Beside Being Cowardly, Sinful and Hypocritical, To Speak Ill of the Dead Is a Perpetuation of Injustice and Desecration of Rule of Law.
Memory Verse: A healthy mind does not speak ill of other people behind their back!
Among the Christians, adherents are commanded to pray for the
dead, because we do not know where they are, and if they are in purgatory, they
cannot pray for themselves. Christians believe that this also accords with
common sense because (1) the dead are not in a position to defend themselves;
and (2) they have already been judged in the particular judgment and are in
heaven, hell, or purgatory on their way to heaven. Really and truly we should
never speak ill of ANYBODY. If what we are saying is a lie, then that is the
sin of CALUMNY; if what we are saying is true, but the other person has no
right to hear it, then that is the sin of DETRACTION -- a very serious sin. And
if what we are saying is true, and the person has no reason not to hear it,
then we are engaging in the sin of GOSSIP.
Indeed, among Christians, such is a grave offense against God
Himself, because, although the deceased of whom we speak ill, are no longer
physically present, they are still present to God, and we can still sin against
them by gossip, calumny, or detraction. For Christians, the admonition is to
speak to their face while they’re still alive. Support is found for this in the
Bible book of Galatians 6:1: “if anyone is caught in any transgression, you...
should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you
too be tempted.” In the book of Matthew, here is the counsel: If your brother
sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he
listens to you, you have gained your brother. Christians are then warned: “Let
no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for
building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”
(see Ephesians 4:29). See also what theologian Eugene Mormon, (BTh., PhD) has
to say on this: “The Bible tells us that we will be judged according to the
deeds while in the physical bodies and by ‘Every idle word we speak.’ Mat. 12.
It says that blessing and cursing should not come from the same source, our
mouth, in the book of James. In Ephesians, it tells us to bless, not curse, and
sing psalms. And so on. Many times the Bible tells us not to speak evil,
regardless whether the person we are speaking of is dead or alive.’
The Hebrew position appears to be summarized by Yonatan
Rocha: “the Hebrew bible forbids any attempts to contact the deceased, since
the Hebrew bible assumes that the deceased are not spiritually deceased, but
merely have lost the garment for the soul called a body. That person recently
deceased is believed to be facing judgment immediately after death, so whatever
one says will be heard in the spiritual court, and can weigh toward his or her
judgment.”
What this means is that we are at liberty to tell a person,
to his face, of or about his sins or misdeeds, while he is still here on earth
with us. This is so that if he has any defence to offer, he would do so. If one
is not able to summon enough courage to tell another (while that other is still
alive) what bad deeds he has done, but would only start castigating the man
after he is dead, that is the height of cowardice and injustice on the part of
the condemner. The question to ask is, Why wait for him to die before you tell
him or the world, about his bad deeds? Is that not also an outright mischief, a
plain dishonesty and barefaced hypocrisy?
Within the legal circle, the relevant cardinal
rule of justice administration is espoused in the Latin maxim that states 'audi
alteram partem,’ which means nobody shall be condemned unheard. Now, when a man
is dead, he becomes defenseless and no longer able to react to any allegations against
him. That’s why we must not wait until he is dead, before we begin to castigate
him or to speak ill of him.
Closely related to the audi alterem rule, is the right
of the accused to be afforded adequate time and facility respond to any
allegations made against him. See section 36(6)(b), Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999. This requires that we must never judge a man
on the basis only of a one-sided account as given by his accusers, without
hearing from the accused. Two other Latin legal expressions are apt, here:
(1) Adsumes iniquitatem domus reo homo non potest
nisi prius statutum in iure de atrio (the guilt of the accused person cannot be established except before a
court of law).
(2) Reo
crimen alicui plures competent audiri ante terminum (the accused person
is entitled to be heard before determination of his guilt).
As I have said above, it is impossible to even
talk about affording the dead any opportunity of being heard unless we agree
it’s possible to get him to speak from the grave. Accordingly, with due respect
to those who think otherwise, it’s not only mischievous and cowardly to insult
a man after he is dead; it is abominable, heinous and unspeakably and
unscrupulously childish, devilish.
