The victory of Islamic militant group, the Taliban and their declaration of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has heightened fears of global spread of terrorism. Though leaders of the new regime said there is a huge difference between Taliban now and 20 years ago, their disposition to terrorism is yet unclear not withstanding their promise that Afghanistan will not serve as a base for terrorism and attacks on other countries. One thing that remains certain is that the exit of the US from that country is bound to have negative effects on global campaign against terrorism.

For the Taliban and their supporters, US hurried withdrawal is victory for resilience, opposition to foreign domination and occupation. It is also viewed as the triumph of the rights of a people to determine the type of government in which they want to be organized. The wider consequences of this realization for those currently pursuing one form of weird religious agenda or the other could be dire for world peace.

Given that the Soviet Union made a similar incursion and withdrew after nine years in which the US supported the Mujahideen against them, the withdrawal of the US would seem the last of such foreign incursions from the major powers. It is bound to embolden the Taliban on their touted resilience, patience and uncommon courage to resist and wear out foreign powers despite their superior weaponry.

The new leadership is not making any pretence about this. One of their commanders, Muhammed Afri Mustafa, apparently buoyed up by their success, told the CNN “America has their helicopters, weapons and tanks on the ground.  But we, Mujahideen, resisted very well. It is our belief that one day, Mujahideen will have victory. Islamic law will come to not just Afghanistan but all over the world. We are not in a hurry; we believe it will come one day. Jihad will not end until the last day”.

These are weighty statements. And they sum up the disposition of the new regime to Jihad and the enforcement of Islamic laws across the globe. For a militant Islamic sect notorious for exporting terrorism, how they will go about this doctrinaire campaign across the world is an open secret.

This gives away the group as an unrepentant lot not in a hurry to part ways with its old pasts. US President, Joe Biden captured the dilemma of the Afghan situation succinctly when he said he does not envisage a change of attitude from the new Taliban regime. Not when they see their victory as evidence of their resilience, doggedness and patience in wearing out super powers irrespective of their assortment of superior fighting armament.

That is the clear message of the Taliban victory. If the Taliban could withstand both Soviet Union and the US despite their superior war technology, militant Islamic groups affiliated to that organization would be encouraged to stay on in their campaigns since victory will come someday. This will in turn, trigger off a domino effect for countries still battling terrorism. The consequences could turn out very devastating.

For us in Nigeria confronting a variety of terrorism challenges, the message is clear. Tougher times lie ahead. Nigeria is home to Boko Haram/ Islamic State West Africa Province ISWAP insurgency, the insurgency of the herdsmen as well as that of the bandits.  Boko Haram/ISWAP is an affiliate of Al, Qaeda.  Parallels have been drawn between the ideological prompting of Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

All share common commitment to Jihad and the institution of Islamic state. They also share common aversion to western education. While Boko Haram sees education as evil, the Taliban is against female education and women freedom. Hundreds of school children have been taken into captivity by both the Boko Haram insurgents and the bandits apparently to discourage education in some states of Nigeria. Many other schools have been shut down in parts of the north in the face of constant attacks from Boko Haram and bandits.

Read Also: FG yet to make pronouncement on repentant Boko Haram members-Minister

The success of the Taliban would serve as a morale booster for this band of insurgents. There are palpable fears that Nigeria would be worst for it. Though the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed believes Nigeria will not go the way of Afghanistan because it is not a failed state, the way some public functionaries and groups responded to the development, shows there are elements within happy with the triumph of the Taliban. How this enthusiasm on Taliban success will rob off on the war against terrorism in this country is only a matter of time.

But, the description of Taliban success as “an interesting development and a big lesson for Nigeria” by Ishaq Akintola of the Muslim Rights Concern MURIC should be instructive enough. He even celebrated the victory, chiding the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto, Matthew Kukah and those he said were harassing fellow Nigerians and intimidating the government with threats of reporting them to America, Britain or France to get what they do not deserve. Akintola is obviously happy with the triumph of the Taliban. Its message is not lost on any one.

There are also people in the current government and elsewhere who had in the past identified with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. One of such is the Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Pantami who had said “this jihad is an obligation for every single believer especially in Nigeria. Oh God give victory to the Taliban and Al, Qaeda”. Though he was forced some months back to recant on this commitment, but his wish has come through. Will he be unhappy with the victory of the Taliban?

Since he claimed youthful exuberance and poor understanding of contemporary events then, does it mean he has no sympathy for the victory of the Taliban now? And could he possibly come out to condemn the Taliban victory?  These questions expose the contradictions in the excuses the government gave for absolving him of glaring sympathy for terrorist organizations. Let him speak up since he now knows better.

