The Nation Newspaper

Category: Thursday

  • Denouement

    Denouement

    THERE seems to be some hope that the Chibok girls’ crisis will soon be resolved –somehow. Probably by negotiation; most likely not by bullets. Somehow.

    President Goodluck Jonathan announced gleefully the other day at the World Economic Forum that the end of the devilish Boko Haram sect had come. Many Nigerians share this optimism. But I hasten to warn that we shouldn’t muddle it all up. The battle is not the war. Retrieving the 276 or so youngsters is different from hacking down Boko Haram, the fiendish group whose April 15 invidious abduction of the pupils from their school in Chibok, Borno State, has made Nigeria the focus of a global resentment and revulsion – that the black man’s hope could be this sick.

    When all the world’s super spooks will have returned  home and the accursed crooks, murderers and plunderers of Sambisa forest are appeased. When the hostage negotiators and interrogators will have called it a day. When the ballistic experts will have rounded  off. When the counter insurgency specialists and the Special Forces will have signed off. And when the global media will have disbanded their camp in Abuja to move on to more urgent matters. When it is all resolved  – temporarily – it is most likely we return to our old ways. No lesson taught; no lesson learnt. Life goes on. And the morbid philosophy: oh! It was meant to be. Every nation has its own trying moment and all such vacuous postulations.

    It will be fitting for us to put on record how a centenarian became the world’s sick toddler, bedridden by a debilitating ailment caused by the very offspring who should care for him.

    On April 14, Boko Haram extremists stormed the Government Secondary School, Chibok in Borno State, corralled over 200 girls into an open space, ordered them into a line of trucks, set the school on fire and drove off with their captives. Unchallenged. By the time the gunmen completed their devilish mission, it was April 15.

    The military were said to have got a report that evil was on the way, but a promised reinforcement never came, even after the deed had been done. Distraught parents hired motorcyclists, bows and arrows in their hands, and headed for the forest. They never got there. They were warned by villagers that daring to go on was nothing but suicide.

    Devastated, Governor Kashim Shettima rushed down to the Presidential Villa to tell a heart-rending story of how over 200 kids were snatched off their hostels by Boko Haram insurgents. Incredible. The Villa, obviously, did not believe it was no fantasy, a farce, full of fury and drama, told by a politician desperate to discredit the Presidency for some cheap political points.

    Then the headlines. The protests. #Bringbackourgirls. Rattled, the government set up a panel – whatever has become of the committee – to verify the truth of the matter. Were kids actually kidnapped? If so, could the number be right? Where are the parents? Are they among the protesters – former public officials and Abuja society women?

    Defying security advice, Shettima and his wife travelled to Chibok to behold the ruins of what used to be a vibrant school and comfort the grieving residents of a once peaceful town that is now the scene of a global tragedy and crime against humanity, the girl-child in particular. He was all tears. So were many of the parents.

    To dismiss all doubts that the girls had been snatched off their hostels, Boko Haram ringleader, Abubakar Shekau, released on May 5 a video in which he announced to a shocked world that he had the girls, bragging that he would sell them off. Their crime? Shekau said they went to school when they ought to have got married.

    Before then, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Women Leader Kema Chikwe had issued a statement doubting the authenticity of the mass abductions. Many, who apparently felt hers was a mere expression of the prevailing feeling at the Villa, were asking: Is Kema also a mother? She swiftly reversed her stand.

    As if to follow up on Mrs Chikwe’s proposition, First Lady Dame Patience Jonathan summoned a meeting – many insisted it was an inquisition – at the Villa. It later turned out that Shettima’s wife had earlier been there to tell her how it all happened. Apparently, Mrs Jonathan didn’t believe her. So she summoned a meeting, which has now become a box office hit, one of the most viewed – some colleagues in the online section swear it is the most – video clips on the Internet.

    The First Lady is filmed throwing up her arms in exasperation after discovering that some of those who were to attend the meeting were not there. In the version of the clip that hit my mobile the other day, she is seen screaming:

     “Princepa,  do u come with two teachers? No…u wia not eform too eh? Ohkay. Kotinew! No ploblem. God will see us. Dia ris God. Dia ris God in everything we ah doin!! Dose blood that are shiarin in Boronu will answer! What of two teachers? WAEC. Two teachers dat can tell us dey coducted dat ezam; do u come with any? Princepa… Okay, na only u waka come too? Now the first lady is kolli you, kwom, ah wan to hep you! Kom to fine ya child, ya missing child… will you keep quiet? Chai..eh …chai-eh…Dia  ris God o!! Dia ris God, Dia ris God, Dia ris God oh! The blors wia sharing. Dia ris God ohhh … Dia ris God ooooooo.”

    Why was the First Lady’s intervention for the camera? Wouldn’t a visit to Chibok to cry with those agonising parents have been better? Who advised Mrs Jonathan to do all that? So much for a PR stunt that turned awry.

    After the Shekau video, there was a global outrage, with world leaders and celebrities joining the campaign for the girls’ return. UN chief Ban Ki-Moon, Pope Francis, President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Bill Gates, Kofi Annan, CNN anchor Christine Amanpour, Malala Yousafzai and actors Sean Penn, Ashton Kutcher, Justin Timberlake and Bradley Cooper, who backed a parallel hashtag:#RealMenDontBuyGirls.

    Ever so protective of Nigeria’s sovereignty, the Presidency suddenly succumbed to pressure and cried out for help. Enter Britain, United States, France, Israel, China and others. They pledged to rush in their Satellite Imaging capabilities and other advanced tracking technologies to help find the girls.

