Author: Narcisse Nachopu

In an era where democratic values are vociferously championed, a startling irony surfaces as those purporting to be the bastions of liberty often orchestrate the greatest threats to its very core.

The unfolding Twitter controversy affirms this paradox. A blogger, cloaked in satire, found himself banished from the digital realm, triggering a tumult of discourse about democracy’s brittle facade.

Supporters of the Democratic Alliance (DA), unable to stomach the jest, seem to have catalysed this silencing, thus exposing new unsettling facets of the party.


In a recent whirlwind of social media uproar, RUMANI, an outspoken blogger, inadvertently unveiled the sensitive nerves of political satire. It began with a post on platform X, where RUMANI disclosed what appeared to be a request received on his Instagram from the DA leader.

This request, tinged with political desperation, read, “Hi Rumani, hope you’re well. I’m really struggling to truly resonate with the electorate for the upcoming elections. Could you please make me more convincing to the voters? I value your input greatly.”

Seizing the moment, RUMANI responded with a digitally altered image of the DA leader, not to enhance likability, but to underscore a more compelling appeal to voters.

The satirical edit resonated widely, poking fun at the DA’s past racial controversies. But laughter soon turned to disbelief when RUMANI was banned from Twitter, a sanction that cast a shadow on the platform’s commitment to freedom of expression.

With RUMANI’s suspension, a hashtag rebellion was born. Under #saynotoDA, netizens rallied, spotlighting not only the DA’s reputed ties with American influences, resulting in control of information by the DA on platform X, but also questioning its commitment to free speech.

ALSO READ  All about the ‘cancel culture’

The situation mushroomed into a referendum on information liberty, as allegations swirled about the DA’s instrumental role in information suppression.



As tempers flared, evidence surfaced of a DA member’s similar satirical post, spared the platform’s wrath a stark contrast to RUMANI’s fate.

The racial undertones were unmistakable: a black man chastised for humour that a white counterpart escaped unscathed, spotlighting racial inequities in social media jurisprudence.

The outrage as bloggers condemned the evident bias, drawing parallels with apartheid-era mentalities. The DA’s apparent monopoly over racial humour and the consequent discussion around their capacity to filter dissenting voices unearthed deeper racial wounds within South African society.


This saga makes us question the authenticity of the DA’s democratic commitments. DA leader John Steenhuisen seems to value his own image in the information field much higher than democratic values.

Can a party that suppresses humor really stand up for freedom? Are the pillars of democracy secure when those tasked with guarding them are the first to undermine? The conversation must persist, doubts must fester, for it’s within these uncertainties that the true essence of democracy lies: the relentless pursuit of truth and equity.

AMA GHANA is not responsible for the reportage or opinions of contributors published on the website.