Urging Unscrupulous Politicians To Stop Scapegoating AI -By Isaac Asabor

There is a new reflex among today’s political elite, and it is as lazy as it is dishonest. Whenever a politician is caught red-handed in the act of doing something wrong, illegal, or shameful, with undeniable evidence, the script is quickly dusted out: “It is AI. The video is fake. The audio was generated. The image was manipulated.” No apology. No shame. No accountability. Just denial, counter-accusations, and threats of legal action against journalists, whistleblowers, and citizens who dare to believe what their eyes and ears tell them.

This growing habit of blaming artificial intelligence for moral collapse is not just absurd; it is dangerous. It insults public intelligence, weaponizes technology as a convenient scapegoat, and further erodes trust in leadership already hanging by a thread. AI did not corrupt these politicians. AI did not teach them greed, entitlement, or recklessness. And AI certainly did not force them into acts that violate the ethical standards of public office.

Let us be clear: technology only reveals. It does not invent character flaw. Without any iota of exaggeration, the spate of denials of their unscrupulous behaviors has become the new alibi.

In earlier decades, politicians caught in scandals at least pretended to be sorry. There were tearful press conferences, carefully worded apologies, and ritualistic withdrawals from public view, often temporary, but symbolic. Today, even that thin layer of decency has evaporated.

Now, the response is instant hostility. The evidence is dismissed as “AI-generated.” The accuser is branded an enemy. Lawyers are unleashed. And the public is expected to suspend logic and accept that every inconvenient recording is a digital mirage.

This tactic thrives because AI is poorly understood by the general public. Deepfakes exist, yes. Synthetic media is real, yes. But politicians have seized on this complexity not to educate, but to confuse. They hide behind technical jargon to avoid moral reckoning. They gamble that citizens are too overwhelmed to separate genuine evidence from fabricated excuses.

Without resort to sounding hyperbolical in this context, it is cowardice dressed up as sophistication, particularly as technology did not end privacy, irresponsibility did.

In fact, politicians love to romanticize a past when “private moments” stayed private. What they really miss is not privacy, but impunity. The old world allowed powerful people to misbehave behind closed doors, protected by weak media ecosystems, limited recording devices, and intimidated witnesses. That world is gone. Smartphones are everywhere. Cameras are everywhere. Digital footprints are permanent. In today’s environment, public office comes with radical visibility. Anyone who seeks power in this age should understand that their actions, especially unethical ones, are likely to be recorded, shared, and scrutinized. This is not oppression. It is transparency.

If a leader cannot behave responsibly in a restaurant, an office, or a so-called private meeting, then the problem is not surveillance culture. The problem is that the leader lacks self-control and respect for the office they hold. Given the foregoing view, blaming AI for being exposed is like blaming daylight for revealing dirt. It ought not to be because AI is unarguably like a shield for moral bankruptcy.

What makes this trend particularly troubling is how it cheapens legitimate conversations about AI ethics. Artificial intelligence does raise serious concerns: misinformation, consent, data privacy, and manipulation. These are real issues that deserve sober policy debate. But politicians who cry “AI!” every time they are embarrassed are not interested in ethics. They are interested in escape. They use the language of digital caution to dodge personal responsibility.

Worse still, they threaten legal action not to seek truth, but to intimidate. Lawsuits become tools of silencing rather than justice. The message to the public is simple: “Question us, and we will punish you”. This is authoritarian instinct masquerading as victimhood.

However, there is no more hiding places for unscrupulous politicians who masquerade as leaders, particularly in the ongoing democratic dispensation in Nigeria.  Reiteratively put, the truth politicians refuse to accept is simple and brutal: there is no longer a hiding place for irresponsible leadership. Not because society is cruel, but because society is connected.

Every bribe taken today risks exposure through leaked messages, banking trails, or recorded conversations. Every inappropriate touch risks being captured by a phone camera. Every lie risks being contradicted by digital records. This is not witch-hunting; it is the natural consequence of living in a technologically advanced society.

So, leaders who cannot adapt to this reality should step aside. Public office is not a sanctuary for unchecked impulses. It is a position of trust that demands restraint, discipline, and awareness.

The irony is that many of these same politicians eagerly celebrate technology when it suits them. They use social media to polish their image, data analytics to win elections, and digital platforms to amplify propaganda. But when technology exposes their flaws, it suddenly becomes the enemy. You cannot have it both ways.

Let us stop pretending the problem is AI. The real crisis is moral decay in political culture. A sense of entitlement that tells leaders they are above scrutiny. A belief that power grants immunity from consequence. A contempt for citizens that assumes they can be lied to endlessly without repercussion.

When a politician responds to credible evidence with arrogance instead of introspection, they reveal more than the original scandal ever could. They show that they are not just flawed, but unfit.

Remorse matters. Accountability matters. Even silence would sometimes be better than deflection. But blaming machines for human misconduct is a line that should never be crossed.

Therefore, responsible leaders confronted with allegations in the digital age have options, honest ones. They can submit evidence to independent forensic analysis rather than shouting “AI” into microphones. They can cooperate with investigations rather than threatening journalists. They can apologize when wrong, and correct behavior rather than deny reality. They can treat the public as adults capable of understanding nuance, not fools to be distracted with buzzwords. Above all, they can behave better. This is as technology has raised the standard of visibility. Leaders must raise the standard of conduct to match it.

As a final word to politicians in this context, permit this writer to opine that if any politician is afraid of cameras, recordings, and digital trails, then politics is no longer for him or her. The reason for the foregoing view cannot be farfetched as the world has moved on. Power today comes with exposure, and exposure comes with consequences.

Artificial intelligence did not erode anyone’s morality. It merely exposed its absence. The sooner politicians accept this, the better for democracy, governance, and public trust. In fact, the age of plausible deniability is over. The age of accountability has arrived. And no amount of blaming AI will turn back the clock.