Category: Emeka Omeihe

When a key government functionary speaks, we are wont to take him seriously. This is more so when the issue in discourse concerns his area of competence. Thus, when the Director-General (DG) of the National Task Force on Prohibition of illegal importation of Small Arms, Ammunition and light Weapons, Dr Osita Okereke cried out that governors and politicians are stockpiling arms to kit thugs for the coming elections, not a few Nigerians were taken aback. Before now, traditional rulers in Edo State and Niger Delta militants had also warned that politicians were amassing arms and ammunition to arm thugs ahead of the elections. What seems novel in Okereke’s alarm is the alleged involvement of governors in this sordid deed.

Hear him: “Information reaching us shows that some politicians, including governors have been acquiring arms and ammunition to be given to youths during the forthcoming elections. In addition, they are also acquiring police and army uniforms for these youths for use during the election”.

Given this new dimension, it will be risky to dismiss the alarm with a wave of the hand. Not with the current wave of insecurity in the country that has stretched the creative energies of our security agencies to the fullest. Not with the killings and loss of properties of inestimable value around the country arising from crimes of all hue.

The DG spoke at the National Assembly as part of the efforts to persuade the senate to fast-track the passage of the bill on the Establishment of National Commission for the Prohibition of Illegal Importation of Small Arms, Ammunition and Light Weapons into law. For him, timely passage of the bill will checkmate the deployment of illegally acquired weapons by politicians during the forthcoming elections.

He also listed other advantages of the bill to include stemming electoral malpractices and associated violence, creation of jobs in the local government areas and eradication of all forms of criminality thus attracting foreign investors.

There are two strands of issues raised by the DG. The first is the acquisition and stockpiling of arms and ammunition including police and army uniforms by governors and sundry politicians to be given to youths to levy violence during the elections. The other is the justification for the passage of the bill on the establishment of a national commission for the prohibition of illegal importation of small arms, ammunition and light weapons.

Given the way the DG presented his case, there is the temptation to suspect that his alarm on the acquisition and stockpiling of arms and ammunition by governors and other politicians to subvert free and fair elections is motivated by a desire to drum support for the passage of the bill into law. This is especially so in view of his contention that all that is required to stem illegal arms importation and guarantee violence-free polls is the passage of that bill into law. This claim appears somewhat contentious.

But the controversy raised by the above claim, cannot whittle down the weight of the issues involved in governors stockpiling arms and ammunition for the elections as well as acquiring army and police uniforms to compromise its outcome. The matter deserves all the seriousness since the DG appears very certain of his claims. The puzzle remains how these arms and ammunition that seemingly escaped the prying eyes of our security architecture came to the knowledge of the DG? The poser is reinforced given that security issues of this magnitude are so critical to escape our security agencies. Or is it a case of connivance and collaboration?

Though we are yet to be told the governors involved in this illegal activity, it will be too risky to dismiss the allegations given previous elections that were marred by violence and intimidation of voters by people said to be in army and police uniforms. Even now, allegations on the prospects of the coming elections being rigged have been freely traded by the opposition. That is why the weighty issues raised by Okereke must be thoroughly investigated and the public made to know their veracity or otherwise.

No doubt, the coming elections are as sensitive as they are crucial given the stakes. The political temperature is very high and care must be taken to avoid incidents and developments that will further heat up the polity. The allegations raised by the DG are bound to have deleterious consequences on the conduct of the elections as voters will be contending with the authenticity or otherwise of those adorning army and police uniforms.

They have also put the integrity and credibility of our governors to serious test. The governors have been cast in the mould of evil elements planning to levy mayhem on their citizens just because they crave to satisfy their vaulting ambitions of winning elections for self-serving purposes. For governors that swore to oath to protect lives and property, it is scandalous they will be the very people to hatch devious plans to annihilate their people. But this may not be entirely surprising if our past political experiences are anything to go by.

That is why the federal government must not brush aside the allegations. It is true governors have immunity and therefore cannot be searched. But other politicians are not so immune to searching and prosecution. The government must therefore get at the bottom of this issue to disabuse minds that the coming elections will be highly violent. Of course, such confidence building measures are indispensable in enhancing the overall outcome of the election.

Beyond this, there is the temptation to suspect that Okereke spoke the way he did to drum support for the establishment of the National Commission on the proliferation of small arms and ammunition. He sees the commission as an antidote to all the security challenges facing the country including kidnapping, armed robbery and banditry. He even envisions the commission as a substitute to state police.

