AZEGBA EYA-SIMON EKPA PARALLELISMS AND DIVERGENCES

The Eya-Ekpa misdeeds are as humorous as they are tragic, writes CHRIS UCHENNA AGBEDO 

Azegba Eya and Simon Ekpa – two names with an almost poetic rhythm, their alliteration and assonance lending a memorable cadence. Beyond their linguistic symmetry, however, lies a deeper parallel in character. Both figures exemplify a peculiar penchant for the benign violation of moral norms, invoking humour to deflect serious transgressions. But while Azegba Eya’s antics remain a cultural anecdote in the Nsukka cultural area, Simon Ekpa’s rhetoric has taken a darker, more dangerous turn, with consequences far beyond the realm of humour.

In da Nkw community of Elugwu-Ezike, Azegba Eya’s infamous defence of his kola nut theft – claiming his actions were akin to harmless swinging – has become a humorous staple of community lore. His quip, “Mmad atkeeg t akpa mne da hr oche” (“One will no longer indulge in swinging as a recreational hobby simply because da has set up a vigilante”), encapsulates the art of reframing a crime as a benign act. The idea that one would be casually swinging from trees, especially in the context of being caught in the act of theft, presents a clear violation of social norms related to truthfulness and accountability. It is this incongruity between the gravity of his offence and the absurdity of his justification that transforms his wrongdoing into an enduring source of communal humour.

Simon Ekpa, self-styled ‘Prime Minister of Biafra Republic Government In-Exile (BRIGE),’ similarly engages in benign violation after being arrested ‘on suspicion of public incitement to commit a crime with terrorist intent. His reported Finnish Päijät-Häme District courtroom dismissal of his incendiary rhetoric and separatist proclamations as mere ‘content creation’ mirrors Azegba’s strategy of masking serious actions with a trivializing excuse. However, unlike Azegba’s localized antics, Ekpa’s actions have had far-reaching and tragic consequences. His enforcement of the Southeast Monday sit-at-home orders, which crippled economies and instilled fear in communities, demonstrates how benign violations, when weaponized, can become lethal. The incongruity that once amused – his claims to governance juxtaposed with his courtroom defence of frivolity – now underscores the tragic outcomes of his rhetoric. What was once benign has spiraled into violent unrest, tarnishing the cultural fabric of the entire Igbo land.

It has been established in extant literature that unintended (or accidental) humour often arises from incongruity – a clash between expectations and reality – when a situation violates some norm or expectation in a way that feels safe or ‘benign.’ In 2010, Peter McGraw and Caleb Warren of Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado at Boulder, published an article, entitled ‘Benign Violations: Making immoral behaviour funny’ in a SAGE journal, Psychological Science. In the article, they propounded Benign Violation Theory (BVT), wherein they explain how humour emerges when three conditions are met: a situation must violate some expectation, the violation must appear benign, and these two elements must coexist simultaneously. The antics of Simon Ekpa and Azegba Eya exemplify this theory, where their absurd defences for serious misdeeds transform into sources of unintended humour.

In both cases, the mechanics of benign violation follow the same trajectory – violation of expectations, benign framing, and coexistence of seriousness and absurdity. For Ekpa, people expect a self-proclaimed leader and agitator to stand by his cause, not recant as a ‘content creator.’ For Azegba, a thief caught red-handed is expected to confess or remain silent, not offer a ludicrous excuse. The act of stealing from plantations is universally seen as wrong and unacceptable within the moral framework of the community. In this context, the norm that is violated is the expectation of honesty and respect for others’ property. Instead, Azegba switches the script by claiming that he was engaging in a recreational activity – swinging – thereby introducing an element of surprise and incongruity. This unexpected shift in the narrative is what makes his statement humorous. The absurdity of equating swinging from trees with theft further adds to the incongruity. The defence violates the expected logical progression of events, but in a benign, non-threatening way, making it laughable. Under benign framing, Ekpa’s claim to be a ‘content creator’ reduces the threat of his rhetoric, framing his actions as exaggerated performance rather than malicious intent. For Azegba, by equating theft to swinging for recreation, he renders his actions comically harmless, creating a benign interpretation of his crime. Both cases hinge on the tension between the seriousness of the violations (inciting violence and theft) and the absurdity of the justifications. This tension satisfies the conditions for humour under BVT.

