The Nation Newspaper

Category: Emeka Omeihe

Before we perish

All signs of a self-fulfilling prophesy are now here: fears of unimaginable proportion, mutual accusations and blames among groups and individuals against themselves and institutions of governance. We are also host to schism within the political class and increasing doubt on the capacity of the centre to hold any more.

Critical institutions of government are under attack for real or trumped up charges. And general confidence in these institutions has come under very serious doubt such that forebodes danger for our collective wellbeing. Ironically, these foreboding signals fit into the prediction of a group of Americans who had before now, foretold that this country would beak up this year. Call it prophesy that is about to play out and one will not be completely wrong.

Though the authorities had dismissed this doomsday prediction, events have moved in such a sequence to suggest that it can no longer be considered the handiwork of some lazy forecasters or an exercise in wishful thinking. Curiously, those who were quick to dismiss the forecast then, have found themselves irretrievably at the centre of events that may bring about this pass.

Every body is talking tough; passion very high. There are hard line positions and every body seems to have lost control over statements that can hold this country together and the ones that will further compound our problems of common existence. It has become increasingly difficult to make a difference between statesmen and the ordinary man on the streets who is often propelled by emotions.

Those who ought to be seen as such have been drawn into the fray and there seems to be nobody to call the other to order. Never in the history of electioneering campaigns in this country have Nigerians been so divided and torn apart by its likely outcome. Critical institutions of the government are not spared in this bashing: the military, the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC and the government of the day.

The impartiality of the INEC, the military, the Police and even the Judiciary has been put into serious doubt. And all these are taking place in very quick succession at the eve of a general election. The idea of an interim government has been bandied while the prospect of a military coup has also been touted for the same uncertain circumstances. Out there, the Boko Haram insurgency is wreaking havoc with unimaginable toll in human and material resources.

Caution appears to have been thrown to the dogs and all those supposed to be the conscience of the nation have taken sides. These are definitely very trying times and if care is not taken, this country may be heading for the worse.

At the centre of the impending danger is the issue of power shift or power sharing among the disparate groups. Before now, there have been threats and counter threats as to the consequences that await the nation should any of the contending interests fail to have one of theirs clinch the nation’s highest political office. And in a zero sum game of this nature, only one person will ultimately win. Elections have been postponed for six weeks for two basic reasons. The first is the inability of the electoral body to get the Permanent Voters’ Cards PVC’s to a majority of voters across the country. There was also the security dimension. In this wise, references were made to the prospects of outbreak of violence due to the likely disenfranchisement of a large chunk of registered voters. There was also the issue of concluding some military operations in the north-east which the military high command said they were about to embark upon. Such an engagement in their calculations, would largely constrain them from the usual logistic support they offer the INEC during elections.

But that has not been all. Accusations have been bandied and motives imputed for the shift. And given that the elections were barely a week away when they were postponed, the frustrations of those simulating hidden motives for the shift can be understood.

But as the nation was about to come to terms with this reality, a spanner was hurled unto the wheels when former President Olusegun Obasanjo re-opened the matter levelling sundry allegations against President Jonathan and the military. He alleged that Jonathan was not only planning to win the election by “hook and crook” but to use the service chiefs to prolong his regime.

He cast serious slur on the role of the military arguing that they were manipulated by the Jonathan regime to postpone the election and questioned the claim that the period would be used to quell the Boko Haram insurgency that has defied the military these past years.

The defence headquarters felt so piqued by these allegations that they had to join issues with Obasanjo contending that much of his recent utterances are either motivated by the desire to play to the gallery or for self-serving ends.

What is important here is not as much with the utterances of Obasanjo; the schism within the political class or the mutual recrimination that has become the order of the day. The thing that should concern all is the logical outcome of this whirlwind we are about to unleash unto this country. Do we have the capacity to control its devastation when once it has been activated? And are we really prepared for whatever may turn out to be its logical outcome? In effect, it is not enough to bandy damaging allegations; it is not enough to threaten fire, lime and brimstone should this or that happen. It is also not enough to simulate the worst case scenario or prop up dangerous propositions if certain events go in certain directions.

The thing to examine is the larger prospects of unguarded utterances, allegations and all that; the net effects of discrediting critical institutions of governance and what they portend for the peace and stability of this country. We need to consider what would be the effect of the attempt to have the citizenry lose confidence in the military, the INEC, the police and the judiciary especially in an election year.

There is the overriding need to give thought to a situation where the electoral body’s credibility to organize free and fair elections has been seriously questioned if not damaged. How acceptable will the elections which it is about to organize be? And what are the likely consequences of a highly disputed and rancorous election?

There is the imperative to examine the larger consequences of casting the military institution as a compromised body that now does the bidding of the government in power. Suggestions about military take over or the idea of an interim government that has surprisingly surfaced also need to be seriously studied.

We may also need to pause and consider whether we are not unleashing a chain of events whose outcome may eventually overwhelm this country. These are the issues to ponder in the current circumstance the nation has irretrievably been entangled.

It is important to examine whether the social dynamics of history has not been so activated that it must run its full course. Are those activating these processes prepared for the larger repercussions of the dialectics that is currently at play? Are they aware that the forces of historical materialism can drive them into oblivion? And have they considered the likely direction of spontaneous change or revolt arising from disenchantment with the establishment.

There are accusations and counter accusations of corruption among the contending political parties. The fight against the scourge has become an election issue. This would seem alluring given the pervasiveness of the phenomenon. How we wish corruption can be fought in all its ramifications and all those who stole our money made to account for their ill-gotten wealth at the expense of the toiling masses. That would mark a new beginning for this country.

But this presupposes the coming elections are largely free and fair and their outcome generally acceptable. That is where the real problem hinges. The way things stand there is every reason to believe there will be protests and possible violence irrespective of who wins the presidential election. The outcome of the election has already been badly encumbered such that which ever way it goes, we are definitely heading for the worst case scenario. That is the real danger in the unguarded accusations and counter accusations against critical institutions of governance. It would appear to me that this country needs some form of intervention to redirect us from the perilous path we are heading to. What that intervention is and the form it will take is best known to the Almighty God. But the danger ahead is very certain and some form of intervention is inevitable to reverse the slide to the precipice.

February 23, 2015
Re: Fleeing for their lives

In this column last week, I wrote on the title “Fleeing for their lives”. The article which came a few days before the now rescheduled general elections, had examined the seeming tension generated by events of that election. The tension was such that non-indigenes were reported to be fleeing to their ancestral homes for fear that harm my come their way.

The matter generated so much concern that the Inspector General of Police had to intervene, reassuring the people of the capacity and preparedness of the security agencies to protect them wherever they may live. The summation of his message was that people should remain wherever they are as the security of their lives and property were assured.

The article had appraised that assurance and its capacity to assuage the sensibilities of those fleeing. We had also looked at the phenomenon of people fleeing to their home states for fear of being attacked by their hosts; what these portends for nation-building and whether the outcome of the coming elections will have any direct bearing in redressing this fear.