    The police announced on May 7 a N50m reward for information on the whereabouts of the girls. Nigerians sneered. Who are they fooling? Who does not know that the little ones were ferried away to Sambisa forest? Where are the troops who are said to have been in pursuit of the insurgents? Only N50m? Is this another Gulder Ultimate Search? The questions were many.

    Former Head of State and All Progressives Congress (APC) chief General Muhammadu Buhari condemned the sect, saying its doctrine of forced conversion has no place in Islam. The Villa hailed his statesmanship.  APC National Leader Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu weighed in, suggesting how to tackle the matter. So did other dignitaries. When the APC Interim Chairman, Chief Bisi Akande, stated the party’s position, lashing the country’s leadership and noting that Nigeria was on auto pilot, the Presidency was enraged. He was accused of “partisan blackmail”. Really?

    Meanwhile, the protests continued, with more celebrities signing up. Former Zamfara State Governor Ahmed Yerima – remember him? The senator who was accused of marrying an underage girl – was photographed on the internet carrying the #Bringbackourgirls placard. Strange? Well, these are strange times.

    Perhaps to drive home his message more forcefully, Boko Haram followed up on May 1 with a car bomb in Nyanya, killing scores.The large settlement on the outskirts of Abuja had earlier been the scene of a massive suicide bombing in which many died on April 14. The Directorate of State Security (DSS) announced on May 13 that five suspects had been arrested. The speed of the investigation was remarkable, even by our fast-food standard.

    Apparently basking in its renewed confidence, Boko Haram stormed Gamboru Ngala on May 5, killing and plundering. The abduction of the Chibok girls overshadowed the despoilment of the hitherto peaceful town. Many were killed and property that represented so many years of sweating were left in ruins. A bridge linking Nigeria to Cameroon was smashed.

    The terror mission continued, with the abduction of eight girls, aged between 12 and 15, in Warabe, Borno State. Nothing has been heard about them since May 6 when the news was broken.

    Just on Monday, Shekau released another video, showing the poor Chibok girls, a majority of who are Christians, renouncing their fate. He offered to let them go in exchange for his brethren in crime who are in custody. Now, the government is facing a big dilemma. Should it swap prisoners with the innocent girls and be accused of bowing to terrorists? Or should it stay firm–President Jonthan ruled out prisoner swap yesterday–and refuse to negotiate with criminals? Talk about being torn between the devil and the deep blue sea.

    Forget about Shekau’s schizophrenic rambling; it’s all balderdash. There is little space for such characters to hide. When Mohammed Yusuf, Shekau’s predecessor, was murdered in police custody, the thinking must have been that that was the final solution. How wrong. We left intact all the factors that bred the likes of Yusuf. And so it is most likely to be after Shekau.

    The battle will be won. My fear is the war. But, whichever way it goes, we should remember one fact: dia ris God oooo.

  • Edo is the poorer sir!

    FORMER Edo State Governor Lucky Igbinedion never ceases to amuse me whenever he talks. He likes to spin tales about his days in office. He was governor for 96 months and for those eight years there is nothing tangible that can be pointed to as his achievement. Igbinedion left Edo poorer than he met it.  If for argument sake, we agree with him that he met the state poor, what  did he do to change things? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Instead, he was busy gallivanting across the world, wasting our scarce resources. A good governor in his shoes would have put on his thinking cap to see what he could do to salvage the ancient state. That was not his mission. His mission was to use the state’s  scarce resources for other purpose.

    He and his friends went  partying all over the world. They celebrated birthdays in London, New York and Johannesburg. Was it his money they spent  on those revelries? He should spare us the story of running to his father, Sir Gabriel Igbinedion and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) stalwart  Chief Tony Anenih to borrow money to pay salary. If he did that, it was not because the state was broke, but because of his mismanagement of its scarce resources. He cannot rewrite the history of what we all know. No, not while we are still alive. The truth is that he killed our state and he missed going to jail for it because of the bungling of his trial by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    This is why today he can boast that being a governor made him “poorer’”. No sir, you left the state poorer than you met it.

  • Centenary awards: An assessment

    Celebrating Nigeria’s centenary 1914-2014 has come and gone. One of the highlights of the celebrations was the award of centenary honours for 100 people who distinguished themselves in one area or the other. The categories of people celebrated according to government publication include:

    1.          Heroes of the struggle for Nigeria’s independence/pioneer political leaders;

    2.          Pioneers in professional callings/career;

    3.          Pioneers in commerce and industry;

    4.          Promoters of democratic transition in Nigeria;

    5.          Heroes in global sports competitions;

    6.          Accomplished pioneer public servants;

    7.          Accomplished contemporary entrepreneurs;

    8.          Distinguished academics;

    9.          Internationally acclaimed artists, literary icons and journalists;

    10.        Outstanding bravery and public spiritedness;

    11.        Outstanding promoters of unity, patriotism and national development;

    12.        Exemplary service in the promotion of peace and excellence.

    These were the areas in which 100 people were singled out for centenary honours. For some curious reasons, Queen Elizabeth II, Frederick John Dealtry Lugard and Lady Flora Louis Lugard were the first three to be honoured before the 100 Nigerians. May I say that I was glad that my late brother, Professor Kayode Osuntokun, a distinguished neurologist and neuro-scientist who died almost 20 years ago at a very young age was honoured. To God be the glory. Because of this, I had the opportunity to get a copy of the publication and citations on the awardees. What struck me is the lopsidedness in some of the categories. There were only nine academics who were honoured whereas under the category of artists there were 18 of them double the number of academics. However, three of these so called artists like Soyinka, Achebe and John Pepper-Clark double as academics. In the category of artists/musicians, the omission of Dr. Victor Olaiya was striking. I do not think of any Nigerian who would place Fela Anikulapo-Kuti and Osita Osadebe over Victor Olaiya in the history of music in Nigeria. I was also surprised that it is in this category of internationally acclaimed artists, literary icons and journalists that Alhaji Yusuf Maitama Sule and Professor Akinlawon Ladipo Mabogunje, Dr. Barnabas Sanyaolu Oloruntoba and Justice Mariam A. Mukhtar, current chief Justice of Nigeria were placed. This must have been a mistake. I know Professor Mabogunje very well; I do not think he will enjoy being in this category of artists. I think Maitama Sule and the Chief Justice and Dr. Oloruntoba belonged in the group of public servants while Professor Mabogunje should have been grouped along distinguished academics. In the category of outstanding bravery and public spiritedness, I was amazed at the absence of the late Colonel Adekunle Fajuyi who paid the ultimate price to protect his guest, the late head of state, General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi. It is amazing that a young man, Michael Chukwugekwu Iroka would have been honoured for saving a man from being burned to death in an inferno in Makurdi, an action which obviously deserves a commendation but not a centenary award over and above Colonel Fajuyi’s bravery of July 1966. In the category of heroes in global sports competitions, I expected to see Hogan Bassey, the first Nigerian to win a world championship in Boxing. I also expected to see Emmanuel Ifeajuna, the first Nigerian commonwealth gold medallist in high jump. In the section on heroes of the struggle and pioneer political leaders, names of Dr. R.A.B. Diko, the founder of the original JamiyahMutanen Arewa and Sir Kashim Ibrahim, the first governor of northern Nigeria are missing. I also expected at least to see a section for outstanding traditional rulers which would have included apart from Sir Abubakar, the Sultan of Sokoto, Oba Aderemi, the Ooni of Ife and Oba Akenzua of Benin. I also believe that Chief S.L. Akintola, the premier of the west and a member of the first federal cabinet of 1957, Dr. Michael Okpara, the premier of eastern Nigeria at independence should have been included along with Sir Ahmadu Bello. Since this document is an historical document it should have been prepared by an historian because too many errors are contained in it. For example on page 18, the first Nigerian lawyer, Christopher Sapara Williams is not from Ogun State, he was an Ijesha man from Osun State.

    It is curious that Chief Simeon Adebo did not make the list under public servants. Chief Adebo was an exemplary civil servant, the first permanent representative of Nigeria in the United Nations and later under secretary in the UN. For the sake of historical record, Chief Adebo should have been on the list. The president of course had stated that a list like this could not have been done without mistakes and had pleaded for understanding for any serious error of omission. I also find it very interesting, to say the least, the citations of President Olusegun Obasanjo and General Sani Abacha. For example, on page 89, we are told that “Obasanjo’s first wife, Mrs. Oluremi Obasanjo is the mother of his oldest children.” On the same page we are also told that “Mrs. Stella Obasanjo lost her life a day after abdominoplasty in Spain.” It went on that the doctor who performed this was sent to one year imprisonment and made to pay $176,000 to the family of the bereaved. It added that Obasanjo has many other children at home and abroad. In the same paragraph, it stated that “Stella was not the first wife Obasanjo lost, that he lost another one, Linda in 1987.” As if this was not enough, on page 88 on the citation of Professor Ade-Ajayi, reference was incongruously made to Obasanjo and that during the protests and riot called Ali-must-go, Akintunde Ojo was shot by the police at the University of Lagos and “his mother was rumoured to be a mistress of Obasanjo”. Whoever wrote this tried hard to damage the image of Obasanjo. And I asked myself, why is that necessary in a document on the centenary of the Nigerian awards. I was intrigued by the citation on General Abacha. He was said to have been responsible for increase in Nigeria’s foreign exchange reserves and that “his regime became the first to record unprecedented economic achievements” and that he reduced inflation rate he inherited from Babangida from 54 percent to 8.5 percent between 1993 and 1998. Whoever prepared this document must have done it tongue in cheek because the same week this celebration was going on, the United States government announced the seizure of 648 million dollars stolen Nigerian money lodged by Abacha in several accounts in the US and this is on top of the billions spirited away by him into Swiss accounts. I take exception in celebrating General Abacha’s so called achievement because I and others suffered terribly under him, and in spite of our going to the Oputa panel, we got no restitution. This document was prepared apparently by a junior officer and the document was not vetted by a superior officer of intellect. This is not good enough. Whatever we do in the name of our country, we must always bear in mind that records are for posterity and as well as for the international community to see the way we do things in our country. A document perfunctorily produced and full of errors and omissions does not do our image any good.

  • Nigeria: Let’s embrace this treasure from the North

    In the midst of the storms and clouds of recent developments, we Nigerians can miss some very valuable treasures. We have been attracted to all sorts of intriguing images from the National Conference – some images of serious leadership, and many more images of shallow self-seeking and  downright irresponsible utterances, all posturing as free speech.  We have been overwhelmed by the horrors of Boko Haram’s atrocities – all of which seem to be a determined effort to drown out the voices of the National Conference. And we have been wooed to the images of an African economic summit – with its dandified images that differ radically from the realities of our economic life.