Without delving into the folly of these sweeping claims, it is clear Okereke carried his advocacy to indefensible limits. He even thinks the commission can effectively check all the unwholesome practices associated with our elections if it is established now. The veracity of this claim is hard to fathom. It is also possible his claims that governors are stockpiling arms, police and army uniforms to kit thugs and compromise the elections, may be part of the larger agenda to find justifications for his pet project.

That is why a thorough investigation must be conducted on the matter. For, it stands as an indictment on our security agencies that governors and politicians will be involved in such unpatriotic and illegal activity without their knowledge. Or do we assume the information was availed the DG by the relevant security agencies? Whichever the case, we run a colossal risk not getting at the root of the matter.

Beyond this, the issues raised by the DG are not entirely alien to us. That politicians will invent unconventional ways to manipulate election outcome through violence and deployment of thugs are very familiar features of our electioneering process. The use of illegal arms and ammunitions to intimidate and harm voters is also new. What appears very frightening is the alleged active connivance and participation of governors – chief security officers of their respective states in this unwholesome venture. That is the potent danger as we approach the elections.

Outrage over the shutting down of the operational headquarters of the Daily Trust newspaper and its Maiduguri office by operatives of the Nigerian Army is to be expected. It is perhaps, the first time since the return of democracy in 1999 that the army has engaged in the Gestapo action of invading a newspaper house; shutting it down, carting away computer equipments and hauling some of the editors into detention.

It immediately struck as a throwback to the sad experiences of the military era when it was a fad for the army and other security agencies to invade and shut down media houses under very flimsy allegations. With the return of democracy and the presumed subsuming of all institutions to the norms of civil governance, the expectation was that all that had become history.

Alas, that optimism was severely jolted as the army took laws in their hands and re-enacted those ugly experiences that our people had since thrown to the dustbin of history. Those who have criticized the invasion are by no means implying that the newspaper house cannot infringe on the laws of the land. No! But where there is suspected infringement on the law, due process should be followed in resolving whatever issue in dispute. The resort to self-help accounts for the criticisms that trailed the invasion.

The army has alleged that it took the said action because the newspaper house revealed military plans of an impending onslaught on the Boko Haram insurgents. In a statement by its spokesman, Brigadier General Sani Usman, Nigerian Army said the action followed the publication of a lead story in penultimate Sunday’s edition which undermined national security. It said the story “disclosed details of planned military operations against Boko Haram terrorists”.

The said publication they further claimed, afforded the Boko Haram terrorists prior notice of military plans, giving them early warning to prepare against the Nigerian military and it amounted to sabotaging the planned operations and putting the lives of the troops in imminent and clear danger. The army may be within its rights in these claims. The attempt here is not to dispute the propriety or otherwise of the claim that the publication undermined national security. It is also not to absolve the newspaper house from the weighty allegations. Not when the minister of information, Lai Mohammed acquiesced with the claims of the army when at a media briefing he posed two rhetorical questions: What is so compelling in publishing a report that compromises national security? What is so compelling in publishing a report that puts our troops in harm’s way?

Implicit in the two questions is the fact that Mohammed agrees that the publication carries the same effect with the reasons the army adduced for their action. But all that still remain the opinion of the establishment. At best, they are allegations only the courts of competent jurisdiction can determine in a democratic setting.

Mohammed appeared to have inched closer to the contradiction thrown up by the matter when he said the media must strike a balance between the constitutionally guaranteed freedom to receive and impart information and national security. We cannot agree any less on the last assertion. But where conflict arises, due process should be followed in its resolution. That appears to be the point of departure.

Beyond this, the substantive issues surrounding the publication of the story and the subsequent invasion have yet to be addressed by the action of the army. How come the newspaper got to know the critical details of the plan by the military to attack the Boko Haram insurgents? Who gave the reporters such details that amounted to divulging secret plans of the army thus forewarning the insurgent to prepare for the attack thereby exposing our soldiers to grave risk? And what was the intention in divulging such classified information to news hunters if not for publication?

These posers seek urgent answers. And the way they are resolved may well aid our understanding of the real issues to the publication. The puzzle is why the newspaper house went ahead to publish a story that allegedly compromised national security if the editor of the publication read such meaning into it? But the latter poser cannot be meaningfully resolved without establishing the source and motive for the leakage of the story.