The summation of our position was that those things that give rise to the feeling that indigenes will vent their spleen on non-indigenes at the slightest provocation are the greatest challenges holding this country down. And as long as we have not shown any serious commitment to addressing them, so long will the problems of this country remain a recurring decimal.

Elections may be won and lost. Those who win or lose may not make any real difference if there is little or no commitment on their own part to consign this “us versus them” syndrome to the dustbin of history. Our fears were heightened by the fact that the coming elections are rather raising these fears of insecurity, ethnic and primordial sensibilities to an all time high. The language of political discourse has not helped matters as we are inundated with threats from various groups and ethnic nationalities on the dire consequences that await the nation should one of theirs in the race for the presidency fail to win that election. So much have these threats raised fears that there are now speculations that this country may implode after the elections. And we ask, is election an end unto itself or a means to satisfy public good. If it is to attend to public good, why are people fleeing to their ancestral lands? And can we really build a united nation when these ethnic and primordial sensibilities have been reinforced by the unbridled quest by the constituent units for power at the center.

One of my readers Adeniyi Akintola SAN was so moved by the issues raised by that write-up that he took time to send me text messages on his views on the matter. I found the views so serious and challenging that they are reproduced here for the benefit of the reading public. Now read on:

“Fleeing they are and they will continue to flee. As it is today, it would be tomorrow until we embrace the two basic gifts to the world by the French which are assimilation and integration”. When you assimilate and integrate into the local culture without looking back into your biological origin, you blend easily and become one of the locals. A Yoruba man living in Enugu who takes delight in celebrating the Oro festival is courting trouble ditto an Igbo resident who loves celebrating new yam or Ofala festival in Lagos has unwittingly set himself apart as a stranger for the day of trouble. The north-western part of the country is a model place of assimilation. The Abubakar Rimis, the Abacha’s, the Abdulkareems and the Adamus, etc assimilated very well into the culture of their place of birth and place of settlement. They propagate the interests and ethos of their place of abode and in some cases became more Catholic than the Pope in defending the interests and aspirations of their locals and their hosts.

They respect the interests and wishes of the locals and never at any time showed any sign of superiority complex over their hosts. They assumed local names and imbibed their traditions. They never at any time looked back at their so-called place of origin. They bid bye, bye to the anachronistic town unions of their places of origin and before long became locals and indigenes of their places of abode. Before long, they were becoming governor in Sokoto, Kano and Kaduna. These people have no other towns, states or region they can flee to.

In contrast, take a look at the settlement pattern of the ethnic nationalities in cities other their ancestral places. They set themselves apart. You hear of Sabo, Sabongari, Alaba, Nassarawa, Gwom and Janpanu in cities as Ibadan, Kano, Lagos, Jos and Sokoto. By these segregated settlements, the ethnic nationalities made themselves sitting duck in the event of the outbreak of violence.

The locals know where the non indigenes reside in large numbers. Most non indigenes monopolize certain trades at the expense of the locals and in some cases the locals are prevented or banned from engaging in those lines of trade. Of course the locals get bottled up and wait for the slightest opportunity for violence to descend on the “outsiders” most of who could have been third or fourth generation settlers.

The truth is that your 200 years of settlement outside the place of your origin is not a safety valve. If in doubt, ask the Yorubas of Jos, the Igbos of Kano and the Hausas of Onitsha. Outside Nigeria, ask the British Asians of Uganda, the British farmers of Zimbabwe or even the Nigerian of Yoruba extraction in Ghana in the sixties. Even as late as 2013, the Mayor of London was heard complaining of the overbearing and domineering attitude of Nigerian settlers in South East London.

Yet some Nigerians especially of Yoruba extraction are fourth, fifth or even sixth generation settlers there. But the fact remains that their respect for the locals are waning and their domineering attitudes are becoming too glaring to be condoned by the locals. The Pakistanis of East London just like their Nigerian counterparts are no better. This has made the British authorities to be paying more than a passing interest to these “settlers”. The Aborigines of Australia are now becoming more vocal and a threat to the settlers. All over the world, the trend is to go local. Every one is a local champion. The antidote to this madness is to assimilate with the locals. Eat their food, wear their clothes, imbibe their culture and possibly religion, assume the local names, shun tribal associations and affiliations of ancestral homes and build a nation of common interest instead of that of ethnic nationalities. After all if you are in Rome you behave like a Roman. Those who think they can defend themselves in another man’s territory are deluding themselves.

Ask the white South Africans of the apartheid era, the British Asian of Uganda or better still the Yorubas or Igbos of Jos and Kano respectively. They had their noses bruised and seriously too during the various attacks on “outsiders” in 2001, 2002, 2003 and up till 2011.

The security system that could not guarantee the safety of the INEC and the electorate cannot be trusted with the lives of helpless settlers who are scattered around the nooks and corners of this country. If you are a settler or outsider assimilate fast or get perished with your investments in foreign land. For now, fleeing, we must all. To your tents all settlers until we meet after the April elections”.

February 16, 2015
Fleeing for their lives

All things being equal, the Presidential and National Assembly elections will hold this Saturday. There is no cogent reason they should not hold despite suggestions from some quarters that they be postponed due to the inability of the INEC to get all registered voters their Permanent Voters Cards (PVCs)

By now, so much has been put into the elections by the various political parties and their candidates that any further delay will amount to overstretching them both financially and physically. Apart from the wrong signals it will definitely send to the outside world, such a scenario is bound to demoralise not only the candidates but the electorate generally.

The opposition, for justifiable reasons is imputing sinister motives into the development and it is within it rights to do so. The National Council of State has met over the issue. But the buck has stopped at INECs table. The right thing to do in the circumstance is for all those concerned, to do the needful and ensure that all impediments to the smooth conduct of the polls as scheduled are removed.

Already, the political atmosphere has been heated up. There is even apprehension and fear in the land that the worst is about to happen. The feeling is high that the coming elections may make or mar this country. Postponing the polls in this very uncertain circumstance may be the last straw that will break the camel’s back. The authorities may be playing into the hands of those simulating calamity for this country if they go ahead with such a plan. But as it stands, the INEC will have to take responsibility should the election be bungled. That appears to be the unwritten message from the National Council of State meeting.

Moreover, aborting the elections now will be a sad reminder to the inglorious days of the military when elections were postponed, annulled or cancelled all together even when results had been collated. The Ibrahim Babangida regime had an uncanny notoriety in this regard. And we are all witnesses to the unmitigated damage which such precipitate action wrought on our collective psyche. The problem this country still encounters in the area of power shift is in the main, a logical consequence of such misguided interventions in our political process. We can ill-afford a repeat at this point in time.

That however, is not the only source of the foreboding signals that have enveloped the nation. The outcome of the elections, especially the presidential election, is fraught with frightening prospects for the peace order and unity of this country. It has come to mean so many things to so many people. The stakes are very high as sections lay claim to that office as a matter of right and none would let go.