Events in Afghanistan have also brought to closer scrutiny, the policy of the Nigerian government on de-radicalization and rehabilitation of ‘repentant’ Boko Haram fighters. Just last week, the Nigerian Army denied plans to release some of the 1000 terrorists who reportedly laid down arms and surrendered. It said contrary to reports, they would rather be processed and passed on to the relevant agencies of the government for further assessment in line with extant provisions.

Before now however, the military runs a 16-week course-Operation Safe Corridor OPSC to help low-risk defectors get integrated into the communities they left behind. But this policy has been under intense criticism as it has no room for the prosecution of the so-called repentant terrorists for atrocities committed by them. The argument is that without giving justice to those unjustly battered and displaced by the terrorists, it is difficult to secure forgiveness from them. This calls for the prosecution of ‘repentant’ terrorists irrespective of their surrender.

It has also been argued that the loyalty of the ‘repentant’ terrorists cannot be guaranteed as some of them find it difficult to detach from their old ways. They could pose more lethal threat to their immediate communities as evidenced by the refusal of some of these communities to re-admit them in their fold.

This fear draws support from current events in Afghanistan. Khairullah Khairkhwa, one of the five Taliban commanders held in Guantanamo Bay from 2002-2014, released in exchange for US army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is now one of the Taliban leaders in Afghanistan. That is the stark reality that confronts this country as it toys with OPSC.

It also smacks of contradictory policy stance to haul sundry self-determination agitators into detention when those responsible for heinous crimes that brought sorrow and awe to many families are released to go home under the de-radicalization policy. The Taliban victory will redefine perception on the insurgency of the herdsmen especially, now the Buhari regime is striving to impose grazing reserves on some states.

Intervention by Islamic human rights advocacy group, Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) in the controversy over the destruction of a Church in Borno State is as interesting as it is ludicrous.

Officials of the war-torn state have been embroiled in a dispute over the demolition of the Ekklesiyar Yan’uwa a Nigeria Church, commonly known as EYN during which a 20-year old Ezekiel Tumba was killed and five church members seriously injured. Accounts of how the incident happened vary.

But there is a convergence of views that the unfortunate incident happened when officials of the Borno Geographical Information Systems BOGIS went with bulldozers to pull down the church located in a suburb of Moduganari in the Maiduguri metropolis.  On arrival, they met workers on site and in an attempt to seize the phones of those recording the demolition, there arose some protest from the workers and church members on site. In the ensuing confusion, operatives of the Civilian JTF fired at the crowed resulting to the casualties witnessed.

Borno State government said the EYN Church was one of those marked for demolition for allegedly carrying out expansion without approval from the government. It condemned the violence but blamed both sides for “throwing stones” and “shooting of guns”.

Christian Association of Nigeria CAN, Borno State chapter condemned the incident calling for a judicial commission of inquiry on the killing and shooting to bring perpetrators to justice. CAN also demanded the “Rebuilding of demolished churches and reopening of all churches seized by BOGIS which include EYNLCD Moduganari, Jubilee Sanctuary Church, Pompomari bye pass, Total Gospel international Church, Mari-Baki Kogi, The Sanctuary Church behind AA Bappa filling station Tudun Wada and Christ Favor Land, Pompomari bye pass”.

The incident has re-opened old religious wounds with CAN deploring the discrimination suffered by Christians in securing lands from the government to build churches. Also at issue is the alleged reluctance or refusal by the government to approve Certificate of Occupancy C of O for church buildings. In fact, Borno CAN claims the last time that government issued C of O to any church organization was in 1979, 41 years ago.

CAN further contends that the inability of Christians to access lands for religious purposes leads to the conversion of residential buildings to places of worship as religious adherents must have a place near where they live to serve their creator. Such has been the intensity of the issues generated by the demolition of the EYN church.

But a curious dimension to the crisis emerged when MURIC entered the fray. In a statement, the group claimed that “contrary to a coordinated propaganda over the demolition of an EYN Church in Maiduguri, the Muslim Rights Concern, MURIC can authoritatively report that the Borno State Geographic Information Systems BOGIS created by Governor Babagana Umara Zulum actually demolished 11 Mosques and four Churches in the metropolis”.

MURIC claimed a team of investigators working with it visited each of the sites where the mosques were demolished; interviewed residents, gathered photographs and data that showed the locations of the 11 mosques and the dates of their demolition by officials of BOGIS for violating the purpose approved in residential title. They named the demolished Mosques.

Curiously however, MURIC went ahead to commend Zulum describing him as a “wonderful performer… that should be allowed to concentrate on his good work”. Ordinarily, one would not have had an ax to grind with the showering of praises on Zulum. If his performance profile merits them, so be it.

