Re: BBA: Debasing Self For A Fee

I have no doubt that my mood while I was reading the piece that was written by Mr. Ugochukwu Ejinkeonye titled BBA: Debasing Self For A Fee (Daily Independent, Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2007, back page) and after I had read it, must have been completely opposite to his mood while he was writing it and after he had written it. I was so very excited by the piece and pleased with him that I praised him by shouting: Ugochukwunnatubelummadunauwammaduozoamatupuya, Dike di uko na mba, Oyilu nna ya, Ofulu ezi okwu kwupute ya, and Oji ezi omume puo iche na ime ora mmadu, although he was not with me in my office to hear those praises, and I was alone. As I was unable to keep my excitement and pleasure to myself, I went out after I had read it to share it with some friends, including Mr. Greg Jemitola whose office is at Alago Meji, from my office at the University of Lagos.

Concerning the meanings of the praises, the first expression is the fully stretched form of Ugochukwu, and it is its essential form. It means the honour that God blessed a person with no other person can take from him. The other praises mean, in the order that they were presented in Igbo: A rare gentleman in a community (or society), the one who takes after his father — literally, a true resemblance of his father — a person who demonstrated forthrightness or a person who spoke the truth courageously (or the one who called a spade a spade), and the one who has distinguished himself through his conduct or behaviour.

I must acknowledge its ethical, spiritual, religiously moral, morally humanistic and philosophically sound value; and I must reiterate my approbation of the quality and dept of the piece, his intolerance of what debased (animalised) and abused WOMANHOOD and NIGERIAN traditional sexual and social morality and spirituality. It should be emphasised, it must be emphasised, and it should be noted that what happened at that absolutely perverse, dissolute and ultra materialistic 24-hour-several-months programme did not debase only Ofunneka or only all the participants individually and collectively. It debased Ofunneka, her parents, siblings, extended family members, the monarch and elders of her native village/town and even ALL Nigerians, because ontology and existentialism in Nigerian traditions and customs are communal and not individualistic, irrespective of the multiplicity of the ethnic groups that make up Nigeria. Of course, what DSTV did through the Big Brother Africa in South Africa debased all the participants individually and collectively, it debased womanhood and manhood, all Africans and not only Africans of the nations of all the participants, the government of South Africa and, finally and especially, President Thabo Mbeki. I hope that no one mentions it to me when I travel to Ghana — an intention for Dec. 14, 2007 — because I would consider instituting a suit against Ofunneka and DSTV if that happens.

Having evaluated the BBA, I should say frankly, under a very stressful effort, and want it noted, that what Richard did to Ofunneka was the fingering of Ofunneka’s vagina, as a sexual act, in public or, better, before millions of people all over the world who watched it. It was finger sexual intercourse (or finger sex) and not, as Mr. Ejinkoye was compelled by his moral and spiritual upbringing, linguistic decorum, sense of honour and nobility to characterise as “fingergate”, because anything “gate” has its etymology in the Watergate scandal and that was not a sexual matter. As a further defence of the expression that I have used, we would all recall that the sex that was indulged in by Mr. Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was called “oral sex” — although mouth sex should have been used if decorum was not obliged to — and not “oralgate”. There was also organ sexual intercourse (or organ sex) as I was told. Because DSTV representative in Nigeria has been quoted to have said that finger sex and organ sex were not intended to be shown to the public, we should say, rightly, that the wind has blown and we have seen the anus of the fowl — ikuku eku go, anyi afugo ike okuko (Igbo); afefe ti fe, ati ri ‘furo adiye (Yoruba), and, in English, the cat has been let out of the bag, and we now know what happens behind the screen at such shows, including the so-called beauty contest, while they come out to swear — to their condemnation at death — about their chastity and moral conduct.

I should and would emphasise that the fundamental, affective, overriding and supreme issue is that it is most debasing and abusive of the dignity of people, and it violates people’s human rights regarding human dignity, privacy, religious and traditional cultures, and the rights of children to proper upbringing, for camera men to focus on people from when they wake up in the morning to while they are taking their bath in nakedness in the morning, focus on all that they do during the day, and focus on how they sleep to the whole world; and it would have been absolutely corrupt, wrong and condemnable to do so even if it was done for one day. No time, place or activity was considered private, sacred, or restrictive. Even the parts of the human body that are UNIVERSALLY (globally) known as and called “private parts” became public parts. It is also absolutely wrong to take advantage of any lacking of a person or people, including people’s financial, moral, spiritual, religious, traditional, physical, visual, auditory, psychological, philosophical, educational, or cultural lacking. These are the fundamental, affective, overriding and supreme issues and that they were carried out by DSTVmakes that Big Brother Africa absolutely corrupt, wrong, and condemnable. The fundamental, affective, overriding and supreme issue is not whether the corrupt, debasing and irresponsible practice was intended for the public or was not intended for the public.