Given that the army has seemingly confirmed the authenticity of the report, it is only reasonable to expect that the story must have emanated from those involved in the planning of military attacks within the hierarchy of the command waging the war against the Boko Haram insurgency. For, all that can be discerned from what the army said was a confirmation that the story contained vital information on the planned attack. The source of the leakage is the key issue for the army to unravel.

Or is it a case of moles within the military as has been severally alleged in the past? Whatever it is, it has become imperative that the army must re-examine itself in this very difficult asymmetric warfare. It must take a closer look at its officers and men to find out if there are moles working at cross purpose with the task of getting rid of the insurgents. It is also time to re-examine whether there are vested interests who have sworn to see the insurgency continue unabated.

With the worsening security situation in the northeast, it will be a grave risk not to unravel the source of the oxygen that reactivated the Boko Haram insurgency to such deadly feats that have rattled the military. It is also becoming clearer that the military is increasingly getting very sensitive and impatient with the progress of the war.

This impatience first manifested in their reactions to the observations of Amnesty International (AI) on human rights abuses in the prosecution of the war. The army had called for the closure of the offices of AI in Nigeria alleging that it has credible information that the organization is working hard to destabilize the country through the fabrication of fictitious allegations of human rights abuses against the security forces.

Before then, it had also announced the sacking of UNICEF from the war theatres in the northeast. It alleged UNICEF was engaged in the training of selected persons for clandestine activities to sabotage the counter terrorism efforts of the troops through spurious and unconfirmed allegations bothering on alleged human right violation by the military. Curiously, they were quick to reverse themselves within 24 hours citing appeals from well meaning people and stakeholders.

A common denominator in these three incidents is the issue of sabotage. The newspaper house allegedly sabotaged a planned military attack by exposing military plans and strategy thereby forewarning the insurgents to prepare for the attacks. Both AI and UNICEF were also entangled in the sabotage claims for bandying allegations bothering on human rights abuses by the Nigerian military.

The sequence of these events seems to suggest that the military is getting increasingly impatient and sensitive with activities of groups and individuals as they relate to the prosecution of the war on insurgency. The reason for this is not hard to fathom. With renewed daring escapades of the Boko Haram insurgents resulting in high casualties and the displacement of locals, those who have borne the brunt of the war these past years, are bound to be worried.

This is especially so given that earlier narratives on the state of that war are fast being contradicted by the resurging lethality of the insurgents. In such a circumstance, it will not be a surprise if the military high command is somewhat impatient and nervous with actions or inactions that appear to stultify the overall progress of the war.  Even then, they must guard against overreacting and fighting imaginary enemies as is apparent from their recent posturing.

The extraordinary security meeting convened by Governor Kashim Shettima of Borno State has again brought to the fore, the slide in the security situation in that state. The broad-based meeting brought together security agencies, the media, traditional rulers, legal practitioners and road transport workers among others to fashion out ways to contain the Boko Haram insurgency.

Of recent, there have been coordinated attacks, killings and capture of territories including military formations by the Boko Haram insurgents. This has in turn triggered influx of displaced people to Maiduguri, the state capital to seek refuge from the terrorists’ onslaughts.

The meeting was thus to seek synergy and evolve proactive responses to the worsening security situation in the state. But it also exposed the frustrations of Shettima with the increasing resilience of the Boko Haram insurgents which the federal government claimed to have technically defeated since December 2015.

Shettima’s predicaments are evident not only in the excuses he offered for not criticizing the Buhari administration’s handling of the war but also in his explanations on why he did not get on well with the Jonathan regime. They are also evident in his personal disposition to the overall conduct of the war which he described as that of ‘incurable optimism’ even when facts on the ground should give him sufficient cause to worry.

In justifying his antagonism to the Jonathan regime’s handling of the insecurity vis-à-vis his inability to speak up against the current regime even when increasing damage is being wrought on the state, he said he was treated as an enemy of the presidency during that regime. But since Buhari assumed power, he has had unfettered access to the president who listens to his complaints and takes measures to address them unlike the previous administration. For him, he has not had any reason to be frustrated with the presidency unlike the previous regime.

Evident from the reasons for the extraordinary security meeting and Shettima’s justification of the role he previously played, is his increasing frustrations with the overall situation of the war. This is self evident. Its corollary is that contrary to the impression we had hitherto been given, Boko Haram insurgency is far from being defeated and decimated. Not with increasing attacks that have led to the fleeing of hundreds of people to the state capital. Not with the increasing tenacity and lethal capacity of the insurgents to confront our soldiers resulting in high casualty levels and the carting away of their arms and ammunitions.

