*Dachomo
By Saleh Bature
Reverend Ezikiel Dachomo’s confession has publicly exposed him to litigation and raised many questions that beg for answers. Yusuf Haruna, formally known as Baban Chinedu—a former Kannywood star and comedian, now a preacher of comparative religion—revealed Dachomo’s past involvement in armed robbery. The reverend’s erstwhile girlfriend, Ladi (now a Muslim revert), told Malam Yusuf about Dachomu’s dark past, which he personally admitted in a viral video recently. Ladi also spoke about the gunshot wound the reverend sustained on his buttock during a robbery operation in the 80s, along with many other troubling details about her former boyfriend.
Dachomo’s confession has opened a whole new can of worms and raised serious questions that demand immediate answers: People who support him say his confession absolves him from facing charges in a court of law. It does not.
In any modern legal system—including Nigeria’s—armed robbery is a serious criminal offence, and a personal confession (whether public or religious) does not erase legal liability. Therefore, Dachomo’s claim that he repented after an encounter with Jesus Christ should not obstruct the law from investigating his confessed crime. His confession could be used as evidence against him, not as a shield.
The bank and customers whose money Dachomo and his gang robbed have a right to seek justice. If Dachomo and his partners in crime have not been tried, the case should now be reported, and the victims should demand prosecution and seek the return of stolen funds or compensation. Justice is not only about punishing wrongdoing; it is also about restoring what was taken and acknowledging the harm done—which Dachomo has rightly confessed to committing.
Dachomo’s confession carries the risk of encouraging others to commit crimes and later claim forgiveness. A situation where people commit crimes, then confess spiritually and walk free, creates a moral hazard—a dangerous incentive structure.
This could place an excessive moral burden on the Christian belief system. Although authentic Christian teaching does not support such an idea, people may perceive it differently. As a man of God, Dachomo should know that true repentance in Christianity traditionally involves admitting wrongdoing, turning away from sin, making restitution where possible, and accepting consequences. Without these, the “confession” becomes bogus rather than genuine repentance.
Dachomo’s confession also has the potential to make non-Christians view Christianity negatively. It may create the impression that Christianity excuses wrongdoing, undermines justice, and offers cheap forgiveness for crime and sin. As it stands, this perception can cause friction in interfaith trust and reinforce criticism that religion is being used to escape accountability rather than promote moral reform.
As good Christians and Muslims, we must all agree that undermining the rule of law by allowing religious claims to override legal responsibility weakens institutions and encourages lawlessness in society.
Finally, there is no contradiction between true repentance and facing justice. In fact, many moral and religious traditions—including Christianity—hold that a truly transformed person should be willing to accept the consequences of his crime, make amends, and seek forgiveness—from both God and society. Did Reverend Dachomo fulfill these basic requirements for repentance?
