NAPTIP Investigates Daycare Abuse Claims as Simi’s 2012 Tweets Resurface
In the digital age, a tweet is never truly deleted; it merely waits for a sufficiently bored or malicious mob. The National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) has been dragged into a social media skirmish following the exhumation of decade-old posts by Nigerian singer Simi. Written when she was a 23-year-old helping at her mother’s daycare, the tweets, describing mundane, affectionate interactions with children, have been retroactively branded as “improper” by the internet’s self-appointed moral police. It is a classic case of chronological snobbery.
NAPTIP’s response has been cautiously bureaucratic. By issuing a public notice promising to investigate “every credible report,” the agency is performing its required due diligence. Yet, there is a distinct danger in state institutions dancing to the tune of Twitter algorithms. When an agency designed to stop human trafficking is forced to spend its resources decoding the slang of 2012, the result is a dilution of its mandate. Investigation must be triggered by evidence, not by a trending hashtag.
The singer’s defense rests on the innocence of a pre-fame era. In 2012, Twitter was a digital diary for the mundane; today, it is a forensic lab for the prosecution. Simi’s assertion that her words were twisted to fit a “false narrative” highlights the inherent flaw of the platform: it strips away the humanity of the author and replaces it with the darkest possible interpretation of the reader. What was once a “cheeky” observation about a toddler’s mischief is now presented as a confession of depravity.
Read Also: Simi Addresses Old Tweets Controversy
This incident underscores the fragility of public life in Nigeria. The requirement for a “fair and thorough investigation” is a noble sentiment, but the court of public opinion has already delivered its verdict. For the mob, the nuance of a 23-year-old’s life in a family-run daycare is irrelevant. They prefer the simplicity of a scandal. By deleting the tweets, Simi’s team attempted to cauterise the wound, but in the logic of the internet, deletion is often mistaken for a plea of guilty.
NAPTIP must now navigate the fine line between being a proactive protector of children and a pawn in a celebrity takedown. If the agency finds no “factual information,” as is likely, the damage to Simi’s reputation will remain a permanent scar on her digital footprint. In the rush to protect the vulnerable, we must be careful not to criminalise the past. Not every old tweet is a smoking gun; sometimes, it is just a ghost.