The target of the meeting was therefore to sensitize the people of the state and get their cooperation to the reality of the lingering insurgency. It was an admission that the overall picture of the war is not as comfortable as had been painted. This is also obvious from Shettima’s preference for optimism instead of realism as the situation demanded.

But any optimism that ignores extant realities on the ground, translates to foolhardiness. That he had not criticized the current regime’s handling of the war because he has unfettered access to the presidency even when his people are dying smacks of insincerity of the highest order.

It is clear Shettima is not satisfied with the progress of the war. He admits the huge sacrifice of the military, the efforts of the presidency and his state. But the reality is that all this fell short of what is required to bequeath lasting peace to that region. It is also clear that his desire not to hand over the subsisting insecurity to his successor is fast turning out a pipe dream.

Even with the gaps and obvious cover ups in the arguments of Shettima, his frustrations can still be empathized with. That he summoned courage to engage the public on some of these nagging issues perhaps is an admission of his earlier mistakes. We say this because of the scandalous politicization of the war on insurgency before the current regime assumed the mantle of leadership. We are all privy to embarrassing inability of our leaders to form national consensus on the justification for the war.

We are no less privy to the dangerous deployment of the war to nurture partisan interests. We also how some key elements in the north sabotaged that war through baseless allegations that not only demoralized the soldiers but made it difficult for their commanders to maintain discipline among the rank and file.

It cannot be forgotten in a hurry the tendentious and inflammatory statements of former governor of Adamawa State, Muritala Nyako that the war was a contrivance by the Jonathan regime to depopulate the north. Nyako in his controversial letter to northern governors went at length to discredit that war and its prosecution. Shettima was not known to have condemned that disastrous outing by Nyako.  Neither did we see any serious reprimand from the northern elite.

So if he did not have robust relationship with the last regime, the reasons are very obvious. At any rate, he was part of that regime until he defected to the opposition. It is inconceivable that the Jonathan regime could have given him unfettered access to the seat of power under extant realities. So the blame should be shared by both parties. It will not be surprising if the dispositions of Shettima during the Jonathan regime had much in common with the campaign to bring down that regime.

By the same logic, his inability to criticize the Buhari regime is largely because he is part and parcel of that government. His subdued silence can be understood especially given claims bandied that the insurgents have been decimated; cannot muster the capacity to attack military formations and are in their dying days for resorting to attacking soft targets. It would have been inconceivable for him to have come up to debunk these claims given the primacy of security in the campaign manifesto of the ruling party.

But with the resurgence of the lethality of the insurgents, their unlimited and surprising capacity to sustain attacks, Shettima appears to have been entangled in a fix. He either acquiesces with government’s claims that the war has been won or the reality of the sufferings of his people occasioned by the raging war. By convening that meeting, he appeared to have opted to identify with his people. But in doing this, he has to invent justifications for his actions. That accounts for his strident efforts to justify his dispositions to that war both during the Jonathan regime and now. That is also the basis for his claims that he was treated as a pariah during the previous regime as against the accommodation accorded him in the current one. So how do we expect him to criticize Buhari? How do we expect him to fault a key programme of an administration he is part of even if the issues presented are at variance with facts on the ground?

He does not need to bother us with trite and puerile excuses. He needs no explanations for the positions he took. The reason for his action is not hard to fathom as it is in the nature of partisan politics. It is also very evident in his subdued presentation of the actual security situation in that part of the country. But the tone of the meeting gave out the desperate situation which the raging insecurity in that state represents.

Shettima’s predicaments denote an uncanny paradox. It is a paradox of the negative politics and trivialization of serious national issues to satisfy objectives of parochial and self-serving nature. It is the logical protuberance of our inability to form national consensus on serious issues of our collective existence. He is an inevitable victim of the monsters we created which have turned round to haunt us.

It is hoped a hard lesson has been learnt. Beyond this, we need to unravel the enigma the Boko Haram insurgency denotes. We are yet to unravel what Boko Haram really represents, the source of their funding, where they are based and their key Nigerian sponsors. For as long as we are unable to get at the root of all this, so long will the insecurity in the north east remain an albatross.

The zone to which the presidency of this country will rotate in 2023 has seemingly assumed a major issue in the current electioneering campaign calculations. This is sequel to recurring statements on the issue from key personages of the current regime.

Vice President, Yemi Osinbajo told the people of southwest recently that voting for President Buhari in the February election would enhance the chances of the zone in producing his successor in 2023. “The 2019 election is our own. We are not looking at 2019 but 2023. If we get it in 2019, Yoruba will get it in 2023”, he said.

