When Social Media Becomes the Battlefield: Solomon Buchi vs Lagos

Social media has changed the way Nigerians communicate, disagree and hold people in positions of influence accountable. A disagreement that might once have remained a private conversation can now become a national issue within a few hours. Once a post attracts enough attention, thousands of people can join a conversation they were not originally part of, often without knowing all the circumstances surrounding the issue.

The recent controversy involving writer and public commentator Solomon Buchi and the Lagos State Government provides another example of this changing reality. What began as criticism on social media developed into a much larger public conversation involving government, influence, accountability and the way Nigerians respond to people or institutions with whom they disagree.

It is tempting to focus entirely on the individuals involved, but there is a much bigger lesson here. The more important question is what happens when social media becomes the place where citizens, influencers and government institutions confront one another.

Social Media Has Changed Public Criticism

Public criticism of government is not new. Nigerians have always complained about poor roads, transportation problems, taxes, environmental issues, insecurity, public services and government policies that affect their daily lives. What has changed is the speed with which those complaints can now reach a large audience.

A person no longer needs access to a newspaper editor, television station or radio programme before raising an issue publicly. With a smartphone and an internet connection, anyone can publish an opinion and potentially reach thousands or even millions of people.

That development can be positive because governments need to hear from the people they serve. Citizens should be able to question decisions and express dissatisfaction when they believe something is wrong. Public institutions should also understand that criticism is part of public service.

However, social media can make constructive criticism difficult because the platform often rewards strong emotions. A carefully explained argument may receive less attention than an angry post, while a controversial statement can generate thousands of reactions within a short period.

As a result, the conversation can quickly become more focused on the personalities involved than on the issue that started the disagreement.

The Influence of Solomon Buchi

Solomon Buchi has established himself as a prominent voice on social media, where he discusses relationships, personal development, faith, society and public issues. His direct style has earned him a substantial audience, and his opinions often generate strong reactions from people who agree with him as well as from those who do not.

Having such an audience gives a person considerable influence. It means that an observation made on a personal social media account can become a subject of public discussion far beyond the original audience.

That influence can be valuable when it draws attention to issues that deserve public discussion. It can also become complicated when the subject involves allegations, government policies or other matters where the full facts may not be immediately available.

A large audience does not necessarily make an opinion more accurate. A person can be intelligent, experienced and articulate and still misunderstand an issue. A person can also raise a legitimate concern while making an inaccurate assumption about what caused the problem.

This is why influence should always be accompanied by responsibility.

Government Should Be Able to Take Criticism

There is an equally important responsibility on the part of government. Government institutions should not expect citizens to remain silent simply because criticism is uncomfortable. Public officials and institutions have considerable power over people’s lives, and citizens have the right to question how that power is being exercised.

Lagos is one of Nigeria’s most important economic centres, and decisions made by the state government affect millions of people. When residents raise concerns about transportation, taxation, infrastructure, environmental policies, housing or public services, those concerns deserve to be taken seriously.

A government that believes a criticism is inaccurate should be able to respond with evidence. An institution that believes a claim is misleading should explain what actually happened. Where a government has made a mistake, acknowledging it can sometimes strengthen public confidence rather than weaken it.

The existence of criticism should therefore not automatically be treated as an attack on government.

At the same time, government institutions should not be expected to accept every allegation without responding. They have a responsibility to correct misinformation and provide the public with accurate information when their actions are being misrepresented.

The challenge is to respond without allowing the disagreement itself to become the main story.

The Problem With Taking Sides Too Quickly

One of the most noticeable features of social media controversies is how quickly people choose sides. Many people do not wait to understand what happened before deciding who is right. They see a post from someone they already like, trust the person immediately and begin defending them. Others see the same story and reject it because they dislike the person who published it.

This means that people sometimes evaluate information according to who is saying it rather than according to the evidence supporting it.

That is a dangerous habit.

A person we admire can be wrong, just as a person we dislike can occasionally be right. A government we support can make a mistake, while a government we criticise can sometimes make a good decision.

If we are genuinely interested in the truth, we have to be willing to acknowledge these possibilities.

When the Original Issue Disappears

Another problem with online controversies is that the original issue can disappear beneath the arguments that follow.

A disagreement may begin with a question about government policy, public spending, infrastructure or a particular decision. However, once people begin attacking one another, the discussion can shift towards personalities, previous statements, political loyalties, religion, ethnicity or unrelated controversies.

At that point, people are no longer trying to understand the original issue. They are trying to prove that the other side is bad.

This is one reason social media arguments can continue for days without producing any meaningful resolution.

Each side finds supporters who reinforce its position, and every new comment becomes another opportunity to defend one’s chosen side. The conversation becomes a contest rather than an attempt to understand what happened.

Social Media Is Powerful, but It Is Not a Courtroom

There is a significant difference between drawing public attention to an issue and establishing the truth about that issue.

Social media is extremely effective at attracting attention. A single post can encourage journalists to investigate, prompt an institution to respond and cause an issue that might otherwise have been ignored to receive public attention.

