Singer Simi’s response to ongoing controversy sparked by her dated paedophilia-inclined tweets suggests nonchalance. Real levity. The singer appears to think she is singing Duduke, her only song I am familiar with, setting the tempo, cueing the harmony, while the audience supplies applause in unfettered delight.
But this is no Duduke. Some of the tweets, dug up from a digital archaeological site, would sit in the same moral universe as the world-infamous Epstein files. They look indicting, even if not yet convicting. 
ALSO READ: See Old Tweets From Simi and Adekunle Gold That Have Come Back to Haunt Them
A few that have circulated widely read as follows:
“There’s a 4 year old boy in my mum’s school that is so sexy.”
“I saw one small boy today… Lord help me.”
“This little boy is too fine. I need deliverance.”
“If this boy was older ehn…”
These are not abstract jokes about grown men. They reference little children, some as young as four, in the setting of her mother’s daycare. That context is not decorative. It is central. It is what makes the tweets land with a bang rather than a thud.
They are serious moral questions, and when they concern a celebrity like Simi, they should not be quietly folded into the drawer of selective amnesia. The argument that the tweets are old collapses under the weight of her own words. She once posted, “there’s a 90 per cent chance that I am 90 per cent of my tweets.”
To be 30 per cent of those tweets would be grotesque. Ninety per cent should entitle her to that status of a person of particular concern. Ninety per cent should invite scrutiny by law enforcement. Ninety per cent should command more than a breezy dismissal.
Responding to the backlash, she said, “I have never in my life been sexually attracted to a child. The tweets were stupid jokes from years ago. That’s not who I am.”
Short. Dismissive. Almost irritated. This, however, is not about irritation. It is about children. Even if that is her truth, as it well can be, the public is not interrogating attraction alone. The public is interrogating judgement, tone and boundaries.
There are those who insist they were jokes, that she has grown, that we should let sleeping dogs lie. Growth is possible. Context matters. But seriousness also matters. When previous statements appear to trivialise or sexualise minors, the conversation cannot be reduced to fandom loyalty or gender solidarity.
If a male artiste had posted identical lines, nobody would be composing think pieces about nuance. Instead, we would have lit digital bonfires immediately. Public morality cannot be gender-fluid. It is either we apply one standard across the board or we admit we are running a selective outrage franchise.
This matter is less about playlists and more about consistency and accountability, as my friend, Betty Abah, has argued. Celebrities wield influence. Their words normalise attitudes. Even jokes about minors can soften the edges of what should remain hard taboos. In a society where abuse is underreported and victims are often silenced, flippancy is not harmless. It clouds the air.
Sweeping such allegations under the carpet sends a dangerous message that popularity is insulation and talent is indemnity. It suggests that if the vibes are good enough, the values can eff off. I doubt if anyone is saying people cannot evolve. But evolution requires acknowledgement. Silence, irritation or fan-led gaslighting do not count as growth.
If the tweets were wrong, say so plainly. If they were misunderstood, clarify with gravity. If harm was caused, address it. That is how credibility is rebuilt.
Protecting children should not be controversial. Holding public figures to account should not depend on whether we enjoy their songs.
Justice is not a mood. It is a principle, and principles, unlike tweets, should not expire.
This article is the personal opinion of the author and not of NBG Africa.
About The Author