Before him, minister for works, Babatunde Fashola had at least in two different occasions spoken in the same vein. He shares the belief that the southwest will secure the presidential ticket of his party if they vote overwhelmingly for Buhari in the coming election.

But the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Boss Mustapha envisions a different scenario and would prefer the southeast to clinch the presidential ticket in 2023. He had said, “the presidency of Nigeria is negotiable and can only be done on the position of strength and the strength of the Igbo will be determined by their 2019 support for Buhari”. He had asked the people of the zone to vote for Buhari in the coming election and stand a good chance of producing the president when he would have completed his second term.

Some other chieftains of the party in the southeast have variously canvassed the same idea. They see voting for Buhari for a second term as the shortest and surest route for the zone to secure the presidency that had eluded them before now. All these have been traded with varying degrees of plausibility.

Expectedly, the issue has drawn mixed reactions. Some have interpreted the statements as a contradiction of sorts given that it is neigh impossible for both zones to secure the same ticket at the same time. Definitely, the ticket of the ruling party can only be given to one zone.  So why promise two zones the same ticket when only one of them will eventually get it?

But irrespective of this seeming contradiction in promising two zones the presidential ticket in 2023, the fact remains that ticket will devolve to the south of the country given the zoning arrangement of the political parties. So those making the promises to the southwest and the southeast are not really saying anything novel. That the south-south has been left out of the calculations is quite understandable. The zone just finished tenure before Buhari assumed power.

So why has it become a bait of sorts for key personages of this regime to cajole both zones with the ticket? Or put differently, why not go straight and precise on which of the two zones the presidency will naturally devolve? The answer to the last poser can be located in the nature and dynamics of partisan politics. By 2023, the north would have concluded two terms if Buhari wins the presidential election.

Going by the zoning arrangement, power will devolve to the south if that happens. Both the southeast and southwest will be entitled to vie for that position even as the southwest has had eight year tenure during the regime of Obasanjo. All things being equal, the southeast ought to stand a better chance given that it has never had a shot at that coveted office since the return of democracy in 1999.

The snag there is that the southeast zone did not give high votes to the ruling party in the last elections. That may account for the cacophony of voices on which zone the presidency will go should Buhari secure a second tenure. That also accounts for the pressure being mounted by officials of the government on both zones to vote heavily for the ruling party.

Since only one of the zones will definitely get the ticket, the net effect of these persuasions will be a swing of votes heavily to side of the ruling party. That will result in overall electoral victory for the ruling party. With victory on their side, the decision on which of the two zones to zone the presidency will then be determined. If statements from Osinbajo and Mustapha are anything to repose confidence on, the zone with the highest number of votes will be given the presidential ticket. Thus, votes cast by the contending zones will be the major determinant rather than such indices as equity, balance and fairness to all segments of the country. How fair that will be to the southeast given extant political realities is a matter of conjecture.

But then, what is the root of the high premium we attach to the presidency? Is the impression being conveyed that the zone from which the president comes will benefit disproportionately in the allocation of the nation’s resources? Or will that translate to high standard of living for his constituents in the fashion of what Richard Joseph referred to as prebendal politics? Does our experience from the pattern of past leaderships in the country support the notion that there is usually a high level of development and improved standard of living in the zones from which the occupant of that position comes?

Our experience speaks to the contrary.  Unarguably, the northern parts of the country are still today among the least developed. That accounts for the rising insecurity in that zone. The Boko Haram insurgency, the constant religion-induced crisis and the wanton clashes resulting to avoidable deaths that have been the sad tale of the north, have their roots in poverty and underdevelopment. Yet, that geo-political zone has dominated the leadership of this county since independence.

If with years of domination of the nation’s leadership the north remains largely poor and impoverished, it would seem not much will change in the lives of peoples of the southeast or southwest even when one of them secures that ticket. What should be of serious consideration is the ability and capacity of that leader to perform in all fairness to the constituents irrespective of the accident of his birth place.

Beyond this, the system needs further adjustments and overhaul. It has to be organized in such a manner that offers citizens unfettered rights to maximize their potentials without let or hindrance. Such a system must offer the various components the opportunity to develop at their own pace without being dragged down by the inadequacies and shortcomings of other sections. These are the things to consider without prejudice to the imperative to give all the opportunity to have a shot at the presidency. That has been the greatest attraction of the agitation for restructuring. With restructuring and devolution of powers, the over-concentration of powers at the centre with its resultant bitter competition for power usually accentuated by statements from the likes of Osinbajo and Mustapha will be substantially stymied. Also the high level of corruption in the country will be reduced.