The question on the lips of the discerning is whether this country will survive as a corporate entity after the polls. The situation is not made any easier by the utterances and threats from sundry groups and individuals laying claims to the rights of their zones to occupy that exalted office this time around. Tension and fear have been so much so that we are now regularly inundated with reports of non-indigenes fleeing their residences to their ancestral homes for fear of what is to follow with the elections.

They fear that given the high emotions that have been ruffled by events leading to the elections and the benefit of previous experiences, it is nigh risky to stay outside the place of their primordial attachment during elections. By the same logic, they seem to be saying that it is only within their states of origin that their lives and property can be guaranteed. And this point goes without saying.

The Inspector General of Police was so concerned by reports of the exodus of people especially the northern parts of the country that he had to come public reassuring that measures had been put in place to guarantee their safety wherever they live. The police boss has discharged his duties. But it is left to the people who are fleeing to their home states to believe him or not. It is left to them given the benefit of hindsight to believe whether the police had been a trusted and readily available friend in incidences of mob action and urban violence. The way they perceive their previous encounters with religious or political uprisings will point the direction as to whether they should take the police boss serious or not. And if one may hazard a guess, they are very unlikely to heed his advice and assurances. That is the stark reality.

But that is the real problem this country has to contend with rather than this obsession with which section of the country captures power in the coming elections. That thing which regularly gives rise to the feeling that one is only safe and his live and property better assured within his ethnic origin is the real problem of this country.

It can neither be whittled down nor obliterated by the mere fact of an Ijaw or Hausa-Fulani man emerging victorious in this crucial election. Rather, such feelings are further reinforced and accentuated when elections are fought along ethnic and religious lines as is evident from the current one. It is therefore not enough to ask those fleeing not to do so. It is not also enough to give assurances of their safety when the real causes of their fear are still there.

Those things that make non-indigenes unsafe outside the boundaries of their ethnic origin, those things that mark them out for selective attack each time their hosts feel aggrieved, are the greatest impediment to our national development. They are the things to watch if we are honest with ourselves. And they will continue to be so unless genuine and conscious efforts are made to redress these systemic dysfunctions.

In the past, we have seen non-indigenes suffer heavy losses in lives and property because of mere cartoons in other countries considered irreverent to the faith of some fanatics. It does not matter to the perpetrators and purveyors of violence and hate that those they attack had nothing to do with the said cartoons or alleged acts of ridicule to their faith. It is this unjustifiable penchant for such people to resort to the law of the jungle that compels non-indigenes to flee each time they notice potential sources of schism.

Most of those fleeing are not in doubt that though their ethnic group is not in a direct contest for the presidential slot, they stand the greatest victims of any violence that will follow the outcome of that election. And with threats of dire consequences coming from right, left and centre, the circumstance of those fleeing can be better appreciated.

The Catholic Bishop of Abuja Cardinal John Onaiyekan and the Sultan of Sokoto Alhaji Sa’ad Abubakar were so moved by these fears that they had to issue a joint statement warning that unless urgent steps were taken, the elections might spell crisis for this country. They also warned that religion should not be allowed to divide the country. These warnings are very instructive and are at the root of why people are fleeing.

Implicit in them, is the negative role religion and ethnicity are bound to play in determining the character and direction of the elections. These are the real irritants to contend with. They are at the heart of the progress or lack of it of this country. Elections may be fought and won. But as long as these factors remain irreducible decimals in electoral contests in this country, so long shall this country know no peace.

February 9, 2015
Between Danjuma and militants

Even with the accord by political parties to maintain the peace during and after the elections, signals emanating from the landscape do not give comfort of mind. Not only have there been clear breaches of that agreement by party supporters, there is every thing to indicate that all is not well with us.

Not with the recent stoning of the convoy of President Jonathan in both Katsina, Bauchi and Taraba states and the ensuing recrimination between Bauchi State governor, Isa Yuguda and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory Bala Mohammed on who sponsored the unruly mob that stoned the president.

If such highly placed personages could accuse each other of masterminding that devious attack, it only shows how desperate things have become. It is too early to take sides on the matter. But the fact that such allegations could be traded by members of the same party from the same state is a pointer to some foreboding signals as the elections inch nearer.

Various insinuations could also be made about the development and one may not be out of the track depending on the prism from which the matter is being viewed. But one thing that seems clear is that there are vested interests bent on fomenting trouble within this critical electioneering period to satisfy interests of sectional lure. Rising attacks on party men and their property; tearing of posters and destruction of billboards across the country are all indicative of the foreboding order.

Matters are not helped by threats of the dire consequences that await the nation should certain sections win or lose the election. Before now, the North through sundry groups and individuals had threatened dire consequences should Jonathan run for another term. Then also some ex-militants in the Niger Delta equally warned they would fight if Jonathan was intimidated out of the race. Such had been the mood.

Even former President Olusegun Obasanjo had in his controversial letter to Jonathan warned of severe consequences should he run for the election in defiance of the agreement he purportedly signed with some groups to serve only a single term. With the emergence of Jonathan and Buhari as the candidates of the PDP and APC, it will not be surprising these sentiments are bound to influence the direction the elections assume in the days ahead. The north wants the presidency returned to it. But the South-south would not let go this time around. It wants to complete two terms before power shifts to the north. These facts are not in doubt.

So when Niger Delta ex-militants reportedly threatened to return to their old ways should Jonathan lose the election, they were just re-echoing their earlier threats. Dokubo-Asari, leader of the Niger Delta Peoples Volunteer Force (NDPVF), Victor Ben Ebikabowei, aka Boyloaf; Government Ekpudomenowei, aka Tompolo and others had reportedly vowed to ensure that President Jonathan wins the coming elections.

At a meeting they held at the Government House in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, the ex-militants threatened to unleash mayhem on the country and take back “Niger Delta oil” should the president lose the election. Hear them: “for every Goliath, God created a David. For every Pharaoh, there is Moses. We are going to war. Every one of you should go and fortify yourself”.

Boyloaf condemned the attacks on President Jonathan in the north and emphasized that nobody has the monopoly of the means of violence. For him, “keep grudges and sentiments apart. We are ready to match them bumper to bumper”.

From all indications, the main grouse of the militants is with the attacks on the convoy of President Jonathan when his campaign team visited Katsina and Bauchi states. They view the two incidents as a clear attempt to intimidate and frustrate their kinsman in his presidential ambition. Emotions are again high.

The nation has once more, been drawn nearer to the stark realities that await it as the elections approach. More than every other thing else, the threats have exposed the high stakes in the coming elections and issues that are likely to determine their direction and eventual outcome.