I would say, and would like it to be noted, that everything that was done was intended to be done and that the ultimate aim was to destroy whatever is left of the moral and spiritual traditions of all the world nations, Africans especially, on matters of sexuality, sexual intercourse, and marriage. It is part of the American government’s secularisation of the beliefs, practices, ethics and values of the entire world. To secularists (anti-God, anti-religion, anti-the symbols of God and religion, and anti-tradition ) United States of America, to say that sexual intercourse and marriage are sacred are anathemas, just as they hold that to say that the spiritual is superior to the material is an anathema; and they hold that such anathemas must be destroyed. They are willing to employ anyone, do anything, and spend any amount of money in order to destroy the sacredness of sexual intercourse and marriage; and, indeed, any religious and traditional practice that they hate or characterise as anathema.

I would like to say, and would like it noted, that I believe that Richard was chosen to carry out the intentions and was fully instructed concerning its execution. The bases for my belief are: There was no evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that Richard was drunk as he knew where Ofunneka’s vagina was, he did more than several thrusts into Ofunneka’s vagina with his hand, he had some expressions in his face that a drunk would not have while he was doing so, as I was told, and because he did not go into a very deep slumber after drinking as Ofunneka said she did, and as would be expected or is known about a drunk. I believe that he was promised that he would be declared the winner and given $100 million — how much in his country’s currency? — if he carried it out, and he might have been threatened with reprisal — any form of retaliatory action — should he fail to carry it out. Let us ponder this necessary and important question: Why would a married man be brought into such utterly and absolutely perverse, dissolute and condemnable desecration of the sacred institution of marriage and sexuality? I believe that he was hired to desecrate marriage and sexual intercourse and to cause a new value for marriage and sexual intercourse to be institutionalised by the whole world, just as we have concerning most of the traditional values of the world nations, including the value of virginity or chastity by a female person until she marries, the value of the circumcision of female children, the value of the mourning of one’s dead husband by a women and even the value of selling outdoor by a child. Let us note that under The Rights of the Child and not The Duties of Children, even asking your child to polish your shoes is characterised as “child labour” and “child abuse”. Words are deliberately and mischievously chosen to sully a practice that was intended to inculcate moral, spiritual and entrepreneurial lessons, or to promote, uphold and preserve morality, spirituality, honour, dignity, nobility and mortification, or to anticipate and forestall viral infection and harm to health or death.

The other side of that event is that the government of the South Africa allowed the DSTV to involve the whole world in such debasing, utterly immoral (or utterly corrupt), utterly irresponsible, utterly shameful, and terrible violation of the rights of the sexually sensitive and allergic people of the world, and the rights of the ethical, spiritual, responsible, discreet, moral humanistic, philosophically moral or spiritual, religiously moral and, or spiritual nations or people of the world. It has a lesson for all African governments and people. The lesson is: Take absolute charge of your economics (principles and practices of the use of the materials of your environment or ecosystem for the production, distribution and use of goods and services), the definition of wealth and development, and your national values. Repudiate all agreements concerning economics and finance given by the United Nations organs — agents of the USA government, USA private capitalists, and USA feminists and sexists. The basis and justification of this view is that the western governments, who have always dictated our economics and who have always imposed the economic beliefs, models, standards, practices, aims and values that serve their interests and pauperise us, have always used these as un-surmountable political strategies or weapons for having absolute charge and control over us and everything concerning us, and for changing our values and imposing whatever beliefs, practices, ethics and values on us that best achieve their political, economic, international relations, and, generally, cultural aims on us.

