Intellectual Dishonesty and the “Butification” of False Equivalence: Kanu and Igboho

w.adeleke@numerates.com.ng

MaTaZ ArIsInG
Dallas, Texas

Prefix:
Not everything that can be compared should be equated — or even given the subliminal suggestion of equivalence. When equivalence is forced where none exists, it is not analysis; it is worse than garden-variety intellectual dishonesty. It is intellectual fraud.

The comparison of a convicted terrorist like Kanu with a separatist agitator such as Igboho is not merely flawed — it is a deliberate distortion masquerading as balanced commentary. It is what I would describe as Butification: the rhetorical maneuver whereby two fundamentally different subjects are declared comparable, and then the word but is deployed to erase the distinctions that matter. By that logic, Satan and Jesus are the same but…, or an elephant and a lion are the same but…. With enough Butification, anything can be equated with anything. The only casualty is truth.

At the core of this argument is an intellectual sleight of hand: the refusal to sufficiently distinguish between categories. Agitation — however controversial or even inflammatory — is not legally equivalent to terrorism. Nigerian law itself recognizes this distinction.

Terrorism under the Terrorism (Prevention) Act involves specific elements: participation in or support for acts intended to cause death, serious violence, intimidation of a population, or destabilization of governmental structures. Secessionist rhetoric or political agitation, however provocative, does not automatically meet that statutory threshold.

Even more fundamentally, criminal responsibility is personal and evidence-based. It depends on demonstrable conduct, admissible evidence, and judicial determination — not rhetorical association. Collapsing legally distinct conduct into a single moral category ignores basic principles of criminal law: mens rea, actus reus, and proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is not analysis; it is analytical negligence.

False equivalence is not neutrality. It is persuasion dressed up as fairness. When one begins with a predetermined conclusion — that everyone must be equally culpable — the rhetorical bridge of but becomes a convenient device to force symmetry where none exists. That is not reasoning; it is narrative manipulation.

Intellectual honesty demands something more difficult: acknowledging differences even when they undermine one’s preferred narrative. It requires examining facts, legal status, conduct, and context before making comparisons. When those elements are fundamentally different, insisting on or suggesting equivalence is not analysis — it is propaganda.

Yes, both individuals can be criticized. That is legitimate. But criticism must be anchored in facts and law, not rhetorical symmetry. Constructing artificial parity in order to create the illusion of balance is not objectivity; it is distortion. Balance achieved through distortion is not balance — it is deception.

Ultimately, credibility in public discourse depends on analytical discipline. When comparisons ignore fundamental legal and factual differences, they cease to be arguments and become instruments of misinformation. Forced equivalence is not fairness. It is intellectual malpractice.

1SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER NOW

Support MATAZ ARISING’ journalism of integrity and credibility.

Good journalism ensure the possibility of a good society, an accountable democracy, and a transparent government.

We ask you to consider making a modest support to this noble endeavour.

0.00USD

Amount
0.00

TEXT AD: To advertise here – Email ad@matazarising.com

LATEST POSTS