Matters are not helped by the fact of the emergence of the candidates of the two major political from the nations’ two dominant geo-political divide-North and South. Not surprisingly, the threats by the ex-militants (though not entirely new) have drawn the ire of some influential persons in the country. This is more so when the meeting was held at a government house with some state and federal officials in attendance

When therefore a former minister of Defense, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma called on the authorities to arrest the ex-militants for their unguarded statements, he was only drawing collective attention to the inherent dangers and potentially explosive nature of the coming elections. Danjuma who described the statements as reckless called on the authorities to arrest the ex-militants

But the ex-militants have fired back questioning Danjuma’s intention since he did not speak out when similar threats came from sections of the north. They are also piqued by the silence of the likes of Danjuma on the Boko Haram insurgency which had been dubbed political grievances masquerading in religious garb. These views were shared by the secretary-general of the Ohaneze Ndigbo, Joe Nworgu when he urged Danjuma to concern himself more with the destructive activities of the Boko Haram sect rather than mere verbal threats. “They should prevail on all those behind the insurgency in the north to stop. Let them do that and not to call for the arrest of people who are merely issuing verbal threats”, the Ohaneze scribe reasoned.

Implicit in this is the widely held belief that Boko Haram is the north’s similitude of the Niger Delta militants. Its main objective is to ensure that power returns to that section of the country. If this is so, Danjuma is being put to test for not showing sufficient concerns for the actual war that has been going on in the north-east.

He is being put to test for his silence on the source of the sophisticated military hardware, arms and ammunitions freely available to Boko Haram and with which they have been waging war against the nation. He may also have to speak out on the silence of the northern elite on the insurgency and their body language that seems to give covert support to the group. If we are not sufficiently frightened by the raging war in the north-east, why the ruse over mere verbal threats, one may wish to ask?

That is however not to justify the threats by the ex-militants. We do not need to heat up the polity any more. But what all these point to is that ethnicity and religion are the key factors in determining the direction of the coming elections. The north and south-south are laying claims to Presidency as a matter of right. They seem to be saying that only one of their own can sufficiently protect their interest within this unity in diversity. They seem to be implying that sections benefit most when a person from their stock ascends that high office. They may be right. But that in itself is an admission of the pervasive systemic inequities that accentuate bitter competition for power.

The choice is ours either to address these nagging national issues or allow the bitter competition that arises out of the desire of sections to corner the apparatus of governance for their own good. That is the real issue which the arrest of thousands of ex-militants cannot resolve.

February 2, 2015
Mu’azu’s crocodile tears

Those familiar with events surrounding the last ward congresses and primaries of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) would be amazed at the recent assessment of that party by its national chairman, Alhaji Adamu Mu’azu. Not that the issues he raised are not correct. But coming from such a key leader, people are bound to wonder what he is now up to.

Hear him, “A lot of people who left our party did so because of injustice in our party. Our party is full of injustice. The membership of the APC, LP APGA is increasing because of this. All these members are from our party. We must find out what is wrong and correct it”

Mu’azu’s comments at the event which had President Jonathan in attendance reportedly attracted heavy ovation from party members. Apparently sensing danger, Jonathan was quick to admit he was aware of issues arising from the last PDP primaries. But he called on members of the party to unite and resolve them so as to ensure success at the coming elections.

The issues raised by Mu’azu on the conduct of their party are not entirely new. What is perhaps new is that this is the first time a sitting PDP national chairman who just presided over very flawed primaries would so soon after, come public to speak of his party in such a deprecating manner.

From the way he spoke, he appears to have given the impression that he is not part of the charade that went in the name of ward congresses and primaries of the party. That is why he would want the president to speak with the governors, senators, members of the House of Representatives and other elected officials.

Its corollary is that much of the blame for the said injustice should be heaped at the doorsteps of the president or somewhere else. That is why he is being asked to speak to all categories of elected officers. The other logical deduction is that much of those in the category of the aggrieved, fall within elected people who apparently could not secure a return ticket or whose plans to install their anointed candidates hit the rocks.

Admittedly, there exist clear instances of this. Enugu State, where the incumbent governor had to trade off his senatorial ambition for imposing an anointed governorship candidate is a case in point. There is also that of Ebonyi State where the incumbent governor not only had his preferred candidate shortchanged but has been so frustrated that he now pursues his senatorial ambition through another party. These and many more instances could be cited.

But they represent an infinitesimal fraction of those genuinely embittered by the outcome of the last PDP primaries. They only represent the most vocal and most visible of those who have left the party because of the malfeasance the PDP national chairman felt strongly about that he had to come out public. There are many more of such aggrieved people and Mu’azu cannot claim ignorant of this fact.

He inadvertently fell into the same trap he is complaining about in assuming that those who need to be reconciled are all about elected members.

That is not exactly the case. If it were so, he would have had no cause to lament the heavy exodus of his party members to other parties. In the category of aggrieved people are ordinary members who were lured out to participate during its ward congresses which never held in many places even as lists of purportedly elected delegates were produced by powerful members.

Complaints were made to the national headquarters where Mu’azu holds sway but nothing came out of some of them. It was against this foreboding background that the primaries were held with lists doctored by highest bidders. Their outcome was very predictable as those who suffused the lists with their cronies’ names succeeded in determining who eventually emerged as candidates. They succeeded in throwing up people who at once, were electoral liabilities.

The party’s further reaction was to embark on the very panicky measure of even substituting names of such people with those they thought will give them victory at the polls. This further exacerbated the situation. Many of the popular candidates who could not withstand the glaring injustice had to seek accommodation in other parties as the PDP national chairman rightly observed.

They have left and may not be available for any reconciliation for now. They have left and are going to fight the PDP at the elections. So, it is not just the issue of bad losers. You cannot have bad losers or losers at all in a game that has no rules or worst still where the rules were observed in their breach. That is the burden the party has to bear for now and the consequences might be very dire.

Mu’azu was being less than honest when he asked the party to find out what went wrong and correct it. In a way, it could amount to self-indictment for him to feign ignorance of the monumental corruption at the party headquarters that made its leadership incapable of decisively handling genuine complaints of members. He cannot claim ignorance that a lot of money changed hands before delegates’ lists that bore no semblance with the wishes of the people were imposed on them. He cannot claim he was unaware the current predicament of the party in Imo State was a logical concomitant of the delegates’ lists’ imposition. So why does he require another inquisition for what is obvious? The issues that aggravate defection are not new. Not even after the implosion of the party leading to mass exodus of some of its governors and foundation members. For someone in Mu’azu’s shoes, the minimum expectation was that he should have seized the momentum of that event to put the party on the right frame.

But he did practically nothing as it remained business as usual. For a party that is faced with the kind of challenge this country is passing through, he would have steered the ship of his party to the part of sanity, order and good example in internal democracy. He allowed the matter to degenerate such that he now wants to give the impression he could be exculpated from the vices he complained about.

It would have made more sense if he had let the nation into the actions he initiated to remedy the situation or throw in the towel if his ideas on that were being frustrated by some powerful interests. That would have been the path to credible and visionary leadership rather than this belated resort to shedding crocodile tears when the harm had already been done.