But there is everything untidy in the circumstance and timing of these praises. Showering praises on the governor on an issue that hinged on the destruction of churches and loss of life with many injured, is to say the least, very callous. It is unfortunate that a so-called rights group failed to show a modicum of sympathy for the life lost and the injured in its wild goose chase of entering defence for the Borno State government. As if that gaffe is not grave enough, the hidden impression conveyed by the statistics bandied by MURIC is that the Borno State governor is insensitive to the religious sensibilities of his people.

Read Also: MURIC to Pantami: don’t let anyone blackmail you to resign

That is the unintended message MURIC has brought to the public domain. And it is a minus for Zulum whose image the group set out to launder. By claiming that the state government destroyed more Mosques than Churches, MURIC intended to portray Zulum as one not propelled by religious bigotry. Since he destroyed more Mosques than Churches, he cannot be accused of faith-induced discrimination, they may have reasoned.

But that is not all that can be discerned from the comparison. The impression one gets is that of scant regard for the religious sensibilities of the people, notwithstanding the reasons adduced. Eleven Mosques and four Churches destroyed? That is a weighty statement on itself.

Apparently realizing the futility of highlighting the governors’ skills in destroying Mosques and Churches, MURIC was quick to issue another statement a day after, disclosing that the same government had actually rebuilt nine churches destroyed by the Boko Haram insurgents. Now, they are on the positive side- rebuilding, not destroying. The purport of this is not lost on any one. But it exposes the gaps in the initial data on the number of Mosques and Churches destroyed. It was a needless comparison.

To show that MURIC was not of the noblest of intentions in its current advocacy, they woefully failed to show how many mosques the state government also rebuilt. For the group to have claimed working with investigators (not that it did the investigations) whose identity was not disclosed to omit the number of Churches and Mosques rebuilt in its initial statement, fuels suspicion on the genuineness of the investigations.  What emerges is more of a promotional hand-out from the state government.

Incidentally, it was poorly done. And when the hidden message of the first statement began to emerge, they had to issue with indecent haste, another to prove that Zulum is after all, not a destroyer of Mosques and Churches but a rebuilder. That is a better image for him.  Maybe MURIC will issue a third statement to pacify Muslims that Zulum is not propelled by reversed religious discrimination since they have not been told the number of Mosques he also rebuilt, if any.

But more than anything else, the current entanglement of MURIC betrays its contradictory stance on issues of this nature. For a group that has acquired a devious technology for raising alarms each time the rights of Muslims to worship appear threatened, to now pitch tent with a government embroiled in a similar controversy is the height of hypocrisy. It stood better not getting involved in this matter at all.

The position of the group when Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State was falsely accused of destroying a mosque, bears out MURIC’s unpardonable biases and inconsistency. Then, MURIC had launched all manner of invectives on Wike even with existing court ruling that the disputed land belonged to the state government. All efforts by Wike to show that no Mosque existed on that piece of land with several warnings on defaulters fell on the deaf ears of the MURIC leadership.

MURIC embarked on vile propaganda and name-calling, alleging Wike was making good a grand agenda to convert the state to a Christian state having so declared. MURIC’s reaction to Wike’s strident explanation that no Mosque existed there was, “a Mosque is a Mosque, whether it is a completed structure, half or quarter completed. Muslims congregate there to worship”.

It is an uncanny irony that MURIC turned this logic and burning passion to protect places of worship upside down now the faith of Christians is involved. It has created a monster by its handling of the EYN Church demolition that resulted in the loss of life and injuring of many. And it will continue to haunt it for a long time.

By Emeka OMEIHE

There are issues from the court trials of leader of proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu and Yoruba activist Sunday Adeyemo (Igboho) that should be of concern to the leadership of this country. These are inexorably at the heart of the conflict in government’s approach to extant challenges leading to the arrest and prosecution of the two campaigners.

They also raise questions as to whether their trials and possible conviction (even with the most severe of terms) are all there is to the resolution of all issues to the agitations. It was obvious people outside the court premises were speaking a different language from the governments that are prosecuting the agitators. The implication of this should not be lost on anybody.

Kanu is being tried at the Federal High Court, Abuja for alleged terrorism; treasonable felony, unlawful possession of firearms and management of an unlawful society. But the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami gave a hint of fresh charges that will incorporate new allegations against him.

In the case involving Adeyemo which came up at the Court of Appeal Cotonou, Benin Republic, the charges by that government hinge on immigration offences even as the Nigerian government is said to be pressing for his extradition to face other charges. The Nigerian government is accusing him of arms stockpiling, inciting violence that could result in social disturbance and causing disunity in Nigeria.

Central to the charges against the two are alleged illegal arms possession, inciting violence and actions that could lead to a breakdown of law and order. Kanu’s is distinct in the sense that it has terrorism as a key charge.  Both also share common objectives in pressing for self-determination for two of the three major ethnic groups in the country.

