5th January, 2021
By Jimoh Ibrahim
As Nuru appears before the Board of the ethics committee of FCMB today, one unknown issue for trial is Moyo Thomas’s unquestionable beauty. But the memo there is about the ethical qualifications of the MD. Unfortunately, morals are not laws because of their imposing characteristics that offend justice. The court of fairness passed the judgment long before now on morality- it is repugnant to natural justice, equity, and good conscience – they are un-practicable and un-enforceable in fairness! If the court is to be presiding over what is immoral, then the judiciary is gone. Morals are subjective/objective.
As Nuru prepares his memo, he will be arguing from facts to theory any impossible task! From logical positivism/ interpretivism, he may build a case study to escape, or FCMB makes him a case study. The choice for the tribunal of FCMB (who are coming with strategic misrepresentation and bias). All with one objective ‘let save the bank.’
The tribunal may approach investigation with Scientific approach of “logical positivism” (a philosophical movement inspired by empiricism and verificationism). Or “logical empiricism.” (a type of theory in epistemology. Where experience has primacy in human knowledge and justified belief).
The tribunal’s judgment may lack the empiricism and verificationism of a DNA required of the alleged children -no scientific proof. Science aims to find the truth and predict the behaviour of the examined systems in “generality.” Once we have successfully described a hydrogen atom, we can make predictions about all hydrogen atoms in the universe. The absence of such empiricism and verificationism put the FCMB in a dilemma of desire to find justice. We could easily say that scientific evidence is stupid.
What is more, we never argue from facts to theories unless by way of refutation or falsification. There is an asymmetry between verification and falsification. The demarcation criterion is based on “potential falsifiability” for a theory to be scientific. It needs at least one potential falsifiability; that is, there must exist at least one empirical observation statement that conflicts with it! (The FCMB tribunal can never find that empirical observation statement). If they base their report on that, then the conjectures and refutation of the process of error elimination of getting closer to the truth. What we call ‘ad-hoc auxiliary assumption’ latter ‘conventionalist stratagems’ and finally, “immunizing stratagems.”
The FCMB tribunal may run away from a scientific approach and be more comfortable with the social science approach investigating to nail Nuru. Here, Nuru/Moyo Thomas’s facts will be subjected to social science’s interpretivism approach using social media! And in the social sciences, there is only interpretation. Nothing speaks for itself. The tribunal will move on and may say… we are confronted with shared data and evidence problems. (error) provide a powerful motivation to employ analytic techniques that use probability theory, especially techniques that address the issue of drawing inferences from insufficient evidence. We advise Nuru to resign in the interest of the Bank. Simply morality not law! Or confident to say the MD should continue in office as we regret to say that our rules of ethical conduct are not sufficient to address complex issues of this nature and our evidence is weak!
Let wish Nuru a nice outing. And the tribunal for as long as Moyo’s incredible beauty is not in question. And the tribunal will not interchangeably look at her face in the picture while the trial goes on! To the dead rest in perfect peace.
-Jimoh Ibrahim is a Ph.D Management Science (Year 3) candidate of the University of Cambridge.