Had he done so, he would have saved himself the embarrassment of buck-passing when the buck should stop at his table. Unless there are some extenuating issues, Mu’azu should take much of the blame for the current fate of the party. He must also share in the blame for the injustice he complained about. The issue is not just about the existence of injustice in the party as the steps he took to remedy the situation.

Curiously, all these are taking place during an election year with very high stakes. For Jonathan, the party will take these into account when preparing for the 2019 elections. Fine! But the cost could be such that he may not have another opportunity to redress the situation.

January 12, 2015
Here we are!

The year 2015 is here with us. The advent of a new year means different things to different people. Generally however, the beginning of a new year is devoted for sober reflections among all classes of people and religions. It provides ample ambience for people to reflect on events of the past with a view to charting a better future.

Characteristically, the commencement of a New Year is marked with what is now known as New Year resolutions. Such resolutions reflect on the activities of the past year with a resolve to part ways with bad habits and lead a better life henceforth. However, the extent to which these resolutions are observed to the letters would depend on individual strengths or weaknesses.

Our main concern here is this recognition that it should no longer be business as usual when we transit from one year to the other. Its corollary is that the New Year should hold better prospects for all and sundry.

For nation-states, the foregoing sentiments are equally relevant considerations. That is why governments prepare annual budgets to enable them take care of the challenges of statecraft on the eve of a coming year. For Nigeria, the year 2015 is particularly symbolic and challenging as well. A number of events have taken place in so many fronts to bring about this situation. And the picture has been a mixed grill of the good, the bad and the ugly.

There was this prediction some years back from the United States of the prospects of Nigeria becoming a failed state this year. And as if to give vent to this, a number of challenges have arisen in this country since then to raise consciousness on the prospects of the predictions coming into fruition.

The first signal emerged with the rise of the Boko Haram insurgency within this time frame. Their weird ideology of installing an Islamic state in the country, expelling non-Muslims and southerners from the north and constantly attacking churches in the north through sponsored suicide bombings raised the stakes and shook the faith of the people on the continued unity and indivisibility of the country.

Not unexpectedly, this came with an increasing slide to parochialism and primordial sentiments. Ethnic and sectional sentiments came to an all-time high. Unfolding events began to have negative effects on the people’s confidence on the capacity of the state to continue to provide for their collective interests. Life in some pars of the country degenerated to the atavism of the state of nature-nasty, short and brutish. Nigeria was drawn into an inevitable war against the Boko Haram insurgency with no end in sight. Thousands of innocent lives and property of inestimable value have been lost to the senseless war. It rages on and may assume a new dimension this year.

Within the same time, the menace of Fulani herdsmen became a matter of serious public concern. There were constant incidences of the sacking of villages and killing of innocent people in Plateau, Benue, Kaduna, Nassarawa states among others. The schism was such that two former military rulers- Olusegun Obasanjo and Ibrahim Babangida had to issue a joint statement deprecating the situation. They were more worried that even those they hitherto classified as patriots were increasing questioning the basis of Nigerian unity. That has been the environment in which this country operated for most part of the year that just ended.

Such has been the situation with the Boko Haram insurgency assuming a very dangerous and complicated dimension. Accusations have been traded regarding the real motivation of the insurgents. But the most worrisome is that which links it to the unfolding political competition in the country. In this regard, we have in mind the issue of which of the geo-political divides should occupy the highest political office in this country-the presidency. The heat has been so much with some sections of the north and the south-south trading words.

There have been threats of catastrophe from both sections should any of these contending forces fail to clinch the presidency. The south-south feels President Jonathan should be allowed to finish a second term. The north thinks otherwise. The ruling party, the PDP has been badly ruffled by this power contest leading to defections from its ranks. With the defections and the emergence of the APC, a strong opposition is now in place.

Party primaries have been concluded. And the presidential candidates of the parties have emerged with Muhammad Buhari as the APC rival to Jonathan. With this, it would appear the battle line has been drawn. And in this contest, two factors will dominate the language of political discourse- ethnicity and religion. The potency of the last factor is given credence by events leading to the picking of Buhari’s running mate. Obasanjo elevated this to the fore when he warned the party against a Muslim-Muslim ticket given extant developments in the country.

And this came to pass. But that is not the end of its all. The two contenders are from the two dominant religions- Christianity and Islam. They also come from the two dominant geo-political divides in the country- south and north. Though this line of division may not be as perfect as has been presented, but that does by no means whittle down the potency of their envisaged roles in the unfolding political contest.

The point being raised here is simple. And it is that the foregoing scenario will add up to heat up the political space when campaigns commence. The situation is such that the average Nigerian is apprehensive of events that will follow the coming elections. Questions are now being raised regarding whether Nigeria can survive this election given the utterances and posturing of politicians? Questions are also being asked as to whether our current path has been primed for the doomsday as represented by the predictions from the US.

Many are apprehensive at the way things are going. Nigeria may be heading to the precipice unless the current posturing of politicians change for the better. Every indication point to the foreboding direction that the coming elections will be a do or die affair. There have been threats to form a parallel government, the soaking of the dogs and baboons in blood should elections be rigged and similar talks that tend raise fears as the elections draw nearer.

When this foul and tense political environment is juxtaposed against the raging war against terrorism in the north-east, the fears being expressed are better contextualized. There is also the contentious issue of whether elections will hold in the war-ravaged states and how free and fair will such be given the prevailing environment.

All these are potential sources of schism that will determine the fate of the country in this election year that has been predicted as a turning point in our nation’s existence. As things stand, the way politicians conduct themselves will hold the key to unfolding events. But in this vaulting ambition to capture power, they should spare the ordinary people the trouble of being dragged into a senseless war. Our people have suffered enough in the hands of marauding politicians whose prime motivation is selfish interest. If they have failed to put things aright all these years, they should not compound the misery of the ordinary people now.

January 5, 2015
No! Jonathan No!

President Jonathan appeared to have opened Pandora’s Box when last week, he sought to establish the conditions for the growth of democracy in this country. Obviously worried by intense rancour that was the outcome of the primaries of his party, the PDP, he had urged aggrieved members not to quit the party so as to enhance the growth of democracy.

Hear him: “the only way you can strengthen democracy is for you to stay in your party. If there are some issues you feel are not too correct, it behoves on us to stay together and correct them. That is the only way we can grow democracy. If out of anger or frustration you leave the party because you did not get what you wanted, then you are not contributing to the growth of democracy”.

On face value, it would seem Jonathan’s perspective on this matter is a very innocuous one that holds tremendous prospects for the growth and sustenance of democracy in this country. This is more so when it is viewed along the lines of encouraging party members to sink their differences for the overall good of their party.

It is no less a truism that there must be differences among members of the same political party in the pursuit of their individual ambitions. And in this pursuit, some interests must definitely suffer as not all will be accommodated when many seek the same goal. And in matters relating to contest for political offices, this could be more appreciated. There must be losers and winners in such game situations. Those who lost ought to accept their defeat in good faith. This however, presupposes that extant rules of the game have been followed to the letters. If that is the situation Jonathan had in mind, then one can understand him.