    In the course of all these, there has appeared one treasure that can be easily missed, but that I am determined that we should not miss. I refer to the statement sent by the former Vice-President of our country, Atiku Abubakar, to the National Conference a few weeks ago.

    Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s message to the National Conference is a great national treasure for two important reasons. First, it is an excellent statement of the case for the restructuring of the Nigerian federation. It is almost impossible to find a better rendering of the case anywhere else.

    Secondly, because it comes from a very eminent member of the Fulani political elite of Northern Nigeria, it is more than unique; it is historic. What we Nigerians are used to hearing from our Hausa-Fulani political elite is a trenchant defence of the status quo in our country – the status quo consisting of all the distortions that were entrenched in our federal system step by step by the military dictatorships that ruled our country from 1966 to 1999. The military dictatorships, with the very active support of the civilian Hausa-Fulani political elite, turned our federal government into virtually the sole owner of all power, and the sole controller of resources and assets, in our country.  In their hands, our federation ceased to be a federation. Our federal government became an over-bloated, horribly inefficient, and viciously corrupt establishment, actively spreading corruption into our political life, our electoral system, and our management of all aspects of our public business. Ostensibly to satisfy our people’s local demands, the military dictators split our country into more and states – that is, into smaller and smaller states. Our states became impotent entities, easily manipulated by the federal monster, totally dependent on federal handouts for their existence, and essentially powerless to promote development in their domains. The inevitable loss of local push and morale quickly generated intense poverty in all parts of our country. All attempts at the development of local resources vanished, as the federal authorities encouraged every part of Nigeria to depend on oil revenue from the Delta. No truly informed Nigeria has any doubt that these changes are the fundamental causes of poverty, insecurity, and conflicts in our country, and the reason why our country now seems to be about to break up. Yet, unbelievably, the Hausa-Fulani elite insist on the preservation of this whole monstrosity. But now, at last, a prominent Hausa-Fulani servant of our country has taken the courage to step out to contradict his kinsmen. I repeat that this action by Atiku Abubakar is truly historic.

    Step by step, he states the case very thoroughly for the restructuring of our federation, for the reduction of the powers of our federal government, for  giving new powers and imparting new energies to our states, for reviving state and local initiative and morale, and for a new surge of development and prosperity in our country.

    The Hausa-Fulani elite, as well as some others who share some of their views, have made it routine to stigmatize  all Nigerians who advocate the restructuring of the Nigerian federation as enemies of Nigeria who desire to break up Nigeria. Atiku now says loudly that the accusation is not true and must stop.  “We must stop assuming” he says, “that anyone calling for the restructuring of our federation is working for the breakup of the country”.

    The Hausa-Fulani elite and some who agree with them have always insisted that the only way to ensure the unity of Nigeria is to make the federal government overwhelmingly powerful. Atiku now clearly contradicts that. He says, “And the notion that over-centralisation and an excessively powerful centre is equivalent to national unity is false.  If anything, it has made our unity more fragile and our government more unstable.  We must renegotiate our union in order to make it stronger”.

    In support of stronger and more virile states and local governments, he states, “Greater autonomy, power and resources for states and local authorities will unleash our people’s creative energies and spur more development. It will help with improving security. It will help give the federating units and the local governments, greater freedom and flexibility to address local issues, priorities and peculiarities. It will promote healthy rivalries among the federating units and local authorities. It will help make us richer and stronger as a nation”.

    From the way the northern political elite have always resolutely defended over-centralisation of power and opposed any suggestion for decentralisation, it is as if they are certain that a very strong federal centre benefits the North in some special way. Atiku now urges that we Nigerians should learn to discuss these matters dispassionately and objectively. He says, “We need to eschew emotions and knee-jerk reactions and examine these issues critically.  As is to be expected, interests have been formed and entrenched so that calls for devolution and decentralisation (mostly from the south) have been met with very strident opposition (mostly from the north). It is as though the over-centralisation of power and concentration of resources in the federal government benefit the north more than the south. Nothing can be further from the truth. In my view, and the evidence is there for all to see, the excessive dominance of the federal government has been detrimental to the development aspirations of all sections of this country.  It is precisely why we now rely almost exclusively on oil revenues, which come mainly from a small section of the country. It is what has, by extension, killed our agriculture, local control of schools, and promoted corruption that has eroded the quality of our public and even private institutions”.

    Vice-President Atiku deserves the gratitude of Nigeria for this historic intervention of his. And for those who still believe that their ethnic group has a vested interest in the status quo that is destroying our country, here is something to ponder.

  • Chibok tragedy: Unmasking PDP and President Jonathan

    APC should order its militants to release the girls; Tinubu as commander in chief is in a position to do that. Your anger against Jonathan will consume you” (0817974198)

    Since I do not belong to APC, I am not privileged to know if the party has a military wing as contained in the above reader’s reaction to my piece “The buck stops at the president desk” ;( May 1). But one thing I can assure the reader is that if indeed an APC military wing exists, General Muhamadu Buhari who as a GOC in Jos, did not wait for President Shagari’s orders before chasing insurgents who crossed from Chad to terrorise Nigerians, taking over a chunk of their territory before accepting a truce would have redeemed  the  battered image of a country where Boko Haram runs a ‘Sambisa forest republic’ where they kept 270 innocent girls plucked from their dormitories, daring Okupe’s two battalions stationed in Borno State, to  enter while their commander-in-chief is taking some lessons in Asonto dance steps in Sokoto and Kano.

