Moment of truth

By Lawal Ogienagbon

By his nature, President Muhammadu Buhari is not given to talking, according to his spokesman, Femi Adesina. Like every human being, it is not that the President does not talk at all, he just does not talk much. Indeed,  there are people like that who find it difficult to talk, except it is extremely necessary. When they talk, those around will look at one another, wondering what happened. What could have propelled the taciturn guy to talk? They ask no one in particular.

If Buhari were the talking type, he would have been voluble in recent times, especially over the worsening security situation in the country. But being a man who keeps to himself, he has said nothing even when there is much to talk about and people are yearning to hear from him. When it comes to talking, Buhari and his American counterpart Donald Trump are different. Trump can talk the dead to rise,  while Buhari can keep mum, no matter the din around him. The more the noise, the more he is unaffected by his surroundings. That’s him for you.

It is strange that he has not been moved to talk by the heightening insecurity,  which was brought home grimly, by the killing of some rice farmers in Zabarmari, Borno State, last November 28, by Boko Haram. The casualty figure remains conflicting till today, more than 12 days after 43 of those killed were buried. The  Abubakar Shekau faction of Boko Haram, which claimed responsibility for the killing, puts the figure at 78. The Senate says it is 67. Whether one or two, the truth is no life should be taking in such circumstances. It smacks of barbarism to kill people by slitting their throats. That kind of bestiality can only be seen in movies.

For that horrible show to happen in real life again and again portrays Boko Haram for what it really is: a bunch of demented bigots. The group has been killing civilians and soldiers and even kids in what the military has since described as “asymmetrical warfare”.  Whether symmetrical or asymmetrical, the citizens are not interested in whatever name the military calls the war; all they want is for Boko Haram to be defeated. They are tired of being told that Boko Haram has been “technically defeated”, a phrase first used by the President.

What is the point of such “technical defeat” when Boko Haram is still strong, as we have seen time and again, to inflict colossal damage on the country. To the public, Boko Haram was at no time “technically defeated”.  If it was, it would not still be that bold as to ambush a governor’s convoy,  attack army barracks, invade schools and farms, without let or hindrance . To put the people’s mind at rest,  the President may have to shed light on what he meant by “technical defeat” of Boko Haram when he addresses a joint session of the National Assembly today.

At times, it may be a strategy to keep quiet, but when things are turning upside down, the President cannot pretend that all is well. Things are just not right in the country right now and we all know it. Security has totally collapsed, with the people left to look after themselves. In this regard, one is not talking about Boko Haram alone. The people are more concerned about Boko Haram because of its audacious campaigns in the Northeast. With the governors raising the alarm that the group is behind the kidnapping in the Southwest, it may soon be everywhere in the country,  if not stopped now.

The solution to this security challenge is in the President’s hands. Today, he should let the lawmakers know how he plans to end the Boko Haram siege. His visit should not just be another visit; it must be meaningful because, from the look of things,  on it rests some of the answers to our problems as a nation. The lawmakers as representatives of the people are concerned with what is happening in the land because their constituents are affected. They are being killed, kidnapped or maimed and their homes destroyed. It remains for the lawmakers to use the opportunity of this meeting to convey their constituents feeling to the President. This is the essence of their invitation to the President.

It will also enable them to hear from him firsthand,  his plan for securing the nation not only from Boko Haram, but also from other criminal elements. It is a moment of truth for the executive and legislature. What does the executive need to redress the security situation? Is there any need for a special legislation to address the Boko Haram menace? The President should open up and seek the lawmakers’ help, if necessary, to get the nation out of this security bind. Things cannot continue like this. As the President, the buck stops on his table. He should take the lead in the counter-insurgency war. Five years ago, many never believed that what we are experiencing today will ever happen under a Buhari Presidency.

He too made us to believe that he had the magic wand for the Boko Haram menace. Buhari told us that six months after assuming office, he would have ridden the nation of Boko Haram and we believed him. We now know better. When Boko Haram struck in Chibok, Borno State, in 2014, and abducted over 200 schoolgirls, during the Jonathan administration, we said such would never happen under the Buhari administration and so, we voted for him in 2015. But it did. In 2018, Boko Haram invaded Dapchi and took away over 100 schoolgirls. One of those girls,  Leah Sharibu, is still in captivity.

Will the President tell the lawmakers that he has made a headway in the counter-insurgency war? Will he insist that Boko Haram has been ‘technically defeated’? If he makes that submission, can the lawmakers look him in the face and ask: how can Boko Haram be ‘technically defeated’ and still be able to hit ‘soft’ and hard targets?

Willy-nilly, Buhari must talk about his Service Chiefs, who the Senate is insisting must go. The President prefers to keep them. The people do not begrudge him that right. But they also have the right to know why he is keeping them in the face of their seeming inability to tame the Boko Haram monster. The people are not asking that the Service Chiefs be sacked because they hate the military brass’ faces, but because of their poor handling of the counter-insurgency war. Under the watch of these Service Chiefs, Boko Haram has  made a mincemeat of not only our troops, but also of civilians. This is why the people believe that they can no longer be in charge of the counter-insurgency war, if Boko Haram must be defeated.

Perhaps, we do not know what the President knows that makes it compelling for him to keep his Service Chiefs. This may come to light at his meeting with the lawmakers. One hopes that both sides will put the nation first in the collective search for a lasting solution to this scary problem.