But that was not the situation in the instant case. Those planning to ditch the party are not aggrieved because they lost out in the primaries. They are not aggrieved because they did not get what they wanted. It is also not that they are impatient. These are not the issues and Jonathan cannot pretend the issues go beyond these.

They are aggrieved because of the scant regard of the party for due process in matters concerning party primaries. They are frustrated by the serial inability or refusal by the party to allow the sovereignty of the people to have free reign. They are piqued by a flawed system that has over the years been irresponsive to the frustrations of members who have never been allowed to participate in decisions as to who are to represent them. The inability of the party to allow popular participation in the choice of leaders at the ward, local government, state and federal levels is the issue to contend with. It is this scant regard for the sovereignty of the people that stultified the ward congresses of the party and gave rise to lists of delegates that were at variance with the wishes and aspirations of the constituents which they purport to represent.

Having laid a weak foundation at those levels, the outcome of the primaries had obviously been primed for a total fiasco which it turned out to be. People of conscience and principle will be hard put to remain in a party that has no ordered way of conducting its affairs. People of principle will prefer a party that has established processes for conducting congresses and primaries. If such people dump a party that has shown scant regard for rules, procedure and order, they should be hailed and not vilified. In their action lies the path to the growth of democracy. For them to be encouraged to stay on and grow democracy there must be some order. That is the issue that has been elevated to the fore by the bad blood in the party leading to defections.

So Jonathan missed the point completely when his suggestions gave the impression that those aggrieved were merely impatient people grumbling because they did not succeed in the elections. That is not the issue here.

Neither does it make any sense to heap the blames of the current challenges facing the party on these frustrated members. The issues that demoralize them leading to defections are very fundamental and at the very heart of representative democracy. And they are not entirely new to the party. They formed part of the grouses of some governors and key leaders of the party that culminated into its implosion early this year. They are issues relating to internal democracy, arbitrariness, imposition of candidates and scant regard for rules.

Given the above, the minimum expectation was that the party would have been guided by this experience in preparing for this election. The general feeling was that the PDP would seize the momentum of current events in the country to reform and reposition itself in the overall interest of our wobbling democracy. But events have proved all that wrong. Rather than abate, such negative tendencies and dispositions were further reinforced by the outcome of the ward congresses and primaries of that party.

Jonathan’s reaction that the party will be guided by this sad experience when preparing for the 2019 elections is rather ridiculous. So also is his exhortation to aggrieved members to remain in the party and resolve whatever they felt is wrong in the party.

Since these issues have been with the party, a President or political party that is desirous of deepening democracy ought to have taken steps to ensure they were corrected before the primaries. To allow things get out of hands only to blame the aggrieved for impatience is not a mark of good leadership. All the signals for whatever happened at the primaries had all along been there. Jonathan saw them. The corrupt party leadership saw them and was interested in lining their pockets. They cannot pretend at the bazaar that was the fate of their ward congresses and primaries.

They cannot pretend there is now a strong opposition waiting in the wings to provide credible alternative. They cannot pretend that the impunity of the party when it comes to electing members into party positions or elective offices has long been a huge source of worry to all lovers of democracy. It is also not new that many have left or shunted out of the party on account of these. There have been enough signals that it should no longer be business as usual.

Yet, for the party, nothing changed. Whatever reverses the party is currently passing through are self-inflicted.

Jonathan was pushing his luck too far when he promised to redress the undemocratic conduct in his party affairs when preparing for 2019 elections. He may be able to do so if he wins the 2015 election. But there is no guarantee he will win as the current disputes over the primaries have been taking a toll on the membership of the PDP. Maybe all these have been primed to weaken his candidature.

Even then, more than any other, this is the time he needed to hold his party members together given the armada of opposition that has been lined up against him. Having failed to take advantage of this imperative, he should be prepared for the consequences of his inaction.

But he must hold himself and his party leadership largely responsible for the spate of defections arising from the flawed congresses and primaries. If we cannot grow democracy through such outcome, he and the PDP leadership should take the blame and not aggrieved members.

December 29, 2014
Our brand of democracy

Events since the conduct of primaries by political parties have once again, brought to the fore the vexatious issue of the manner of democracy we practice in this country. More than anything, they have shown in very clear terms the scant regard of our politicians for the rules of the game.

Not only are politicians not prepared to comply with extant regulations, they have shown unbridled inclination to go at length to sabotage this vital process for self-serving ends. This ruinous predilection has largely accounted for the rancor that trailed the primaries of the parties leading to defections and bad blood among key leaders.

At the heart of the disputation is the control of what is now dubbed party structures- euphemism for sidelining and appropriating the peoples’ mandate during party primaries.

Once appropriated, it enables the beneficiary politician to subvert the collective will of the people by depriving them a role in the choice of those to stand for the election proper. In practice, its execution varies from one party to another. In some parties, though a date was fixed for their primaries and party members were made to come out to elect their delegates, no election took place as some powerful leaders hijacked the process only to turn in purported lists of those elected.

Ironically, despite these glaring cases of sabotage and brigandage, the party leadership did practically nothing to redress the grievances of short-changed members. In some other parties, sundry governors and leaders had high latitude to determine who they wanted for the various elective offices. Yet, this is one civic duty party members ought to exercise freely if the will of their constituencies is to be reflected at elections.

Representative democracy derives its strength from its capacity to approximate the collective will of the people. Because of the large size of modern states, it is no longer possible for the people to gather in a single location to directly take decisions on matters affecting them. Thus, the concept of representation that allows the people to take decisions through their elected leaders.

The theory is that having taken part in the election of their representatives, whatever decisions taken by them, will approximate the collective will of the constituents from which they emerged. That is the guiding framework. That is the objective party primaries and elections are meant to serve.

Sadly, this cardinal principle of democracy has come under serious assault by the manner the various political parties conducted their primaries. It all started with the ward congresses of the parties. At that rudimentary level, party members were expected to elect their delegates who would in turn elect those to fly the flags of the parties at the general election.

Instead of allowing this rudimentary civic duty a free and fair reign, the exercised was heavily compromised in many areas.

In the case of the People Democratic Party PDP, those who came out to vote went home disappointed in some states as election materials and officials disappeared into the thin air. Result sheets were later returned with names of people written in hotels or residences of influential politicians who bought or hijacked them for their selfish ends.

It was not surprising that what came out as duly elected delegates were names of cronies and loyalists of those who hijacked those election materials. In Cross River state for instance, a chieftain of the PDP Chief Donald Etiebet was so disgusted with the outcome of that congress that he dubbed it a mockery of democracy. For him, what took place in his state was anything but a congress.