    But to aver that I am angry with President Jonathan, to whom we traded off our rights to freedom and liberty for his protection of life and property, is an understatement. And I am not alone. There is anger on the streets of major cities in Nigeria. From Chibok to Maiduguiri, Lagos to Abeokuta, Ado-Ekiti, Port-Harcourt, Calabar, Uyo and Abuja, the mood is the same. Elsewhere in the world, New York, London, Paris, Senegal etc; the mood is the same. There is anger against what Prime Minister Cameron of Britain described as Boko Haram’s “pure act of evil” and what Hillary Clinton described as “government failure to protect its people”.

    Like everyone else around the globe except PDP leaders whose voices have remained tepid, I am angry with our president. I am incensed with a president who spent the first three weeks of the capture of our daughters praying long after the Jews who like their Arab cousins stubbornly resisted acknowledging Christ as son of God, have nonetheless  imbibed His teaching about  following up prayers with actions. I am anguished because our president waited for three weeks only to tell us he did not know the where about of our 270 abducted teenage girls. I am tormented by the foot-dragging that followed the Chibok tragedy and this has left me with a deep sense of shame, embarrassment and a feeling of total helplessness.

    Like Cameron who fondly reminded the British Parliament he has two daughters, I as a doting father who sneaked to my daughters’ boarding school thrice a week, to catch a glimpse of my adorable angels, a father who packs food to his undergraduate teenage sunshine in her studio daily, I feel terrified when I see fathers and mothers crying on television over their kidnapped little angels. And as a therapy to ensure I am not consumed by my anger against our president, tears also flow freely from my eyes in solidarity with grief-stricken weeping fathers and mothers.

    With Chibok, PDP and President Jonathan can no more live in denial as Wole Soyinka, one of the remaining few Nigerian credible voices told CNN Amanpour last week. Before now all critics of President Jonathan’s inept handling of the nation’s affairs have been blackmailed.   Newspaper columnists doing their job of helping the public interpret news of government activities are proclaimed ignoramuses by Aso rock’s know-all attack dogs of Doyin Okupe and Ahmed Gulak.  Now critics of PDP wheelers and dealers and the president style to have been vindicated.

    Hillary Clinton the US immediate past Secretary of state only last week dismissed the PDP administration headed by President Jonathan as irresponsible, asserting that “The government of Nigeria has been, somewhat derelict in its responsibility for protecting boys and girls, men and women”.

    The well respected London Economist equally dismissed President Jonathan government as incompetent lamenting that “the worst aspect of the Nigerian government’s handling of the abduction is its seeming indifference to the plight of the girls’ families. It took more than two weeks before Jonathan addressed the matter in public.” But the Economist has gone further to condemn the meddlesomeness of the president’s wife who it accused of “indiscriminate use of power even when she was not a constitutionally elected official” by ordering “the arrest of two leaders of the protests, bizarrely accusing them of belonging to Boko Haram and of fabricating reports of the abduction to smear the government”.

    Amnesty International intervention also seems to have confirmed the fears of Nigerians that our military might have not been properly kitted in spite of humongous defence budget of about one trillion naira, a quarter of the nation’s annual budget, a claim  often dismissed by government contractors as spokespersons or image makers.  Netsanet Belay, the body’s Africa Director (Research and Advocacy) accused government of “a gross dereliction of duty to protect civilians, who remain sitting ducks for such attacks.” According to the body, Nigeria’s military headquarters in Maiduguri “was aware of the impending attack soon after 7pm on April 14, close to four hours before Boko Haram began their assault on the town.”, but was alleged to be unable to “to muster troops – due to poor resources and a reported fear of engaging with the often better-equipped armed groups – meant that reinforcements were not deployed to Chibok that night. The small contingent of security forces based in the town – 17 army personnel as well as local police –attempted to repel the Boko Haram assault but were overpowered and forced to retreat.”

    The New York Times asserts the president ”leads a corrupt government that has little credibility.” For long the president and his party have lived in denial insisting corruption is not an issue in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary They briefly forgot in the new globalised world, sovereignty is dead. The world can see through a president who tries to wash his hands clean by attributing the non successful prosecution of those accused of stealing N1.7 trillion to the wheel of justice which he says grinds slowly in our environment. It is not hidden from the world how Boni Haruna, former governor of Adamawa state got a judicial relief on the eve of his appointment as a minister after an inconclusive seven years judicial battle with EFCC. The world can make an informed judgment from action of a president who openly supports a minister accused of frittering away N10 billion (enough to buy 10 unmanned drones from South Africa at a unit price of about US$500,000) on hiring of aircrafts. And as for the president’s party, the world can see that of the 23 PDP elected governors in 1999, 17 are either in prison, still serving jail terms, or in exile trying to escape from justice.

    Chibok has brought it home more graphically to the international community that we are fast moving towards becoming a failed state with our commander-in-chief requesting for military and logistic support to penetrate Mambisa forest enclave an area said not to be much bigger than Ikeja and where 270 innocent girls have been kept for close to four weeks. America, Britain and France which currently harbour millions of Nigerians must have now realized it is in their own enlightened self-interest to save Nigeria from PDP, President Jonathan and Boko Haram.