So it is not enough to entice the southeast with the presidency come 2023. They may well get it without any particular positive benefit to the area. And as we have seen from sections that have occupied that office, the majority of their people have nothing to show for it. It is largely the elite that remain the greatest beneficiaries. Former President Jonathan was there for six years and after his departure, he is being blamed for not improving the lot of his people. I do not know how much President Buhari’s regime has impacted positively on the lot of the average northerner.

The much touted president from the southeast may not even fare any better. In fact, his regime may not even benefit his constituents as he will be contending with the challenge of trying to appease other segments apparently to justify the rare opportunity and seeming favour given to him. People of the southeast may end up the loser. What the zone requires is an equitable, fair and all accommodating system that allows them the ambience to maximize their potentials to the fullest. So the emphasis on votes as the only basis for having that zone take a shot at the presidency adds up to nothing. At best, it is a vote catching gimmick that ignores subsisting political realities.

Amnesty International, AI’s recent report on farmers’ and herders’ conflict in parts of the country must have rattled the government in no small measure. This can be discerned from reactions from the presidency and the Nigerian Army.

In a report titled, Nigeria: “The Harvest of Death”, AI documented clashes between farmer communities and herders in the country particularly in the northern parts of the country over access to resources, water, land and pasture. It also showed the failure of the government in fulfilling its constitutional role of protecting lives and property by refusing to arrest, investigate and prosecute perpetrators of the attacks.

The report further documented how governments’ inaction fuels impunity resulting in attacks and reprisal attacks with at least 3,641 people killed between January 2016 and October. Fifty-seven per cent of the deaths according to the report occurred in 2018 alone.

The government did not hide its distaste for the report as it accused AI of bias and misrepresentation of facts. In its initial hurried reaction, government claimed it was now waging the war on terrorism in two fronts; one against the Boko Haram insurgency and the other against Amnesty International. But in a second and more detailed one, it took time to examine some of the conclusions of AI agreeing in some cases especially where it considered its interest served.

But that was after the country chair of the organization had repudiated the allegations levied against them by both the government and the army and urged them to read the conclusions and recommendations to have a more informed view of its content. It would appear that advice was well taken which may have accounted for the second reaction from the presidency.

The Nigerian Army had called for the closure of the offices of AI in the country alleging it has credible evidence the organization is working hard to destabilize the country through the fabrication of allegations on human rights abuses against the security forces. They also alleged the organization had engaged in clandestine sponsorship of dissident groups for protests.

A couple of days earlier, the same Nigerian Army had suspended UNICEF from all its activities in the northeast alleging the organization was sabotaging counter terrorism efforts of troops through “spurious and unconfirmed allegations bordering on alleged human rights violations by the military. It also accused UNICEF of engaging in the training of selected persons for clandestine activities to continue sabotaging the counter-terrorism efforts.

The army was quick to reverse themselves within 24 hours on the suspension of UNICEF activities citing appeals from stakeholders and well-meaning Nigerians. But the harm has already been done. The allegations were too weighty that we were taken aback by the sudden reversal of the suspension order. The impression created by the turn of events is that the issue is not as serious as it was presented.

The panicky reaction of the government was not entirely unexpected. Given the on-going electioneering campaigns and the primacy of security issues in the calculations of the Buhari regime, any report that seeks to detract from the touted successes recorded by the government in that area, is bound to ruffle feathers. The government is also bound to be worried by both by the timing of the report and the huge casualty figures bandied.

Before now, the actual casualty statistics in the farmers’ and herders’ clashes has been within the realm of speculation with the government for very obvious reasons, striving to keep it as low as possible. The period under survey, coincides with the very active years of this administration.

It is therefore considered a big statement if 3,641 people lost their lives as a result of these clashes with 57 per cent of the deaths occurring this year alone. Its purport is not in doubt even as it can be admitted that the killings have decreased in the last two months or so.  So the government has good reasons to worry about the verdict of Amnesty International on farmers’ and herders’ clashes. For one, the opposition is likely to make political capital of that report. And it has even manifested in a statement issued from the media office of the presidential candidate of the PDP. There has also curiously been a counter reaction from an unusual quarter, the leadership of the cattle breeders association.