I come, at this point, to our newspapers: The newspapers owners, Board of Directors, Chief Executives, Editors in Chief, and Board of Editors board who promoted the BBA through their publication of it or highlighting of it affectively, or did not condemn it and alert the federal and state governments and the national legislators on its immoral and corruptive content, excessively affective nature, moral effects, and its undesirability, as well as the Federal Ministry of Information and its agency that gave right to DSTV to do business in Nigeria and did nothing while the debasing was going on, are also guilty of the crime that we accuse the DSTV of, although in a lesser degree. They should be ashamed of themselves and they are absolutely condemned. I wrote the Chief Executive of the Independent about it after I got to know about it but the piece was not published. It was so very excessively and obtrusively advertised by the Daily and even the Sunday Independent. I think that the Punch and the Sun newspapers advertised it also, by giving it undue and excessive publication; but I think I read a condemnation of it by a Sun newspaper columnist, a lady, to whom be the blessings and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit all her life. I say to her: Jide ka i ji (Igbo); bi o ti n se ni ki o ma se lo; ma se yi iwa pada (Yoruba), which means, preserve your moral and very commendable conduct or behaviour; do not give it up.

Our government is also condemned for knowing about it and doing nothing about it. It is even more offensive and shameful that the legislators saw it as Ofunneka’s affair and, therefore considered only the finger sex and, based on the personalisation (very individualistic consideration) of it in this regard, and the limitation of their consideration of it in this perspective, wanted to reward, excuse and glorify Ofunneka. Ofunneka made her self available, she was said to have had consensus with others and had revealed her enjoyment of it. As if to corroborate these, and as if her actions at the BBA, including the participation by her, were virtuous and holy, she declared that she had no regret for whatever she did or her participation and that she has always wanted to be a celebrity. Why would any rational, moral (or conscientious), religious (even if a mere church or mosque goer), responsible, honourable or noble person pity her, reward her or want her pitied, rewarded or compensated!!! Our ancestors said: Ife onye cho k’ofu and nkpologwu dachi uzo siwa zoa ukwu, both Onicha-Ugbo, and mean: what a person desires intensely she (or he) finds (or achieves), and the root of a tree that is exposed across the road invites people to step on it. I am saying, contextually that the sexually and morally corrupt, dissolute, debasing and shameful practice that a girl indulged in for money or in order to be a celebrity lives with her, should live with her, and after her as a stigma, and should condemn her. So be it with Ofunneka.

As for the NGOs, it should be clear that they are agents of change from spirituality to materialism, morality to nihilism, religiosity to secularity, and all that are virtuous, moral, spiritual, discreet, and noble to all that are the direct and absolute opposite to these. Take note that if any of our traditions had recommended bathing outside in nakedness and sexual intercourse — whether finger sexual intercourse or organ sexual intercourse — with a complete stranger, those so-called NGOs would have condemned it in the strongest and most affective language, beyond the use of the expressions violation of rights, sexual abuse, gender insensitivity, barbaric culture, harmful traditional practice, wickedness against women, etcetera. They would have ensured that those who made the people carry out the debasing actions were punished, and they would have raised a bill against it at the national and state legislatures.

We can see how all our moral, spiritual, communal and domestic (husband and wife relationship and roles, children-upbringing values, the concept, nature and practice of extended family, and wife-mother-in-law-relationship practices), marriage, and sexual values have been destroyed and supplanted by the NGOs, including, especially the UNICEF, UNFPA, UNESCO, WHO, WB, IMF, SFH, PPFN, feminists, and gender activists. Recall how the so-called NGOs reacted to the intention of Governor Fashola to make our female people dress morally, spiritually, honourably, nobly and in dignified ways and manners. The same corrupt, shameless, and condemnable reaction was carried out by the NGOs and some feminists and gender activists concerning the intention of Professor Oye Ibidapo-Obe to evolve and institutionalise moral, honourable, dignified and noble manner of dressing by female students at the University of Lagos while he was the Vice Chancellor there. I hope to publish a book on our value issues before the end of next year, if God spares my life, under the title Reviving Nigerian Values or In Defence of Nigerian Traditions and Values.

As my conclusion, I would say, as I cannot resist not saying so: shame and condemnation to Ofunneka, to her parents, to Nigerian federal and state governments, including Nigerian legislators, all Nigerian mothers who kept silent, all Nigerian agents of our communication with and worship of god who kept silent, and to all the people who approved or promoted that clearly and absolutely corrupt, highly capable of corrupting, immoral, dissolute, shameful and condemnable programme.

Written by
Pieray C. P. Odor
Join the discussion

1 comment
  • I would whole-heartedly agree with your cries about the immorality of what was done publicly during BBA2, if you had not gone on to essentially replay the scene to me in words, with your intricate definitions of finger and other forms of sexual activity that happened on the show. I have never watched BBA, and would never watch such a thing on TV, but thanks to you, I can now picture exactly what happened. Please let decorum apply to critics as well. I didn’t need the lurid details, thank you.