  • Cowards anthem (4)

    The night has murder in the eye, and noon, murder in the heart; even daybreak drips with blood. One ill begets the other, and every madness a great deal more. The solstice of sanity has sagged, and we become indiscriminate pawns in the theatre of the absurd, in our drama of blood and bomb blasts.

    There is “virtue” in the insanity of the rampaging horde, so claims the murderous horde, but if you look closely enough, you could discover the politics that incite the madness of Boko Haram and the death and destruction they incite. Perhaps you will get to understand why ordinary citizens become blood-thirsty brutes and the average human becomes subhuman.

    There is no excuse for the murderousness of Boko Haram; there is no pretext for the existence of the group at all. But is there an excuse for the Nigerian state? Have we an excuse for our contemptible situation? Some frivolous boob would justify the terrorist sect’s campaign of cruelty, carnage and unjustifiable girl-child abductions; on the flipside, minstrels of disharmony and death gleefully adorn the cloak of human rights activists, to condemn in uncompromising terms, the inhumanness and bestiality of Boko Haram. Everybody pays lip service to our culture of chaos and slaughter.

    In the wake of the reported abduction of over 250 school girls in war-ravaged Borno State in Nigeria’s northeast, the country has been awash in floods of vitriol and conspiracy theories; the latest being the likelihood that there had been no kidnap in the north-eastern State and that President Goodluck Jonathan’s detractors in the north are only seeking to foment trouble by the ‘purported abduction’ and thus accentuate the depth of his government’s inefficiency and insensitivity to the people’s plight.

    Another school of thought, the one championed by self-appointed human rights activists, women’s rights groups, social media warriors, pub critics and other civil rights societies to mention a few, maintain that the presidency’s apparent cluelessness at redressing Boko Haram’s most recent atrocities – that is, the Nyanya bombings and school girls’ abductions – validate their claims of the incumbent government’s purposelessness and immaturity at occupying the seat of power. Every divide engages in a daily jostle to outclass the other in scoring cheap political points in the interest of the abducted school girls.

    In a recent editorial authored by the American New York Times, the news medium’s editorial board fell short of calling Mr. President a bumbling oaf on the seat of power. According to the news medium, “Mr. Jonathan, who leads a corrupt government that has little credibility, initially played down the group’s threat and claimed security forces were in control. It wasn’t until Sunday, more than two weeks after the kidnappings, that he called a meeting of government officials, including the leader of the girls’ school, to discuss the incident. There is no doubt the intelligence and investigation help President Obama offered on Monday is needed.

    “The kidnappings occurred just as President Jonathan is about to hold the World Economic Forum on Africa, with 6,000 troops deployed for security. That show of force may keep the delegates safe, but Nigeria’s deeply troubled government cannot protect its people, attract investment and lead the country to its full potential if it cannot contain a virulent insurgency.”

    This is what Nigeria has been reduced to; today, the nation’s leadership, despite our claims of being Giant of Africa, is reduced to a contemptible minion on the pages of a struggling and highly partisan – but aren’t we all partisan – and unethical American news medium.

    I do not blame the title for its disrespectful lampooning of the Nigerian leadership for it is a disgrace meritoriously earned, well deserved. I do not care about the persistent whining, disgraceful outbursts and divisive campaigns of self-appointed local and international “women’s rights,” “civil rights,” “social media” and “human rights” activists in the “interest of the abducted school girls.” If anything, I understand the “Bring back our girls” campaign as the next best fix of these bands of often self-serving narcissists and attention junkies.

    What I find gross and unforgivable is these self-styled activists’ and Nigerian presidency’s shameless invitation to America to come invade Nigeria’s bowels and assist in rooting out the terrorist Boko Haram sect hiding within the Sambisa bushes. In a saner clime, what the Nigerian presidency and advocates of US invasion have requested for would be tantamount to treason but what the heck? This is contemporary Nigeria, land of the prodigal where the “illustrious” farmer shamelessly invites the predators abroad to drive off the lower brutes from our farmlands.

    Lest you get the wrong impression, given the Nigerian leadership’s evident cluelessness and impotence in handling Boko Haram, if loved ones (God forbid) were among the abducted girls, depending on my disposition, I could shamelessly request that China, Russia, Iran, Germany and the USA to mention a few, jointly invade Nigeria, annihilate Boko Haram and their sponsors amongst the ruling class. I may not stop there, I may request that these allied forces of the world’s so-called super powers take over the nation’s governance – but this too, could be indistinguishable from treason hence let’s just consider it ‘wishful thinking’

    Now that we have conducted our dance of shame beyond the bounds of reason and decency, we waltz naked on the global stage of politics and power. We are no longer the Giants of Africa. We have rather become the shame of Africa and the next horrid ignominy of the world. But this, predictably doesn’t matter, what matters is the next best temporary palliative we can find hence our shameless request for foreign assistance in neutering Boko Haram.

    Having consistently kicked against our invitation of the world’s so-called super powers to help clean up our mess, I have come by different shades of condemnation and counter-arguments by self-styled patriots whose love for our fatherland presumably runs deeper than any other citizen’s.

    One such ‘patriot’ Emmanuel Abagolu, argues that the foreign military force “…are the lesser of possible evils in this world” even as another, Adeola Oseni, corroborates that “Accepting western assistance does not necessarily mean bringing in NATO troops, UN troops or external force but with logistic supports and better coordinates from West, it would go a long way to assist in curbing this menace for good.”