Beyond this however, there is not much in the observations and conclusions of the report that is substantially different from the information already in the public space. The inability of the government and security agencies to find a handle to the mindless killings has been serially evident in the recurring attacks and displacement of locals especially in Benue, Nassarawa and Plateau states. Neither is it new that even in cases where information of imminent attacks was availed security agencies, they still failed to take the necessary steps to forestall them.

There are a good number of such instances. In Benue, the state governor has not left anyone in doubt that he knows the purveyors of the killings. He had on many instances mentioned names. Yet, those people are neither known to have been arrested or interrogated. It still remains curious that the attackers could operate with near invincibility levying incalculable harm on innocent people without being unmasked by the security agencies.

Before now, not a few Nigerians believed the killings could have continued, if security agencies were alive to their statutory responsibilities of protecting lives and property. Frustrations arising from the inability of the government to rein the insurgents in the face of the dastardly and inhuman killings compelled a former Chief of Army Staff, Theophilus Danjuma to accuse the military of aiding and abetting the killings. The issues raised by Danjuma are well documented and are weightier than the contents of the reports of AI.

So the solution to these negative verdicts does not lie in panicky reactions from either the government or the army. It does not lie in diatribe as to the causality figures arising from the conflict. Neither will the new fad of accusing these organizations of either sabotage or sponsoring terrorism be of any help. It goes beyond all that.

More fundamentally, the army has to be more circumspect in its reactions on issues involving these international organizations. It is somewhat troubling that within 24 hours, it suspended UNICEF and reversed itself. And in another three days or so, it called for the shutting down of AI’s offices in the country for similar alleged infractions. And when you look at the reasons adduced, they all hinge on alleged release of information on human rights abuses by these organizations against the Nigerian security forces.

At issue in all this, is the discomfort of the army with the verdict of these organizations on its human rights profile. So UNICEF had to be suspended on allegations of trying to destabilize the country for portraying the human rights record of the army in bad light. The same goes for AI whose report indicted the army for not proactively averting the clashes between farmers and herders.

There is nothing wrong if the army has credible information on the alleged infractions. After all, our national interest must take precedence overall other interests. It is also not uncommon that some of these international institutions have hidden agenda that run at cross purposes with our national interest. Where that is found to be the case, the army would be living to its responsibilities to have acted the way it did.

But events do not appear to have borne this position out especially given that nothing has come out of the weighty allegations that have been traded. It is even better the allegations were not made at all than allow them die the way they have. When next the army makes such allegations, they run the risk of not being taken seriously.

Overall, our military must take another look at their human rights profile. And as a proverb says, when a crying child consistently points at a particular direction, it is either you find his father or mother in that direction. This is thought for food!

The sudden rise in Boko Haram attacks culminating in the killing of scores of our soldiers at their Metele camp Borno State has again, brought to front burner the potent danger of the lingering Insurgency. By the account of the Chief of Army Staff Tukur Buratai, only 23 soldiers were killed in the attack while 31 others were wounded in action. This contradicts the huge casualty figures that had been in public space in the last one week or so.

Before the deadly encounter, the insurgents had by military records also mounted serious attacks on Borno villages of Kukawa, Ngoshe, Kareto and Gajiram. The army said 16 military personnel were killed and 12 wounded in the attacks in these villages with the insurgents suffering heavy casualties. They also admitted increasing daring onslaughts by the terrorists to the extent of employing the services of drones and mercenaries.

This is against what we had been made to believe all this while. Before now, we have been treated to such tales as the war has been technically won, the capacity of the insurgents have been so degraded that they can no longer mount serious attacks against military formation and that they no longer control any of our territories.

The emerging startling disclosures seem to have put a lie to all that. It would appear the army has been compelled by events of the recent attacks to reverse all that narrative. In the wake of the Metele attack, allegations of lack of and inadequate fighting equipment by soldiers; the demoralizing effects it has on their operational efficiency coupled with their poor welfare status were freely bandied. So also was the staggering figure of the casualty level in the attack attributed to ill-equipment and low morale among our fighting forces. Yet, $1 billion was earmarked sometime ago for the purchase of arms and ammunitions for the soldiers.

Expectedly, the Metele encounter attracted considerable public outcry given some of the issues placed in the public space suggesting the killings could have been avoided had our leaders done the needful. It was little surprising that soon after, the matter became a subject of high wire politics. The coincidence of the date of the attack and subsequent killings with the unveiling of President Buhari’s 2019 campaign programme – the ‘Next Level’ where some service chiefs made surprising appearances seemed to have ignited the politicization of the matter.