And in nearby Imo State, the PDP ward congress was a sham. The All Progressives Congress APC did not fare better in this regard in some states. In many of the states it controls, sitting governors hijacked the party structures shunting out those not considered loyalists from the process. The gale of defections from the APC in Ogun State is a necessary fall-out of this. In Imo State APC, the sitting governor had his way in not only determining who should run but manipulated the process to throw up his son in-law as the governorship candidate of the party. It took the emergence of the party’s presidential candidate a few days later for him to return and reclaim that ticket from his son in-law.

And we ask, what manner of democracy do we expect from these highly flawed processes? Not unexpectedly, those thrown up by these faulty processes are supposed to have derived their mandate from party members in their constituencies. But that freedom of choice was hugely compromised. In effect, the electorate which represents the ultimate sovereign was denied its role and freedom of choice. Ironically, this role constitutes the irreducible decimal in any democratic calculation.

This is a country in a hurry to copy governance frameworks ostensibly to quicken its pace of development both economically and politically. Sadly, after adopting these contraptions, we go out of our way to exude dispositions and tendencies that end up sabotaging the very process. And when confronted with the incongruity in the adopted systems’ incapacity to deliver optimal results as obtains in democracies from where they were copied, the ready answer given is that we are in a learning process. We may continue to learn ad infinitum without any positive results. If the truth must be told, we may end up learning nothing if political actors do not change their desperate and do or die attitude to electoral matters.

At the centre of this malfeasance is the pervasive corruption that has eaten deep into the nation’s fabric. It is the high level of corruption in public places that has become the greatest undoing of our democratic experiment. Politicians do not want the will of the people to determine the outcome of elections for fear they will reject the charlatans and sundry criminals who have now found politics a major source of livelihood. They are afraid that given the choice, they will be totally rejected by their people.

That accounts for the indecent desperation to secure control of party structures. A lot of money change hands among those delegated to conduct the congresses and key party officials at their headquarters.

That is not all. The same desperate politicians will now proceed during the primaries to buy same delegates whose names they influenced into the list. Some of them were known to have given each delegate the sum of N500,000 or more after administering an oath on them to secure their votes. The situation is that bad. The scandal saw some peasants who have never seen N50,000 in their lives smiling home to the banks. And we ask, what manner of leaders will such people turn out to be? Having corrupted the system to fraudulently to emerge victorious, will they not sabotage every due process to recoup their ill-gotten money? Your guess is as good as mine.

Something urgent must be done to reduce the high level of corruption that characterizes electioneering campaigns on these shores. It is for the same reason that the various tendencies in the country are seeking to control the centre. Until we whittle down the huge resources at the disposal of the central authority, we are unlikely to make real progress as a people. Maybe the current fate of oil in the international market will compel us to do the needful.

December 22, 2014
Our new arms deal

Those who have followed contemporary events in this country will not be surprised at the news that Nigeria struck a deal to buy arms and ammunition from Russia. Under the arrangement, Russia is to supply its MI-35s and MI-17s military jets among other armaments to this country to aid the fight against the Boko Haram insurgency.

The deal followed Nigeria’s cancellation of the US military training programme for our soldiers and is largely viewed as a response to the curious attitude of that country to the raging insurgency. Though various reasons have been adduced to rationalize Nigeria’s decision to cancel the programme, it is widely believed it has every thing to do with US refusal to sell categories of military aircraft and arms to Nigeria to fight the insurgents.

Two well respected Nigerians, Gen Yakubu Gowon Retd, a former head of state and Nobel laureate, Wole Soyinka had heavily criticized the US for its refusal to supply the country the little arms it needed to defend its citizens and quell the Boko Haram uprising. But the US had hinged its decision on the nebulous excuse of human rights abuses by the military even when the insurgents are equally no respecter of human rights.

The two personages could not understand what the argument on human rights is meant to serve when our citizens are faced with the danger of annihilation by the better equipped and more sophisticated insurgents. Moreover, US stand on the issue does not tally with its position on terrorism as is evident in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq where it is currently battling the ISIS onslaught. It was therefore seen as double standards for the US to turn its eyes against Nigeria in its difficult moment especially when the same country went to war in Iraq under the guise of her possession of nuclear weaponry. Many innocent souls lost their lives in that unfortunate encounter. Today, we know that Iraq possessed no nuclear weapons. But the harm has been done. And no body has been brought to book for that fiasco. More over, recent accounts on the activities of some US security operatives have revealed large scale human rights abuses following events leading to the twin tower bombing. So the issue of human rights abuse may not be stretched too far in such difficult and trying situations.

Apparently frustrated by the US action in the face of the escalation of the Boko Haram insurgency, Nigeria had to seek help elsewhere. Thus, the arms deal with Russia. With the action, Nigeria seems to have defined a new relationship with Russia.

Not unexpectedly, the deal has become an issue of intense discussion among defense and security analysts in the US. Discussions have centered on the likely effects of the action on Nigeria/US relations, the divergence in opinions and perception of the two countries on the insurgency and what the new arms deal portends for the rivalry between the US and Russia- a rekindling of the super power competition. The discussants also threw new insights into some other considerations that may have been at the center of the US refusal to aid Nigeria militarily, allegations of human rights abuses notwithstanding.

A Director of African programme at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jennifer Cooke admitted that there is a great deal of tension between the two countries particularly over the security relationship and that each side has a different perception of the matter.

Ben Moores, a senior analyst at the defense and security analysis organization HIS Janes’s 360 gave new reasons why US would not want to sell its advanced weapons system to Nigeria. He said advanced military jets and attack helicopters could not be sold to Nigeria for fear they could be passed on to a third party. Moreover, there were “leaks or moles inside the Nigerian military who were leaking information to Boko Haram. They were leaking certain bits of information, training information and perhaps information on the team itself” Moores said.

For him, what Nigeria needed most was not fighter jets and attack helicopters but a better motivated, a more professional force to deal with some of the social and cultural problems.

Some of the issues raised make more sense than the trite pontification on human rights even though they are not entirely foolproof. There is no doubt that the US does not have a good reading of the situation on the ground and the general feelings of our people. That much had been given credence by the views of Gowon and Soyinka among several other well-meaning Nigerians.

The nation is facing destruction by the insurgents and must take every legitimate action to protect its citizens. If all it takes is the deployment of advanced military jets and helicopters so be it.

It smacks of a poor reading of the situation to hold that we do not have a pressing need for the jets and attack helicopters. On the contrary, we have very urgent need for them to decisively end this war. Whereas it can be admitted that we need a more motivated and professional force, it is wrong to ascribe the current Boko Haram insurgency to social and cultural issues. Boko Haram is similar in motivation and ideological leaning to ISIS which the US has been battling with very sophisticated military jets and hardware in Syria and Iraq.

The issue of moles and leaks in the military is real. With some unscrupulous military persons leaking information to Boko Haram, any foreign partner seeking to help is bound to be frightened as the security of its personnel and equipment is not guaranteed. These weaknesses can be admitted. On several occasions, our soldiers have been waylaid by the insurgents due to information leaks on their movements. In one of such instances, the soldiers went wild firing shots at their commander after they suffered heavy casualty from Boko Haram ambush.