    There is wisdom in their argument; it resonates the impotence of a leadership six years old, the descent of a nation 54-years old and 170-million strong. That bloody epoch I warned us about five years ago in “Cowards Anthem (2)” has finally dawned on us.

    “Those child soldiers whose stories offer amusement on the watch of international news media shall become the source of our greatest worries…they shall become little angels of death at the behest of enfant terrible godfathers and warmongers. Our mothers shall become comfort women, our daughters too. Our sisters shall become vessels of wanton delight to occupation forces and militia of various shades and ‘honour’…The chastity we love to protect shall become the staple by which we quell our dark, dark desires; the currency by which our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters purchase and repossess every day, their right to life, at the mercy of the elements of the order that be,” I wrote.

     

    • To be continued

  • Fiscal federalism at the National Conference

    Fiscal federalism at the National Conference

    As was widely expected, and as I observed in my column in this paper a few weeks ago, the issue of fiscal federalism is proving to be a hard nut to crack at the National Conference. It is still being debated at the committee level and it was reported that the committee had agreed tentatively on the reduction of the federal share of the national revenue by some 10 per cent to be distributed among the states and local governments. But there were press reports also last week that the Northern delegation had circulated a 47- page position paper at the conference rejecting all claims to oil resources by the oil producing states, particularly in the Delta region. Specifically, the position paper is demanding that all minerals, including oil, should remain under the exclusive list of the federal government, and that the previous dichotomy on offshore and onshore revenues be restored.

     In effect, the Northern delegation is giving notice in advance that it will oppose the principle of derivation as the basis for sharing the national revenue, particularly the oil revenue which accounts for over 80 per cent of the total national revenue. The Northern position is evidently an opening gambit in what is going to be a very contentious issue at the conference. After all, the oil bearing states already receive 13 per cent of the oil revenue in partial recognition and acceptance of derivation as a principle that cannot be totally ignored in revenue sharing.

      There has so far been no official response from the oil bearing states to this Northern position paper. But it can be assumed that the oil bearing states, particularly in the Niger Delta, will vehemently reject the Northern position on the issue as totally unacceptable. They can expect support from the Southeast. But the position of the Southwest on this issue is not altogether clear. For reasons of political expediency the Southwest delegation is refraining from taking a position openly. But it should, as a matter of principle, take a position, and not wait for the Northern and Southsouth delegations to slug it out between themselves. After all the outcome of the dispute will have some financial consequences for the Southwest too. At the Obasanjo Reform Conference of 2005, the Southwest delegates were willing to support an increase of additional revenue for the oil states from 13 per cent to 19 per cent, but this modest increase was rejected out of hand by the delegation from the Southeast and Southsouth which insisted on nothing less than 25 per cent of the total oil revenue. It was on that dispute that the 2005 Conference broke down completely.

      The irony of the present dispute over revenue sharing is that until 1966 when the military seized power, revenue sharing among the three regions of Nigeria was based on 50 per cent derivation. This was generally acceptable to all the parties concerned and was in conformity with the principle of revenue sharing in a truly federal system. But all this was before oil revenue became so dominant in total national revenue. Before independence in 1960 the British colonial power had taken a great care to ensure that all frictions on revenue sharing were resolved. Between 1946 and 1958 four separate commissions set up by the departing colonial power recommended that 50 per cent of total revenue be shared on the principle of derivation, that 35 per cent be shared by the regions, and only 15 per cent to the federal government.  In fact, in 1964, after independence, the Binn Commission reduced the allocation of the federal government from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. This was the basis of revenue sharing among the federal and regions before the military seized power in 1966.

     Under the military, the share of the federal government in total revenue was progressively increased. Oil had become a major factor in national revenue. The process of the erosion of the principle of derivation for revenue sharing began with the military’s Decree 13 of 1970, which reduced by 5 per cent revenue shared on the basis of derivation. In addition, the decree transferred all the revenue from off shore oil wells to the federal government. Between 1976 and 1979, the military regime reduced by a further 20 per cent revenue distributable on the basis of derivation. In 1981 the Shagari regime made a further reduction of 20 per cent on revenue sharing on the basis of derivation. With this, revenue distributable on the basis of derivation fell from 50 per cent at independence to only 5 per cent. When the military returned to power in 1984, revenue sharing on the basis of the principle of derivation was further reduced to 1.5 per cent. It should also be noted that virtually all the leaders of the military regimes, except the Obasanjo regime, that undermined the principle of derivation as the basis for the sharing of the national revenue were from Northern Nigeria. This further complicated the problem as most of the oil is located in the Delta region. In 1992 the Babangida military regime decided that the share of the federal government in national revenue would be 48.5 per cent, the states 24 per cent, the local governments 20 per cent, and the balance of 7.5 per cent was to be held by the federal government as special fund. In effect, the total share of the federal government in the national revenue, over 80 per cent of which is from oil exports, was 56 per cent.

      Now, this is a massive negation of the principle of derivation and of fiscal federalism. It is totally unacceptable and the oil bearing states are right in demanding a drastic review of the existing formula on revenue allocation as it hurts the financial viability of the states (37) and local governments (774) very badly. While the FG gets over 56 per cent of the total revenue, states get less than 1 per cent each and the local governments even less. The issue is not even about the financial profligacy, or massive corruption of the federal government, or its colossal financial mismanagement. The issue is that this imbalance in revenue sharing between states and the federal government has been a persistent source of friction between them as it places the other tiers of government in the federation in an invidious situation of having to rely on the federal government for financial bail outs. This runs counter to the principle of fiscal federalism which should be based on the recognition that both the federal government and the federating states are co-ordinates, equal in all respects to one another.

