The Dangers to Forensic Investigation driven by social media furore: MohBad Example

The internet has revolutionised the availability of information in an interconnected world, and social media has supercharged information sharing. Often, there are no filters and with a device and internet access, everyone is potentially an expert in any subject matter on Earth! However, this phenomenon comes with heavy risks: fake news, misinformation, and abuse of information. There have been tragic consequences of the situation, including suicides. homicides and accidents.

Frequently, an incident goes viral on social media and may require the intervention of concerned authorities by instituting relevant investigations on such matters.  The dangers lie in the effect of social media on the perception of people and how this could substantially influence critical decisions that border on freedom, well-being, and the lives of others. The reality is that, apparently, everyone consumes social media "products.” to some degree, even at the highest level of governance and decision-making organs. There are hardly any private or public organisations or entities of repute that do not have some form of social media handle for engaging with their audience and the public at large. It is important to assess the impact of the social media “wave” in the sail of the policy and practice ship in all areas of human endeavour where the tide could, mistakenly, be measured by the perception of the sea level and not necessarily by the facts thereof.

The recent death of a young and upcoming musician, popularly called by the stage name, MohBad, is a test case of how many commentators on social media (some of whom wield considerable influence) have run ahead of investigations to make categorical calls on what caused the death of the young man without recourse to the facts of the matter or available evidence. The real danger is how this is shaping the attitude or disposition of those (including the police) charged with the responsibility of investigating the death. The death of anyone is tragic but what would be a double calamity is the miscarriage of justice driven by emotions and the propensity for quick retribution by a vocal crowd. Sadly, it does not serve the interests of the dead, their families or the public to pursue acrimonious paths to “closure”, because it simply leads to a blind alley where everyone lives in the dark, injustice thrives, and resentment soars.

There is a need for training and retraining of investigators in this era of ubiquitous exposure to media of different characters and intents, where misinformation has become an occupation for some, who live off passing their imaginations as facts and deliberating sowing confusion as their power of leverage. We need to have police officers and other investigators who are availed modern training that conditions them to resist the strong urge to work from a predetermined answer to the question. Rather, to build a team of investigators and experts who formulate the right questions and hypotheses in their approach to investigation and tune off the distracting cacophony of social media narratives, that are sometimes driven by personal interests and pecuniary compensation. The obsessions over “hits”, “channel subscriptions”, and “followership” are in overdrive, and insulating investigators and others that play significant roles in the justice mechanism will be crucial to preserving our civilisation and preventing a descent into anarchy.

Meanwhile, death is inevitable. It could occur at any time and in any age group. However, when any death appears unnatural, it is mandatory for relevant authorities saddled with the responsibility to conduct a proper forensic death investigation. It is very crucial to follow the facts and route the evidence leads. Any actions pandering to the social media frenzy have an unacceptable risk of ending in a cul-de-sac with many casualties on the trail, including the reputation of the investigating agencies. 

MohBad life matters. Other lives also matter. The social media “commentators”, “investigators, “panels” and “judges” are not particularly known for their objectivity predicated on facts. Caution is advised.