While Igboho is spurred by the activities of the herdsmen that have been serially associated with killings, kidnapping, rape and despoliation of farmers’ crops in the southwest, Kanu is against the injustice of the Nigerian state against his Igbo ethnic group for which he is agitating for separatism. He also shares common concerns with Igboho on the menace of the herdsmen in the southeast for which he set up a security outfit to pursue them out of the forests.

All the alleged offences for which they are facing trial were committed in the course of prosecuting this self-determination agenda. These are the two tendencies that shaped events during the court trials both in Abuja and Cotonou. And they will continue to influence perception of the entire trial process.

Even as the prosecution failed to produce Kanu in court pleading logistic hiccups, the first thing of interest was the huge crowd that came from far and near to witness the event. Though security agencies had warned those having nothing to do with the trial to keep off, the crowd that thronged the venue was composed of an assortment of lawyers striving to gain entrance and representatives of the Ohaneze Ndigbo which had come to observe the proceedings.

It was a rowdy situation. There were heated arguments at the entrance of the court as lawyers questioned the propriety of asking them to produce their identity cards as a condition for entry. One of the lawyers likened the court room to a market place for lawyers which required no identification. Such was the scene at the court premises.

Of note also was the presence of a huge crowd of IPOB supporters who identified as such, singing solidarity sons in support of their leader. The security agencies tried to disperse them but later buckled down. It is to their credit that they eventually recognized the rights of law abiding citizens to peaceful gathering. The country is a democratic establishment that must be seen to be operating according to the rules.

The show of solidarity and courage in identifying themselves as IPOB members at the seat of the government of this country is very instructive. Significant because, it raises a moot point on the terrorism accusation for which the IPOB was proscribed and its leader charged. Conceived this way, all those who identified with the leader of an organization accused of terrorism should have been considered suspects and thrown into detention.

But nothing of such happened highlighting the contradiction in the terrorism allegation for which IPOB was proscribed. This point is of relevance given events in the southeast. At the heat of the killing of some security agents and attacks on governmental facilities, the government had laid the blame at the doorsteps of the IPOB which severally denied being violent.

The government ordered a military operation in the zone to fish out the so-called unknown gunmen behind the heinous attacks. In the course of this military engagement, there arose allegations of profiling, arrest, incarceration and killing of innocent people especially the youths for alleged membership of IPOB. Since the course IPOB is prosecuting enjoys considerable sympathy in the zone, suspecting any and every person from the area became the order of the day.

Even as relative peace has returned to the area, the public is regularly regaled with reports by security agencies of breakthroughs in the arrest of sundry IPOB members for criminal offences. It is either they are parading them in groups or as individuals with arms and ammunitions. The way the IPOB is now linked to sundry crimes has begun to convey the wrong message that there are no more armed robbers, Kidnappers and all manner of criminals in the zone. The impression we get is that all those sympathetic to the injustice the IPOB is campaigning against are terrorists; criminals that should be hounded and possibly eliminated.

The Abuja court gathering has clearly shown the pitfalls of that position. Those that gathered, clearly identified themselves and were heard insisting in argument with security agencies that they had come in peace and were exercising their rights to peaceful assembly. They were defiant in asserting their rights to self-determination and the law enforcement agencies were left with no option than to allow them.

Does that convey any message? Does it say something about the categorization of the group as terrorists-a label that has exposed innocent youths in the zone to all manner of mistreatment from security agencies? What of the appearance of the Ohaneze Ndigbo at the venue? Are they also sympathizers of a terrorist organization? The way these posers are resolved will give a clue to the efficacy of the responses of the government to all the issues that brought about the current pass.

The case of Adeyemo also toed the same path. Hundreds of his supporters both from this country and Benin Republic had thronged the court premises to show sympathy over his travails. There was also a high-powered delegation from the Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Ogunwusi and the Olubadan of Ibadan, Oba Saliu Adetunji to Cotonou to observe the court proceedings.

Oba Adetunji said he took the step to assure those who had besieged his palace including protesters that he was not folding his hands over the travails of Igboho and his aides. Had the trial been in the Nigerian court, perhaps security agencies would have had rough time controlling an unprecedented crowd of supporters. That is also a veritable statement.

Events from the two courts clearly indicate that Kanu and Igboho are not necessarily seen in the mould the authorities are framing them. They are seen as people fighting injustice, staking their lives for the good of their ethnic groups in a clime unable to manage its diversities. The grievances they seek to remedy are popular with the people. So their conviction (even the payment of the supreme price) cannot bring final resolution or closure to issues propelling the agitations.

The government should go beyond court trials and engage the constituents for lasting solutions to the agitations. The trials are clear signals of a system unable to manage its challenges. They speak of system instability to the outside world and inherently investor unfriendly.