The expression: “It takes a witch to identify a witch” may appear innocuous, but it is not. The statement is a tacit validation of witchcraft, a reinforcement of the belief because the statement implies that witch identification is possible under some form. That witch identification is a capacity that some people have or could have; that ‘witches’, as popularly believed, are identifiable entities. Helen Ukpabio of the Liberty Gospel Church exploits this narrative in her witch-hunting business. She claims to be an ex-witch and to have powers to identify witches and exorcise witchcraft. Was she a witch? No. Does she have powers to identify or exorcise witchcraft? No.
Meanwhile, witches do not exist, and no one has the ability to identify witches and wizards, as popularly believed. Those who claim to have witch-identifying powers are charlatans. The CJ should not make statements that glorify charlatans and charlatanism, statements that validate their bogus claims and practices.
In addition, the CJ also stated that witchcraft accusations were difficult to prove unless the accused person confessed. Confessed? That witches confess is another narrative that some use to confuse the public and validate witchcraft. Do ‘witches’ confess? No, they do not because they cannot and more importantly because they are not. To confess, witches must first exist; they must first be in the position to confess. Accused persons are not capable of witchcraft powers.