Yinka Yusuf: Lessons from a Communication Perspective 

Yinka Yusuf: Lessons from a Communication Perspective 

By A. John Ukpe, PhD

As a pastor and a communicator, I am tempted to examine this controversy from a purely spiritual or moral standpoint. However, I deliberately set that aside—“Who am I to judge another man’s servant?” Instead, I choose to approach the matter strictly from a communication and public discourse perspective, and to distill five critical lessons that this episode offers to anyone who speaks publicly.

1. Truth Is Not the Only Moral Test in Communication

A statement can be factually arguable and yet be morally inappropriate, depending on who says it, how it is said, to whom, and for what purpose. This is not to suggest that there was truth in what Pastor Yusuf said. There was no truth to it at all. But even if there were, accuracy alone does not exhaust the ethical burden of speech.

Communication is not merely about correctness; it is also about power, history, context, and consequence. When an outsider speaks negatively about a tribe or race—even under the banner of “truth”—the message often:
• Sounds like contempt rather than critique
• Reopens historical wounds of humiliation or domination
• Is received as collective condemnation, not thoughtful analysis

The core issue, therefore, is not truthfulness alone, but relational legitimacy.

2. Insiders Critique; Outsiders Stereotype

Members of a tribe or race speak from shared vulnerability and lived experience. Their internal criticism is usually heard as:
• Self-correction
• Lament
• Reform-minded frustration

Outsiders, however, are heard differently—even when they claim good intentions. Their words easily come across as:
• Cultural arrogance
• Moral superiority
• Or prejudice disguised as honesty

This explains why societies instinctively permit self-critique but resist external judgment. A familiar illustration: Jewish audiences laugh at jokes told by Jewish comedians about Jews—but react sharply when the same jokes are told by non-Jews. Context and identity matter.

3. Permission Flows from Belonging

Belonging confers a certain moral license to criticize—not because insiders are infallible, but because they bear the consequences of their words.

An outsider can criticize and move on. An insider must live with the social, emotional, and communal fallout. That asymmetry is crucial—and must not be ignored by any communicator.

4. Wisdom Versus Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech answers the question: “Can I say this?” Wisdom asks the harder one: “Should I say this?” This old maxim is not a call for censorship, but for self-restraint: “Even if it is true, ask whether it is yours to say.”

This aligns perfectly with Harold Lasswell’s classic communication model:
Who says what, to whom, through which channel, and with what effect?
Ignoring any of these variables is how speech becomes destructive.

5. The Safest Ethical Rule

A sound compass for public communication is simple:
• Speak about systems, not identities
• Critique behaviors, not entire peoples
• Correct with empathy, not contempt
• Never reduce a whole group to your perception of their worst traits

Conclusion

The reaction from Akwa Ibom—and similar predictable responses elsewhere—is less about silencing outsiders and more about safeguarding human dignity. And dignity, once bruised, seldom remains silent; it often finds expression in anger, resistance, and conflict. That is precisely what wise and responsible speech seeks to avert.

That is precisely what wise speech seeks to prevent.