However, attention does not automatically establish guilt. A person can be accused online without having had an opportunity to respond. An organisation can be condemned before it has explained its position. A government agency can be described as incompetent based on information that later turns out to be incomplete.

This is why we should be careful about treating social media as though it were a courtroom.

A viral post is not a judgment, and a large number of people agreeing with a claim does not turn that claim into established fact.

Influencers Have a Responsibility to Their Audiences

People with large platforms have a responsibility that goes beyond simply expressing their personal opinions.

When a person with a large following makes a strong claim, many members of the audience will not independently investigate it. They may simply repeat what they have heard because they trust the person who said it.

This means influencers should distinguish clearly between facts, personal opinions, assumptions and allegations.

There is nothing wrong with expressing a strong opinion. There is also nothing wrong with criticising a government or challenging an institution.

The responsibility lies in making sure that criticism is based on accurate information and that allegations are not presented as established facts when they have not been verified.

A large platform gives someone the ability to start an important conversation. It also gives that person the responsibility to avoid unnecessarily misleading the people listening.

Citizens Have Responsibilities Too

The responsibility does not belong only to influencers and governments. Ordinary social media users also play an important role in determining what becomes a national controversy.

Every time we share a post, we help determine how far that information travels. Every time we repeat an allegation without checking it, we contribute to its credibility in the minds of other people.

This is why we need to become more comfortable with saying that we do not yet know enough.

When we encounter a controversial claim, we can look for the original source, check whether reliable news organisations have independently reported it and search for responses from the people or institutions involved.

We can also distinguish between what is confirmed and what is merely being alleged.

These habits may seem slow in an environment that rewards speed, but they are necessary if we want a healthier information environment.

Governments Also Need Better Communication

Government institutions have their own responsibility in this changing environment. Silence can create an information vacuum, and social media users will quickly fill that vacuum with their own interpretations. When a government institution is faced with a viral allegation, a clear and timely explanation can prevent speculation from becoming accepted as fact.

That does not mean every government agency needs to respond to every criticism on social media. It means that significant public concerns deserve appropriate communication.

Government communication should explain what happened, provide evidence where necessary and address the actual issue rather than simply attacking the person who raised it.

When institutions respond defensively to every criticism, they can create the impression that they are more interested in protecting themselves than in addressing citizens’ concerns.

Good communication should therefore be about clarification rather than confrontation.

We Need to Learn How to Disagree Without Destroying the Conversation

Perhaps the most important lesson from controversies like this is that Nigerians need to become better at disagreeing.

Disagreement is not necessarily hostility. A person can criticise a government policy without hating the government. Someone can support a particular government decision while disagreeing with several others. A person can admire an influencer and still believe that the influencer has made a mistake.

Unfortunately, social media often encourages us to see disagreement in much simpler terms.

If someone criticises a politician we support, we may assume that person belongs to the opposition. If someone questions a government policy, we may accuse them of being against the government. If someone disagrees with an influencer we admire, we may interpret the disagreement as hatred.

This way of thinking makes meaningful conversation almost impossible.

A healthy society needs people who can disagree without assuming that everyone on the other side is an enemy.

The Bigger Issue Is Not Solomon Buchi or Lagos

It would be easy to turn this entire controversy into a debate about Solomon Buchi. It would be equally easy to make it entirely about the Lagos State Government.

However, doing either would cause us to miss the larger lesson.

The real issue is the relationship between influence, power and accountability. Government has power and therefore requires accountability. Influencers have reach and therefore have responsibilities. Citizens have the right to question both, but they also have a responsibility to distinguish between verified information and claims that have not been established.

These responsibilities can exist at the same time.

A government should not be protected from legitimate criticism simply because it is a government. An influencer should not be protected from scrutiny simply because that person has a large following. Citizens should not be encouraged to spread unverified allegations simply because those allegations support their existing opinions.

Everyone has a role to play in making public conversations better.

Social Media Has Given Us a Voice

There is no doubt that social media has changed Nigeria in significant ways. It has given ordinary people the ability to speak directly to large audiences. It has helped expose problems, amplify forgotten voices and put pressure on institutions to respond to issues that might previously have been ignored. That power should be protected.

However, we also need to learn how to use it responsibly.

The goal should not be to create an environment where nobody can criticise anyone. That would be unhealthy for any democracy. The goal should be to create an environment where criticism is based on facts, institutions respond with evidence, influencers recognise their responsibilities and citizens are willing to think before choosing sides.

The controversy involving Solomon Buchi and the Lagos State Government will eventually be replaced by another social media argument. That is simply how the online world works. Another personality will make a controversial statement, another institution will respond and thousands of people will once again gather on the internet to decide who is right.

When that happens, perhaps we should resist the urge to ask only whose side we are on.

Instead, we should ask what actually happened, what evidence is available, what remains uncertain and whether there is something useful we can learn from the disagreement.

That approach may not produce the loudest conversation, but it is far more likely to produce a meaningful one.