This article sets to talk about Trinity Guy and ethics of pranks performance, in order to see if he was properly guided by existing, stated rules.
Graduating from itinerant theatre to stand-up comedy and digital skits in the social media domain, comedy is not a new innovation in Nigeria. Having both old and new predecessors in the entertainment industry, it will be more meaningful not to take Trinity Guy’s ‘entertainment’ in isolation. Just like others before him, the contents of his ‘comedy’ have cultural colouration and portray the progress and ills of the society. However, in ethics the Guy takes these too far.
Moreover, obviously ‘sensitising’ people on more awareness about ‘insecurity’ within the society or any society at that, he spills panics and relives more insecurity signals, leaving his targets scampering for safety. The unspoken crusade of Trinity Guy of re-establishing the beauty of traditional hairdo and seeming ‘awkwardness’ of foreign accessories like wigs and shoes may have prompted his ‘random removal of ladies’ wigs and shoes’. (We are not making any case for him).
Some other comedians have been excessive in their displays. Some cast aspersions on clergymen, which is more sacrilegious than being funny. Many ‘funny’ jokes have been targeted at highly influential people and very sensitive state matters. What is more, a pupil who is yet to master their numerals or alphabets in the right sequence is brought to the social media space to ‘entertain’ interested audience with their weakness, sometimes soaked with their own tears of desperation! This last instance of apparent academic weakness and potential national woe requires more of remedial step than ‘comic’ skits-making.
Does it mean that, in spite of the brands comedians are carving for themselves, there are no existing and functional rules and ethics guiding their profession? On the other hand, does it mean that these pranksters have been enjoying some level of immunity, which could be cultural? In the Yoruba traditional context, bards and songsters had some level of immunity. This brings about the Yoruba expression: ‘oba kì í mu òkorin’ (The king does not arrest songsters). It was later that the law caught up with Trinity Guy.
If this is the case, what happens when they overstep boundaries? Are there sanctions prescribed by the rules of the trade? Are there pre-performance and post-performance reviews? Are the performers so much accepted by the people that they have become untouchable? Is there any handbook or manual on forms and ethics of comedy or modes of censoring them?
Obviously, this prankster ‘stumbled’ on skits-making in a society where ethics of ‘entertainment’ are yet to be spelt out. Enjoying the cooperation of many of his targeted population and others at large, Trinity Guy creates a niche for himself in an entertainment world that seems to be ‘free for all’.
Perhaps majority of his target population are forced to enjoy the ‘dangerous skits’ set at them for some monetary benefits and cheap popularity. Whether the skits traumatise their emotion or not is a different ball game! If after having probably mortgaged their rights, the targeted population settle with hugs rather than litigations, it is left for Human Rights Advocates and the Security Agencies to handle better. On the other hand, as long as there are no hard feelings, the youthful prankster could enjoy floodgates of great financial opportunities from the ‘comic’ skits, with millions of people as ‘followers’.
The lesson to be learnt is that no individual is greater than an institution or a whole community. Everything done, either play or work should be done according to the provisions of law. A law that protects an individual and sets them at liberty in any given situation is the same one that sets boundaries in interactions with other people. The constitution that gives Abdullahi freedom of expression is the same one that empowers his ‘victims’ with rights of privacy and being carried along in all circumstances that concerns them.
At the same time, it makes provision for everyone to live peaceably in any area of their choice. Making people to be ‘castes’ in skits that they were not aware of is unfair. Intruding into their privacy or troubling their peace is uncalled for. It does not matter whether the targeted population or the prankster know these elements of law or not. There can be no ignorance of the law.
It is high time a restructuring was made in the entertainment industry to remove excesses, in order to be more relevant in a digital, global world. This means that freedom of expression has limitations. This will make comedians to avoid being the real laughing stocks, rather than their subject-matter. The essence of comedy is to relax people’s minds, not the other way round.
Comedy as ‘heated’ as the ones Trinity portrays are challenging to both mental and physical health of citizens, including the skit maker, his targets and many observers. There should be standard training schools and legally acceptable skits from upcoming pranksters, not a situation that everyone could bring in just anything as comedy. Moreover, there should be more focus on moral teachings and mentoring to grow the society. There is too much attention on entertainment.
That is the reason it could be loaded with almost anything and everything in the name of entertainment. To balance these roles, let there be entertainment laced with some instructions because both playing and learning have always remained two great parts and mutual bedfellows. Moreover, what is funny to a certain set of people may not be acceptable to others. Then, the definition of what is funny should be addressed.
Most elements of instruction have virtually been lost in the wave of comedy. To balance these roles, let there be entertainment laced with some instructions because both playing and learning have always remained two great parts and mutual bedfellows. Moreover, what is funny to a certain set of people may not be acceptable to others. Then, the definition of what is funny should be addressed.
