Last Thursday, LASTMA General Manager Mr Olalekan Bakare-Oki explained that most accidents on the Otedola Bridge were caused by human error, and not by demons as publicly speculated. He told journalists at the press conference that the bridge had undergone integrity tests, and they found no evidence of engineering defects. The real issue, he said, was the drivers who drive under the influence, trading activities around the bridge that sometimes impede traffic movements, and overloading of vehicles.

Those who attribute the accidents on the bridge to supernatural agents base their belief on the frequency of the incidents. This year alone, no less than six accidents have been reported on that bridge. Just last week, a 33,000-litre diesel-filled tanker fell while conveying petroleum products from a depot. Two people reportedly sustained severe burn injuries when the tanker fell from the bridge and burst into flames. These incidents happen so frequently that people insinuate that a “blood-sucking demon” must be responsible for the repeated tragic accidents and fire outbreaks on the bridge. It was in a bid to educate the “ignorance” of those who see demonic operations that state officials like Mr Bakare-Oki have spoken up to say that the trouble has no supernatural causation.

Thanks to him and others for straightening out our superstitious souls, but I am also genuinely curious: how exactly does he understand the idea of “blood-sucking” demons? Is he thinking of demonic agents the way Nollywood (and Mount Zion films) visualise them in their films as grotesque, horned, winged, and vicious-looking spectral beings lurking around a certain location seeking whom to devour? If his idea of blood-sucking demons matches cinematic depictions, and he debunks that by saying no such forces exist around Otedola Bridge, then he has taken the insinuation too literally. We live in a society where the concepts of “God” and “Satan” (or “devil,” “demons,” “village people,” “witches,” and so on) are used to manipulate people so frequently that we (the so-called rationalists) tend to over-correct by moving to shut down conversations where people bring up the supernatural with scientific “facts.” Sometimes (like this one), arguing against supernatural agents misses the point of what people are really saying when they blame demons or supernatural forces for certain incidents.

At this point, let me digress with a useful example. In 2022, the BBC reported that a young Nigerian man named Gbenga Adewoyin went to Gbagi market in Ibadan to challenge beliefs in the supernatural. We were told Olawoyin had a message for the people: anyone who could provide evidence of the supernatural, be it juju or voodoo magic, would be offered 2.5m naira. The BBC reported that “those curious enough to get close in the Gbagi market quickly dispersed when they heard his message.” Reading the story was laughable because one wonders what the young man, a self-identified atheist, thought would be achieved with that kind of mission. The fact that people did not need to “see” such demonstrations before they believed in its existence should have told him that their belief was not founded on public displays of the supernatural and therefore cannot be dispelled through such spectacular means. In fact, I am not even sure “belief” properly captures how deeply supernatural operations are foundational to their social existence.

I do not doubt the sincerity of the young man who, like many of us, wants to see the ignorance of superstition exorcised from among our people. However, his definition of the supernatural differed so much from theirs that the mission failed from the start.

If he had tried to understand what supernatural power truly means to the people, he could still have gone on the same mission but armed with a different set of questions. Our young man probably left that marketplace with the smug satisfaction of someone who feels proud that he used the higher power of logical reasoning to prove the older generation’s strongly held beliefs wrong. He probably did not consider that he and the people he challenged have wildly differing ideas of the supernatural, and they engaged in two totally different conversations. How people encounter what they describe as the supernatural, how they understand it, and the language they use to express such experiences are often three different things.

Related News

That is why it is pointless for the government to inform us that accidents on a bridge do not have to do with demonic operations. Unless you truly understand how people “see” what they call demons, debunking it as a mere myth becomes another exercise in answering a wrong question. What if the “blood-sucking demons” they are talking about express their own second-order thinking about the nature of the accidents that happen around Otedola Bridge? In other words, the very set of human behaviours and errors that LASTMA objectively described as the reasons for the accident is precisely what they aggregated into the idiom of demonic operations. Someone might ask why they need to “spiritualize” what are essentially human faults. Well, for some people, what we call spiritism is the frame through which they express their intuitive understanding of certain phenomena. That does not mean they are right or wrong; it is just how they see life and explain happenings. Some of them might swear they have seen those spirits with their own eyes, and while their claims will not meet rational standards for explaining the accidents that happen at that bridge, what they say expresses the truth of their pre-logical understanding of experiences that have taken on a spiritual quality for them.

The duty of the government is not to join them in the language of demonism, but to address the underlying causative factors. If a spiritualist took people up on blood-sucking demons, we would take it that s/he is trafficking in the language of their trade to speak to people for whom such idioms are meaningful. But the government has no business getting into such exchanges. Their role is to understand what people are saying but to respond with solutions. If, according to LASTMA, drivers take substances that impede their ability to function properly at the steering wheel, then what we expect to hear are practical solutions like regular mandatory drug tests for the drivers. Mr Bakare-Oki said they leave the vehicle terminals with clear eyes, but somewhere along their trip, they ingest substances to stay awake while driving long distances. If so, why not set up stations along the highway where drivers can stop for a drug test? Also, if they need stimulants because they get drowsy at the wheel, then they may be overworked. In that case, you should consider introducing laws about the maximum number of hours a driver can log in a week. Enforcing driving-hour limits can reduce the chances of a driver getting drowsy at the wheel.

Again, if trading activities around the bridge contribute to the accidents, ban them and reorganise the area around the bridge to ensure smooth traffic flow. Also, if drivers and trucking companies are supposed to fill their tanks with 30,000 litres of fuel but go as high as 45,000, you should monitor compliance with standards and jail those who flout them. You should not only punish offenders but also prevent offences by running regular courses for drivers and trucking companies to teach them the dangers of cutting corners. Your officials should conduct safety checks on trucks when they leave the port and while they’re on the highway. We expect government to identify accident causes, design strategies to prevent them, and regularly enforce safety standards, not engage the public in a distracting contest of wits about demons. People will believe what they believe, and the government’s job is to listen for meaning and respond with meaningful strategies that address the substance of the issues raised.

Source: Punch · Abimbola Adelakun

At a glance

Topic
World
Country
🇳🇬 NG
Publisher language
EN
Added to Allnira