By Paul Ade-Adeleye

After toying with taciturnity on the issue of banditry in Nigeria and allowing it to culture into a perfect ethnic storm, the Buhari administration swung into action last week, issuing a licence to kill and for soldiers to deploy against any non-security agents carrying guns. For months, failing to adequately gauge the monster banditry could become if unchecked decisively, the president said little and did even less to curb the trend. He dallied while the entire country called for the replacement of the former service chiefs who appeared to lack any innovative ideas to tackle insecurity in the country. Kidnappers meanwhile operated virtually unchecked. It became a national issue to determine whether or not ranching was not a better idea than transhumant or nomadic pastoralism in the 21st Century. It was not until it became a manifest source of mortification to the government that action was taken, in stages, and finally to the extreme with license to kill.

The president started by declaring that bandits should be treated as criminals; next, that there would be no parley with them; and then he ordered the shooting on sight of bandits carrying rifles. Unfortunately, this policy poses a moral dilemma to Nigerians. Every suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty, even if he were arrested in flagrante delicto. The power to determine the guilt or innocence of such suspects is vested in the judiciary by virtue of Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Section 306 of the Criminal Code notes that it is unlawful to kill any person unless such killing is authorised or justified or excused by law. Does the law authorise, justify or excuse the president’s kill order? If it does, what law?

Analysts argue that there is no such thing as a perfect knight and that the direness of the situation with armed bandits and kidnappers required measures as drastic as the president’s kill order. What was the presidency doing until banditry gangrened such that between January and February, 720 people were kidnapped and N10bn was paid as ransom, according to some estimates? What justification is legal enough to allow such a ‘license to kill’ operate within Nigeria? Legal minds posit that the right to life is so sacred to the law that only the courts, the law and executive orders, not the president’s orders, can derogate it. If a person has to take away the right to life from another, then it must be on lawful grounds, such as self-defence as excused by Section 286 of the Criminal Code or Section 59 of the Penal Code, or provocation as justified by Section 283 of the Criminal Code.

There are other lawful grounds that justify the killing of armed bandits, but generally they must furnish the requirement of “reasonable force”. The issue is by what test “reasonable force” is to be measured since usually one party is already dead and the only testimony to work with is that of the suspect. How does anyone know if a bandit who was shot and killed on sight was willing to surrender his weapons and submit himself to be tried according to the prescriptions of the law? How can the army differentiate between those licensed to carry weapons, few as they may be, from those illegally wielding them when it is too busy shooting on sight? When did it become punishable by death to be found in possession of weapons? The debate may end up being academic and only for the purpose of fulfilling all righteousness by the law. Those who have spoken against the kill order only did so from the law’s perspective. It is hard to find anyone rising to the armed bandits’ defence except, perhaps, bandit empaths such as Sheikh Gumi and Governor Bala Mohammed.

Will Buhari hear Zulum?

Addressing the Northeast Governors’ Forum, Governor Babagana Zulum of Borno State spoke against the unjustifiable policy of rehabilitating captured Boko Haram insurgents, because the so-called deradicalised terrorists, upon reintegration, became spies for the terror sect and later returned to their old and familiar crimes. This was nothing more than re-echoing the general sentiments of Nigerians who had voiced their displeasure and disappointment at the policy of reintegrating Boko Haram extremists into the societies they once terrorised. Labelling it oppressive and subliminal to justice and soundness, they felt that the bandits would never truly be reformed and would constitute nothing more than the continuing effects of an old injury that should otherwise be healing.

At the Governors’ meeting, Mr Zulum revealed: “Another aspect of the war against the insurgency that needs to be urgently reviewed or modified is the issue of deradicalisation of Boko Haram terrorists who have been captured or have willingly surrendered themselves to the authorities. It has been confirmed that the concept of deradicalisation or ‘Safe Corridor’ is not working as expected. Quite often, those who have passed through the ‘Safe Corridor’ initiative, or have been deradicalised, usually go back and rejoin the terror group after carefully studying the various security arrangements in their host communities, during the reintegration process.”

When Nigerians raised the objection earlier, the presidency turned a deaf ear to them. Will it turn a second deaf ear to Governor Zulum whose state, more than most, remains a favourite hunting ground for Boko Haram insurgents? The presidency cannot explain its persistence with operation ‘Safe Corridor’ in any sense of equity and sustainability with this new revelation by Governor Zulum. It must resist the urge to turn a deaf ear to this new security alarm or risk upsetting Nigerians and demoralising the army which laboured with great losses to apprehend the insurgents in the first place.

Yahaya Bello’s vaccine contempt

Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi State cannot understand the fuss about COVID-19 vaccines. Never mind that the virus crippled most of the western world and Nigeria for months and has caused the deaths of 2.58m people. Mr Bello is not bothered and will not trouble himself with what he clearly thinks is the contemptible act of taking the vaccine. More, the good people of Kogi State, Mr Bello says, are not guinea pigs, so he will not be forcing them to take the vaccine. His argument sounds painfully similar to that of President Nevers Mumba of Zambia, but lacks the circumspection that attended the Zambian President’s logic.

Dr Mumba had declared that the vaccine would not be taken without scrutiny, but Mr Bello argues that COVID-19 is not a serious enough challenge for him to be bothered about. There was the more pressing scourge of Lassa fever for him to deal with, and there was no recorded case of coronavirus in Kogi, said the governor.

Really, Mr Bello? The man is a marvel and not exactly the endearing kind. True, the federal government could and should have done better with the way it went about the vaccine business, but however badly they performed, they did not deny the presence of the virus in the country. Mr Bello’s deadpan statements grate on the nerves of Nigerians who have lost people to the virus. If he must remain annoyingly apathetic, he should try being quiet for a while.