Is this how we want the world to see us? Is this how we expect government, both at home abroad, to take Nigerian youth seriously? And is this truly the image we want to export to the international community?
Those were the questions many Nigerians asked after a viral controversy involving popular streamers Habeeb Hamzah Adelaja (Peller) and Oderhowho Joseph Efe (Carter Efe) turned from celebration into chaos, ending with smashed windshields and a social media storm that revealed issues far deeper than broken glasses.
What began as a celebratory moment after billionaire businessman Emeka Okwonko popularly called E-Money gifted Carter Efe a brand-new Toyota Corolla quickly descended into what was described as “cruise.” In the name of celebration, Peller was seen stepping on the car roof.
In retaliation or cruise, car windshields’ were shattered. Eventually, even the newly gifted vehicle was damaged. All this was done in the name of the “new economy” called “content creation”. All for views but at what cost?
Nigeria is currently grappling with Inflation. Unemployment remains a major concern. Millions struggle daily for survival. In that context, watching luxury vehicles worth millions of naira being destroyed for entertainment feels, to many, like a painful disconnect from reality.
It is not just about property damage. It is about symbolism. When influencers who command massive youth audiences publicly trivialize the destruction of expensive property, what message does it send? That wealth has no value? That consequences do not matter? That visibility is more important than responsibility?
In today’s hyper-connected world, what trends locally trends globally. The media is often described as a reflection of society. When international observers scroll through viral Nigerian content and see luxury cars being vandalized for entertainment, what conclusions might they draw? That Nigerians are unserious? That the youth are reckless? That wealth is disposable?
This is not merely about image management, it is about national perception. Countries compete globally not only through policy and economics, but also through cultural signals. The behavior of visible public figures contributes to that perception. When public conduct appears unserious, it reinforces stereotypes that many hardworking Nigerians spend years trying to dismantle.
There is an old Yoruba proverb: “The one who has a cap does not have a head; the one who has a head does not have a cap.” In simpler terms: access and appreciation do not always coexist.
Many Nigerians questioned whether the destruction reflected a deeper issue, that is, absence of value for what was not personally earned. When something is obtained without labor, its worth can easily be underestimated.
Meanwhile, countless graduates search endlessly for employment. Entrepreneurs struggle to access capital. Families battle daily to afford basic necessities. To them, the spectacle felt less like comedy and more like insensitivity.
Legally speaking, deliberate destruction of property falls under vandalism. While the vehicles reportedly belonged to those involved, the public dimension of the act introduces a moral debate. Should there be consequences for influencers who normalize destructive behavior to millions of followers? Should public apologies suffice? Or should such acts attract formal sanctions to discourage imitation?
Many Nigerians believe that a private reconciliation is not enough because influencers shape culture and behavior. As public figures, their actions influence young audiences and help define what is seen as acceptable in society.
If “cruise” becomes synonymous with recklessness, what example does that set? Young followers may internalize the idea that destruction equals relevance, that shock value equals success, and that wealth—especially sudden wealth—should be flaunted rather than stewarded.
In a fragile economy, such messaging can deepen frustration and widen psychological gaps between the privileged and the struggling majority.
Years ago, former President Muhammadu Buhari, now of blessed memory, controversially remarked that many Nigerian youths were “lazy.” The comment sparked outrage nationwide. Yet moments like this unfortunately give critics ammunition.
It is not that Nigerian youth are lazy, far from it. Across technology, entertainment, academia, and entrepreneurship, young Nigerians are excelling globally.
But viral incidents like this overshadow the positive narratives. They feed a counter-story. And perception, fair or not, influences policy attitudes, investment confidence, and even diaspora reputation.
To the Baseje streamers, you witness daily the struggles of ordinary Nigerians trying to survive. That reality should remind you of the value of what you were given. In a country where many cannot afford basic needs, such privilege should inspire responsibility and restraint—especially before millions of young followers. You can and should do better, for your audience and for society.
In all, the deeper question remains: what legacy are today’s digital celebrities building? Is it one of responsibility? Of empowerment? Of social awareness? Or of spectacle without substance?
At a time when many young Nigerians crave mentorship, vocational empowerment, and real economic opportunity, public displays of destruction feel tone-deaf. Opportunity is a privilege. Stewardship is a duty. A formal apology acknowledging the broader social implications would demonstrate maturity. Influencers must understand that engagement should not come at the expense of social responsibility.
Acts of generosity, like car gifts, could be extended to deserving entrepreneurs, graduates, and small business owners who would maximize the opportunity. Clear enforcement around public acts of vandalism even when consensual can deter normalization. There is need for civic education for influencers.
Beyond the broken glasses, the smashed windshields can be replaced. But the impression left behind that is harder to fix.
If Nigerian youth want to be taken seriously by government, by investors, by the international community then seriousness must reflect in conduct.
Entertainment need not equal irresponsibility. Cruise need not equal chaos. Because in the end, nations are judged not only by their policies but by the behavior they amplify. And the world is always watching.