Such incidences do not imbue confidence in the outside world that we are all committed and united in the fight against insurgency. More than anything, they underscore the point more forcefully that there are sections in the military and political class that lend huge support to the insurgents. This may have contributed in obfuscating US perception of the matter.

But then, there is a legitimate government in place and there are standard practices on how to deal with a band of anarchists seeking to levy war on such governments. Whatever the motivation- religious, cultural or social Boko Haram has become a mortal threat to the corporate existence and survival of this country. And the government ought to be given the needed help to tame the monster. Inventing sundry reasons and excuses to deny Nigeria the arms and ammunitions to quell the insurgency is a clear invitation to anarchy.

More seriously, the position Nigeria has found itself is self-inflicted. It is a huge shame that 54 years after independence, we are still cap in hand begging for arms and ammunitions from foreign countries. We fought a civil war here and certain military competences were developed then. We are also not lacking in human and financial capacities. Instead of seizing and activating the ingenuity of the civil war era to catalyze technological transformation, we allowed that opportunity to slip. The same forces and contradictions that gave rise to the civil war are at play again in the Boko Haram project.

December 15, 2014
Gowon, Soyinka and US

The role of the United States of America (US) in the war against Boko Haram insurgency came under serious scrutiny last week. At least, two well respected Nigerians came out publicly to deprecate the attitude of that country to the raging insurgency that has left thousands killed and maimed while property of inestimable value destroyed.

First to take on the US was Gen. Yakubu Gowon Rtd, a former head of state and one of the few of such leaders whose views are taken very seriously by many. Gowon had criticized the US for refusing to sell arms to Nigeria to fight the insurgents. For him, if the US was a truly diplomatic friend of Nigeria, it should do everything to keep its corporate existence by aiding it fight any aggression from any quarters.

He recalled the US did the same thing during the Nigerian civil war by refusing to sell fighter jets to the country even as they were shipping fighter jets and loads of ammunition to Zaire. “What sort of friends are they”, he queried.

Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka added weight to Gowon’s position when he called on the same government to stop giving baseless and flimsy excuses for its refusal to sell ammunition to Nigeria to prosecute the war. He asked the US to stop ridiculing and laughing at this country through its current posturing on the war against the insurgents.

Gowon and Soyinka’s intervention has raised the stakes on the inexplicable role of the US since the war on terrorism commenced in this country. Besides, it has elevated to the vortex of public opinion the inherent contradictions in some of the reasons that have before now, been adduced to justify the vague behavior of that country to Nigeria’s current predicament.

Hiding under the spurious allegation of human rights abuses by soldiers, the US had sought to justify its refusal and obstruction of Nigeria’s attempt to acquire Cobra helicopters and ammunition to successfully prosecute the escalating war.

Not unexpectedly, the schism within the political class on the motive and direction of the insurgency has allowed some of these curious excuses to fester. Those who want to take advantage of the war to further their political ambition have taken turns to hype the perceived excesses of the military on human rights. Curiously, a willing US government quickly bought into that idea and had since posed an obstacle to Nigeria’s attempt to acquire weapons to tame the monster. It is good a thing respected citizens are now coming to terms with the inherent contradictions in the US reasoning. Not long ago, the US ambassador to Nigeria James Entwistle amplified his country’s position on the issue when he said they would only sell or give out arms when they are sure of the purpose for which it would be used.

“Before we share equipment with any country, we look at a couple of things. Does it make sense in term of the country’s needs? The second thing we look at is the country’s human rights situation. As you all know, there have been instances, I’m not saying across the board of human rights abuses by the Nigerian military in the north-east” the ambassador said.

It can be deduced from the above that US does not see any need for Nigeria to acquire these weapons despite the admission of Entwistle in the same interview that Boko Haram has gone beyond being a small insurgent group with a couple of guns to a very effective collection of conventional force. Yet, the same government is of the view that Nigeria has no need for the ammunition it seeks to buy. Nothing can be more contradictory than this.

Soyinka captured this contradiction very succinctly when he argued that what the country asked for are little weapons to destroy the enemy; weapons for self defense since we have found ourselves in a situation of destroy the enemy or have ourselves destroyed. He could not fathom how such weapons of self defense can be denied in the face of a heartless and murderous marauding enemy.

There is much to indicate the US is not coming clean on this issue. Neither is their argument plausible. They recognize the war has assumed a dangerous dimension in the face of the sophistication of the insurgents in weaponry resulting in heavy casualties on the part of our soldiers. They are also not unaware of the murderous escapades of the insurgents: a litany of abductions, the sacking and burning down of communities and their celebrated scant regard for the sanctity of human life. Why the US chose to look the other way in the face of these human right abuses by the insurgents has remained largely cloudy. Not long ago, the world was rattled by the abduction of over 200 school girls in Chibok in very inexplicable circumstances. Since then, we have been inundated with varying chilling accounts of the mindless abuses the girls have been subjected to in captivity by the insurgents. In the same very suspicious manner, the concerns of the international community have been more on the inability of the government to rescue the girls. Not much attention is being paid to the criminals that have been holding and abusing the poor girls. Despite the offer of assistance by the international community including the US for the quick release of the girls, nothing has so far come out of that engagement. Such has been the insincerity and deceit that had surrounded the war against the sect that one begins to wonder if some people are not set to achieve set goals through it. It did not come as a surprise when Nigeria cancelled the scheduled training of its soldiers by the US on account of that country’s refusal to share their equipment for the exercise. What these series of events in respect of the US activities in this war underscore is that Nigerians are getting more suspicious of her real intentions in this fight against the insurgents. This suspicion is further amplified by earlier predictions from the same country that Nigeria is likely to self- destruct by 2015. As that year fast approaches, no body is sure events are not being activated from so many corners to bring about the doomsday. Though issues of human rights cannot be discounted, we find US position in the instant case tenuous because the insurgents have worst records of human rights abuses.

Even if we succeed freeing the Chibok girls without terminating the war, chances are that the insurgents will abduct more sets of girls given the very way the previous one was hyped. Events have since proved this right. So it is a huge contradiction to disallow Nigeria the acquisition of the needed armament to tame the insurgency and at the same time, expect the war will be over. It will rather escalate and degenerate. Our people stand the risk of being consumed. No leader worth his onions will stand by and watch that happen. The nation must do all within its powers to defend itself in the face of the onslaught of the Boko Haram insurgents? Why the US is applying double standards in its perception and treatment of the evils of religious extremism as propagated by the sect is best known to them?

It is puzzling that the same US that spent years and huge resources in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban; the same US that is currently fighting unsolicited wars in Syria and Iraq against ISIS is singing a different tune in the fight against Boko Haram. This ambivalence cannot be for nothing given that Boko Haram and ISIS are two sides of the same coin.

December 8, 2014