McGraw & Warren’s Benign Violation Theory offers a lens to understand why these situations, though serious, elicit humour. The incongruity between the expected and the actual – when softened by a benign interpretation – creates a space where laughter becomes possible, even in the face of serious issues. While both Azegba and Ekpa employ accidental humour as a mechanism to downplay their offences, the outcomes could not be more different. Azegba’s quip has enriched the Nsukka cultural lexicon, serving as a cautionary tale with a comedic twist. In contrast, Ekpa’s rhetoric has ignited tensions, leading to incalculable loss of lives and property in the Southeast.

This Eya-Ekpa parallelism is as humorous as it is tragic. Both men, caught in their misdeeds, resorted to absurd defences to deflect responsibility. Eya’s swinging safari tale, while laughable, became a cultural emblem of benign violation in the Nsukka area – a lighthearted but sharp commentary on human attempts to justify the unjustifiable. Similarly, Ekpa’s ‘content creation’ excuse highlights his farcical approach to a serious cause. By reducing his rhetoric and actions to a joke, he inadvertently exposes the emptiness of his claims and the devastating consequences of his recklessness. The damage wrought by Ekpa, however, transcends the comedic absurdity of his defense. His so-called ‘content creation’ has turned Igbo land into a horrific theatre of violence and avoidable deaths, sowing murderous seed and watering its lethal tendrils under the guise of liberation. Families have been torn apart, businesses ruined, and the Southeast’s reputation as a haven of industry and peace sullied – all for what? A self-proclaimed title and inflammatory rhetoric that even its misguided architect now disowns under the slightest legal scrutiny.

Azegba Eya’s swinging safari may have given the Nsukka socio-cultural context a humorous proverb, but Simon Ekpa’s antics offer no such levity. His defence – equally as ridiculous – serves as a sobering reminder of the dangers of allowing opportunists to exploit genuine struggles. Like Azegba’s antics, Ekpa’s alibi invites mockery, but it also calls for decisive action to prevent further exploitation of the Southeast’s vulnerabilities. The humour of Azegba’s antics lies in their harmlessness; his violation remains confined to the symbolic realm of kola nut theft. Ekpa, however, crossed a moral Rubicon. His so-called ‘content creation’ has fueled real violence, making his courtroom defence both ironic and tragically inadequate. The shared traits of Simon Ekpa and Azegba Eya – linguistic resonance, a knack for humour, and a proclivity for benign violations – highlight their similarities. Yet, their impact diverges sharply. Where Azegba’s actions provided a lighthearted lesson in moral accountability, Ekpa’s antics stand as a grim reminder of how humour can be twisted into a tool of harm.

One remains a local emblem of humorous mischief; the other, a didactic tale of when benign violations lose their humour and become dangerously awry. While humorous, these cases serve as biting commentary on human attempts to evade accountability. On one hand, Azegba’s excuse underscores the absurdity of justifications offered for wrongdoing, turning his statement into an admonitory proverb within his community. On the other hand, Ekpa’s antics expose the gap between performative activism and real commitment, highlighting the danger of exploiting genuine struggles for personal gain. For Ekpa and Azegba, their antics remain moralistic tales cloaked in humour, reminding us that while violations may amuse, accountability and justice are no laughing matter. In the end, Azegba Eya and Simon Ekpa may share certain superficial characteristics, but their legacies reveal the stark contrast between benign humour and malignant rhetoric.

Azegba’s swinging safari and Ekpa’s content creation might share the same absurd comedic value, but the stakes in Ekpa’s case demand more than a village laugh; they demand accountability, justice, and the restoration of peace in Igbo land.

Agbedo is a Professor of Linguistics, University of Nigeria Nsukka