
Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of the controversy is the claim that the Police collected ₦250,000 as bail.
That claim, as currently being circulated, is unsubstantiated and should not be presented as fact.
There is a fundamental difference between saying that someone was granted bail and claiming that the Police collected ₦250,000 as bail.
Who ordered the arrest?
What was the legal basis for the arrest?
Who determined the bail conditions?
Who received any money that may have been paid?
Was the money officially receipted?
Was it actually paid to the Police?
Until these questions are answered with evidence, attributing a ₦250,000 payment to the Police is irresponsible.
Indeed, to present such an allegation as an established fact without evidence is absurd and amounts to nothing more than deliberate misinformation. It should not be used to manufacture public anger against either the Police or Beatrice.
IF THERE WAS AN ASSAULT, THAT MATTERS TOO
The alleged assault on Beatrice and her companion should not be dismissed simply because the other party is being portrayed as the victim.
If the driver assaulted Beatrice or her companion after the collision, that allegation deserves to be independently investigated.
A traffic incident does not grant anyone the right to assault another person.
Likewise, if there was misconduct by Beatrice, that should also be investigated and addressed.
Justice must be even-handed.
POWERFUL WOMAN VERSUS POOR DRIVER?
Much of the public reaction appears to have been shaped by a compelling emotional narrative: a supposedly powerful government media aide against a poor, ordinary driver.
But justice cannot be determined by who appears more powerful or who attracts greater public sympathy.
The real questions are much simpler:
Was the vehicle parked?
Who caused the damage?
Was there an assault?
What is the genuine cost of repair?
Was the arrest lawful?
Who determined the bail conditions?
Was any ₦250,000 actually paid, to whom, and under what authority?
These are the questions that matter.
CRITICISM IS FAIR; CONDEMNATION WITHOUT FACTS IS NOT
If Beatrice acted outside the law, let the evidence establish it.
If she used her position improperly, let the appropriate authorities investigate and hold her accountable.
If her conduct or language during the incident was excessive, she can and should be criticised for it.
But criticism of a person’s conduct is not proof that the person is wicked.
Similarly, compassion for a driver does not mean that the facts surrounding the accident should be ignored.
LET BOTH SIDES BE HEARD
There is nothing wrong with sympathising with someone who may be financially disadvantaged. What is wrong is allowing sympathy to become a substitute for evidence.
Every person involved in this matter deserves fairness, including Beatrice Akpala.
If the driver caused the damage, responsibility should be established.
If the repair estimate is genuine, it should be addressed through the appropriate process.
If insurance applies, the insurance process should be followed.
If an assault occurred, it should be investigated.
If Beatrice acted unlawfully, she should be held accountable.
And if the Police did not collect ₦250,000 as alleged, that misinformation should be withdrawn rather than repeatedly circulated to inflame public sentiment.
CONCLUSION: FACTS BEFORE OUTRAGE
This is not about defending Beatrice Akpala blindly.
It is about defending fairness.
It is about refusing to condemn a person simply because social media has already chosen a side.
It is about recognising that a person can be wrong in the manner in which she handles a situation while still being right about the underlying grievance.
Most importantly, it is about insisting that facts, evidence and due process, not social-media outrage, must determine the outcome.
Sometimes, the person the public has collectively chosen to condemn may simply be the person whose side of the story we have not taken sufficient time to understand.
Let us be fair to the driver. Let us be fair to Beatrice. Let us be fair to the Police.
Above all, let us be fair to the facts.