Permit me to respectfully also restate that, there is NO
compulsory requirement that we should shower undeserved praises on the dead or
that we should lie about the good things they never did. Indeed, as pointed out
by Leonardo da Vinci, “to speak well of a base man is much the same
as speaking ill of a good man.” Benjamin Franklin put it this way: “speak
ill of no man, but speak all the good you know of everybody.”
On the other hand, there’s a strict requirement (a form of
obligation, which is supported by law and justice) that we should not speak ill
of the dead.
Apart from that this injunction against condemning the dead
is also a crucial requirement in the African tradition, the expression, “of the
dead, let no one speak ill” is also illustrated in the Latin expression “de
mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est.”
Now, what if the person (the condemner) accused of speaking
ill of the dead had earlier (while the deceased was still alive) spoken of the
deceased in the same manner? Does this render the speaker/condemner less
blameful for pouring out invectives and slanderous vituperations against the
deceased? I respectfully answer in the negative. Let me draw an analogy.
According to the Nigerian Supreme Court, in the locus classicus, STATE V
ILORI, where a criminal charge is struck out on the basis of a Nolle Prosequi
validly entered by the Attorney-General (AG), the prosecutor still reserves the
right to thereafter re-file or re-institute the same criminal charges against
the same accused person. However, said the Supreme Court, as many times as the
same charge rears its ugly head, that is, as many times as the same charge is
filed again in court against the same accused, is as many times the AG shall
have an absolute power to enter a fresh Nolle Prosequi to have the charge
struck out. In other words, on each occasion of such fresh filing, the AG is
empowered to step in with a fresh Nolle which must be respected by the
court. In the same manner, the fact that the present condemner of the
dead, had castigated/condemned the deceased during the deceased’s lifetime, is
no justification for the condemner to castigate or speak ill in any manner, of
the deceased after the latter’s death. This is because, by law, on each
occasion of such an allegation against him, the deceased deserves an
opportunity to be heard which unfortunately is no longer there/possible now,
because the latter is no more. Section 36(6)(d) of the Nigerian Constitution is
relevant here: an accused is entitled to an opportunity to interrogate
(examine) the accuser on the same terms and conditions as those given the
accuser. So, if the accuser spoke of the deceased before his death and the
deceased had replied, the deceased must still be afforded another, fresh
opportunity of reacting to the current, fresh allegations or accusations made
against him by the accuser. The question arises all over again, Where and how
is the accused to respond? He is no more and has lost the opportunity. In my
opinion, the only way to maintain fairness and uphold justice is to refrain
from any such further condemnation of him after his death, since he can’t reply.
There’s yet another reason why it is illegal for anyone
to castigate the dead; the dead man has lost legal capacity. Neither a suit nor
any allegations at all is permitted to be filed or leveled against the dead,
who has lost his capacity to sue or be sued. To this may he added the human
rights violation angle; even the dead is entitled to some protection.
However, where the deceased was a public office-holder (Governor, President,
etc), I think we need to draw some distinction between making temperate
critical comments fairly and objectively assessing a past public
office-holder's performance while he was still in office, even though he is now
dead, and comments outrightly attacking the public officer's personality
or which amounts to personal insults against his person.
Although the dividing line appears thin, yet there's a
dividing line; both are different. The latter amounts to speaking ill of the
dead, while the former does not. For an example, there is a huge difference
between assessing Geberal Sani Abacha's performance while in office as
Nigeria’s Head of State, on the one hand, and speaking ill of Abacha's
personality, on the other hand.
In conclusion, I declare that it’s most condemnable to condemn
the person of the dead, and any suggestions (in support of the ill-advised
notion that one is justified in speaking ill of the dead) amounts to what is
known in Latin as suggestio falsi (a false suggestion) or form of in
fine vero oppressis (suppression of the truth).
Thank you so much.
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue
(Udems)
(12/08/2020)
Post a comment