(When the call for accountability becomes political caution.)

What we are witnessing today is selective outrage. Many religious and civic groups are calling for accountability — loudly, passionately, and repeatedly — yet they refuse to demand the resignation of those who are most accountable for the worst corruption in our nation’s history. Their narratives are carefully stitched, their statements meticulously shaped, but the inconsistency is glaring: they speak of justice, but spare the powerful.

This contradiction raises uncomfortable questions:

Are they playing it safe?

Are they playing politics?

Or has something — influence, pressure, or convenience — convinced them to hold their tongues when saying something against THE MOST ACCOUNTABLE?

It is difficult to ignore the sense that these groups are protecting something—their own interests. If these groups openly call for the resignation of those most guilty, it could jeopardize their influence, privileges, and institutional relationships. And so they walk a delicate line: they must say something to satisfy public pressure, yet avoid saying too much that might offend the powerful. What results is not moral courage but strategic caution—statements crafted to look principled while remaining politically safe.

Silence, especially from those who claim moral authority, is never neutral. It is a position. And in moments when the truth demands courage, silence becomes a signal — not of restraint, but of reluctance.

If accountability is truly a principle worth defending, then it must be applied consistently, not selectively.

It cannot be demanded from the powerless while the powerful are spared.

It cannot be preached from the pulpit and abandoned in the public square… or when expressed in public square, conflicting signals are sent.

And it cannot depend on whether the truth is comfortable, fashionable, or convenient.

Religious and civic leaders wield influence that shapes the nation’s conscience. That influence comes with a responsibility: to speak when it matters, and to stand even when standing is difficult.

A call for accountability that avoids those most responsible is not a call for justice.

It is a call filtered, softened, and restrained — a call afraid of its own purpose.

The public deserves clarity.

The nation deserves sincerity.

And leadership — especially moral leadership — deserves consistency.