Written against the backdrop of General Yakubu Gowon’s draconian decree for the public execution of robbers, Once Upon Four Robbers by Femi Osofisan examines systemic inequalities, the hypocrisy of selective justice, and the dire consequences of poverty. It transcends a simple tale of crime and punishment, and projects the complex socio-political and moral landscape of 1970s Nigeria. The play forces its audience to question the traditional binaries of good and evil, justice and vengeance.
The themes explored in Once Upon Four Robbers are selective justice, corruption, moral ambiguity, greed and betrayal, and the inefficacy of public execution.
Theme of Selective Justice
The theme of selective justice is central to Once Upon Four Robbers. The play critiques a justice system that metes out harsh punishments to impoverished armed robbers while sparing corrupt elites. This is exemplified in the public execution of Alani, the leader of the robbers, whose death becomes a spectacle attended by jeering onlookers.
The execution is symbolic of a selective justice system, where the poor are subjected to extreme laws such as death by firing squad. Conversely, corrupt government officials, who plunder public resources on a far larger scale, face no consequences.
This selective justice is further highlighted in the soldiers’ actions. After recovering the stolen loot, they plan to share it among themselves rather than return it to the market women. This act of corruption undermines their supposed role as enforcers of the law and exemplifies the systemic inequality that benefits those in power while oppressing the marginalised. In fact, this corrupt act strips the soldiers of moral high ground to execute the robbers at the end of the play.
Theme of Poverty
Poverty is one of the prominent themes in Once Upon Four Robbers. It is the catalyst of crime in the text. The robbers’ criminal actions stem from a life of deprivation. The robbers’ resort to crime is indicative of how poverty can force individuals into morally questionable paths.
Major’s behaviour epitomises this struggle. After the second robbery, he turns a gun on his fellow robbers as he seeks to claim the loot for himself. He justifies this betrayal as a desperate attempt to escape the cycle of poverty that has defined his life.
Similarly, the other robbers’ initial agreement to Aafa’s condition not to rob the poor underscores their awareness of their shared plight with the marginalised. However, their decision to target public spaces like the market eventually harms the very community they belong to. This complicates the notion of their survival-driven crime.
Theme of Moral Ambiguity
Moral ambiguity comes into play when a situation, action, or decision cannot be clearly classified as right or wrong, good or evil. Osofisan’s projection of morality in the play is a clear departure from the black-and-white perspective of morality. He blurs the lines between “good” and “bad,” and shows how economic desperation can blur ethical boundaries.
Traditionally, stealing would be seen as morally wrong, but within the context of the robbers’ socio-economic struggles, their actions provoke a sense of empathy and understanding. Their actions, though criminal, stem from societal neglect and systemic oppression. Rather than portray them as outright villains who are inherently evil, Osofisan presents them as individuals caught in a flawed system. Their resort to non-violent robberies largely instantiates this.
The play further blurs the moral line with Major’s betrayal. While his greed and self-preservation appear reprehensible, his actions also highlight the desperation and hopelessness faced by those in poverty. Similarly, the soldiers, who are meant to represent law and order, exploit their power for personal gain with the sharing of the stolen goods among themselves.
This moral ambiguity leads the audience to question who the true villains are. Is it the robbers, the corrupt enforcers, or the unjust system itself?
Theme of Greed and Betrayal
The theme of greed is mirrored in the decision of Major and the actions of the soldiers. On his part, Major holds his fellow robbers at gunpoint to claim the loot for himself. He prioritises personal gain over their collective survival, especially with his justification that the loot represents his escape from a lifetime of poverty. In his sheer greediness, he wants for himself what should have been shared equally among the four of them. Consequently, his greediness and innate selfishness lead him to betray the trust of his comrades.
The soldiers are another stark example of greediness and betrayal in the play. After they have recovered stolen goods, instead of them to return them to their rightful owners (the market women), they decide to keep the recovered loot for themselves. By doing this, they also betray the invested trust in them as enforcers of the law.
These parallel acts demonstrate how greed permeates all levels of society, from the powerless to those in authority.
The Inefficacy of Public Execution
Apart from humanising crime as a means of survival in a country marred by socio-economic inequalities, Once Upon Four Robbers also critiques the logic behind the condemnation of robbers to death by firing squad. It questions the efficacy of this draconian law in curbing crime.
At the beginning of the text, the leader of the robbers is executed in what is a public spectacle. The robbers are all there to witness his execution. But the execution does not produce the intended effect in the robbers, especially with their growing resentment for the public for making a sport out of the dying man’s misery. Rather than deter them from crime, the execution only fuels their vengeance and pushes them to re-strategize and devise how they operate going forward.
In other words, the public execution law is counterintuitive, In the long run, it doesn’t deter robbers and prospective criminals from crime. Given the context of social inequality in the play, a total overhaul of the systemic flaws that entrap individuals in cycles of poverty and desperation would have been better, rather than a facelift as public executions have come to represent. The play advocates that society should consider reforms that address root causes rather than merely punishing symptoms.
Further Reading:
WHATSAPP: Click HERE to join the new Literature PADI WhatsApp channel to receive latest updates on your phone and for further literary discussions!
