Natasha is a liar – Aniefiok Udoabasi

This world has really gone down in moral standards. People are saying that there is nothing wrong if a married person seeks a romantic relationship with a third party.

People are asking: why should Reno respond? They ask ‘What is wrong even if he made a pass at her’? For goodness sake,Reno is a married man! That means something! I know that marriage means nothing to you,but it clearly means something to Reno. As it should.

Additionally, he is a pastor ,which means he can only be in a monogamous marriage. He builds his world view on chastity and fidelity in marriage. Trying to woo a woman into a romantic relationship would be a dent on the brand he projects. It means something to him. It should mean something to everyone if not that society now sees nothing wrong with a married person seeking an affair.

Also, people should know that adultery is a crime in the whole of Northern Nigeria, including Abuja where this incident was alleged to have taken place. It is only in the southern part of Nigeria that adultery is NOT a crime. Thus, this woman was essentially accusing Reno of attempting a crime. Why should he not react?

One of the things that make social media and public discourse generally difficult is that most people, especially in this country, don’t know how to distill issues and properly tackle those issues. People, including very educated people, love to leave the issue and dwell on non-issues.

Someone accuses a married man of attempting adultery and your response is: ‘why didn’t he do more for Goodluck Jonathan? Why is he defending himself? Why did he say a stupid thing about women last year’? Are you serious?

People don’t know that you can dislike someone and still give him a fair trial. Many Nigerians, including our social media influencers , are not remarkable for deep thinking. They are one liners in their thought process, basically. Something like: ‘if he offended me before, he can never be right in any circumstance’.

It is because of the dangers of such warped reasoning that past offences are generally not considered in criminal trial in court. Someone may have killed before or stolen before, but while analysing his present case of murder or stealing, you are generally not allowed to even mention or consider his past offense . This is in a bid to ensure a fair trial.

Personally, I disagree with Reno on many things. I have had reason to call him out here and elsewhere. Many times, I don’t bother to read what he writes ,especially if it has to do with women. I disagree with Reno more than I agree with him. But does that mean that if someone accuses him of a crime or something capable of injuring his reputation, I must not analyse the issue properly, simply because I don’t like some of his past views ?

The bottom line is that this woman is a dangerous and compulsive liar. She is the one who alleged something against Reno and should be the one to offer proof. She has offered no proof. None. It was a public and official event in the seat of power which means it is easier for her to show proof. But it is Reno who doesn’t have to prove anything, that has offered irrefutable proof that she is a liar.

My real worry is that women have gone through a lot in the hands of some wicked men and their stories of untoward encounters with men need to be taken seriously. Sadly, liars like Natasha make this difficult.

#PROFMGBEKE