Taking advantage of the presence of those military bigwigs at that political event, the opposition came down heavily on them for allowing their elated offices to be dragged into the murky waters of partisan politics contrary to the apolitical demands of their professional callings.

There were suggestions that the heavy losses the army suffered may have been averted had those military chiefs not been distracted by their attendance of the political event of that day. Whether their presence at that event would have made any difference in the fate of the soldiers that day is a matter of conjecture. But that cannot in any way absolve those service chiefs of the monumental error of judgment in appearing at that obviously partisan political event.

The alibi of presidential aide, Garba Shehu that the service chiefs were mistaken in the assumption that the event was non-political to showcase the achievements of the administration they are part of and that they left even before the president arrived, created more problems than it intended to solve. I guess invitations were served on them for the event. And if at that level, they could not decipher political meaning into that event, it is either they are not fit for the offices they hold, someone somewhere deceived them into assuming it was a non-political event or both.

But at what point did they discover it was political and who politicized an occasion organized by a regime they are part of? This poser underscores most poignantly the point that those military chiefs failed to live up to the bidding of their high offices. It was an outing of disgrace.

Coming close to general elections especially with mounting allegations of increasing complicity and partisanship of security agencies in electoral matters, the conduct of the service chiefs left a sour taste on the mouth. The government has accused opposition of playing politics with the unfortunate death of the soldiers. As they euphemistically put it, the opposition was dancing at the grave of the fallen heroes. So it would seem. But the government is largely to blame for the controversy surrounding both the conduct of the service chiefs and the Metele attacks.

It was not surprising that one of the presidential candidates even demanded the publication of a list of the fallen soldiers. It is not certain what information that candidate is seeking from such a casualty list. But her motive appears to have positive linkage with allegations of skewed deployment of soldiers to the theatres of the Boko Haram insurgency. Perhaps, the publication of such a list would have further polarized opinions given the fault-lines of our federal order. There is no doubt politicians took advantage of the latest attack the attendant high casualty figures to get even with the government.

But this should not be surprising. Before now, we have been witnesses to serial attempts to make political capital of the on-going war against terrorism. In the build up to the 2015 elections, the war was so politicized that it became difficult for any form of national consensus to build around it. Those who wanted the then government in power to go by all means, read sinister meanings to any and every attempt to evolve the right options to end the difficult asymmetrical war.

We have not forgotten in a hurry some of the statements credited to key personages of the current regime. But the letter a former governor of Adamawa State, Murtala Nyako sent to northern governors in which he bandied very destructive and tendentious allegations on the motive of the war stood out in capturing the very negative and dangerous politics the war on insurgency faced during that period. Nyako had among other asinine allegations claimed the war was a contrivance of the Jonathan regime to depopulate the north. Nothing could exacerbate and complicate the prosecution of that war more than such outlandish and very divisive claims. Nyako knew his allegations were baseless but as long as they served his sectional political interest, the end had justified the means.

One is not quite certain what would be the reaction of the current regime were such a letter to be authored by an opposition figure now. So the fuzz about the politicization of the recent killings cannot even equate with the reckless claims and banal sentiments embodied in Nyako’s letter. And he got away with it. But he succeeded in creating a monster. He was definitely not alone in his views as it is not on record that northern political elite dissociated themselves from the views.

The interest the killings garnered can also be assessed from the claims hitherto bandied by the government on the exact status of the war. The sudden realization that the insurgents can still muzzle unlimited capacities to inflict heavy collateral damage on our soldiers, contrary to the impression hitherto bandied must have jolted not a few Nigerians. It detracted substantially from touted attacks on soft targets that are often rationalized as evidence of a decimated force in the last days of their capitulation. It was a reinvigorated insurgency that overpowered and killed our soldiers in a manner never witnessed in the war on terrorism in that part of the country. It was a sad spectacle to behold- one that ruffled sensibilities and rightly led to interrogation of government claims on the exact status of that war.

The shifting of the chief of army staff conference to Maiduguri; cancellation of the president’s casual leave, his visit to injured soldiers and convening of the meeting of heads of state and government of the Lake Chad Basin Commission are responses to this interrogation. It is not surprising the meeting resolved to change tactics in the prosecution of the war.

But, the government must resist the lure of hurriedly seeking cheap political points by laying claims to outlandish successes often contradicted by emerging facts. For, as long as it continues to lay claim to successes that are at variance with emerging facts, so long should it be prepared for unfavorable public verdict.