      It is in the interest of the states for the federal government’s share of the national revenue to be reduced so that individually all states, including the Northern states, can get more from the total national revenue. The position of the Northern delegation is obviously based on political expediency, on the expectation that power will revert to the North in 2015. If the situation was reversed, and most of the oil was located in the North, there is no doubt that the Northern delegation would insist on the principle of derivation as the basis for revenue sharing.

    However, there is one issue on which the littoral oil bearing states stand on a weak wicket. It is that of their claim to offshore oil as well as onshore oil. These states cannot legitimately claim exclusive ownership of offshore oil, the proceeds of which should be shared by both the states and the federal governments. This position was affirmed at the UN Law of the Sea Conference of 1982 in which I participated when I was Ambassador at the UN and which the Northern delegation referred to in their position paper. The littoral oil bearing states cannot claim 50 per cent of the revenue accruing from offshore oil as offshore resources belong to the entire country and should be shared equally among them. Neither can the federal government claim exclusive ownership of revenue from offshore oil. After all, without the states there can be no federal government. There is no provision in the convention agreed at the UN Law of the Sea Conference vesting total ownership of offshore oil in the federal government.

     It should be possible for these huge differences over revenue sharing to be resolved at the conference. What is needed all round is compromise and a spirit of give and take on all sides in the overall interest of the nation.

  • Chukwudifu ‘Socrates’ Oputa (1918-2014)

    IF HISTORY records the 80s and early 90s as the golden era of the Supreme Court many who witnessed the era will not dispute it. It was the period the court made pronouncements without fear or favour; affection or ill-will. It said it as it is even if heavens will fall. Heavens never fell because the Justices were on the side of history.

    It was the period the court paraded the likes of Justice Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa, who died last Sunday, at the age of 96. For the five years he sat in the court,  the late Justice Oputa, was like his brother Justices, extremely busy. He wrote his name in gold through dint of hardwork. It could not have  been otherwise because it was a period that the wind of judicial activism was blowing through the apex court. The late Justice Oputa was in the court  between 1984 and 1989.

    Among his colleagues  then were former Chief Justice Mohammed Bello, Justice Andrews Otutu Obaseki, Justice Kayode Eso, Justice Augustine Nnamani,  former Chief Justice Muhammadu Uwais, Justice Adolphus Karibi-Whyte, Justice Saidu Kawu, former Chief Justice Alfa Belgore, Justice Abdulganiyu Agbaje, Justice Philip Nnaemeka-Agu, Justice Abubakar Wali and Justice Babasanya Craig.

    None of them was a push-over when it came to interpreting the law.

    The late Justice Oputa was a judge’s judge. He remains one of the finest Justices that ever sat in the Supreme Court. In his years in the court, according to Justice Uwais, the late Justice Oputa delivered 267 judgments, 50 of which were lead judgments.

    His verdicts were not pedestrian. They were well resoned and laced with authorities. It is not for nothing that he was known as Nigeria’s Lord Denning and the Socrates of the Supreme Court. He was named Socrates by former Chief Justice Bello. Justice Uwais recollects how the late Justice Oputa came about the appellation in his foreword to the book: Judicial Footprints, which is a compilation of the late eminent jurist’s pronouncements while in the Supreme Court.

    ”Justice Oputa’s sound knowledge of the humanities – history, philosophy, literature, economics,and of course his deep sense of religion greatly enriched his style of delivering judgment. For this, Justice Mohammed Bello, former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), described him as the ‘Socrates’ of the Supreme Court”.

    As noted by former CJN Uwais, the late Justice Oputa was everything rolled into one. Historian, philosopher, literary critic, economist and scientist. He believed that as a judge, you must be versed in all subjects, and he brought his vast knowledge to bear on his judgments. The late Justice Oputa was a critic par excellence. He was unsparing of lazy judges and lawyers. He tore to shreds judgments of lower courts, which he felt did not meet standard.

    According to Justice Uwais, the late Justice Oputa made what he calls ”immortal pronouncements” in Judicial Footprints during ”the golden period of the Supreme Court”. ”The history of judicial development in Nigeria witnessed an upswing in the early 80s and most part of the 90s comparable to the era of oil boom in our land. At the Supreme Court of Nigeria there was a spirit of revival and activism blowing through this period as adjudged by our prominent lawyers and legal practitioners alike,” he said.

    Justice Uwais was effusive in his praise of the late Justice Oputa in Judicial Footprints, which is written by George Oputa. He described the late jurist’s verdicts as rich, biting and profound. Justice Uwais said: ”From August 1984 to December of the same year, the jurist described by many as the Lord Denning of our Supreme Court, delivered 31 judgments”.

    Justice Uwais notes that judicial activism berthed in the Supreme Court in 1986 and credits the late Justice Oputa for it. ”In 1986, we saw the birth of judicial activism, where courage triumphed over might. In that year, 46 cast – iron judgments were delivered. Standing out among these is the famous Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu. Here, his Lordship courageously opined that ”in Nigeria even under the military government, the law is no respecter of persons, principalities, governments or powers and the courts stand between the citizen and the government to see that the state is bound by law and respects the law”.

    In his verdicts, the late Justice Oputa was a sage, a critic, a historian, a philosopher, an accountant and a scientist. Little wonder he was nicknamed Lord Denning of Nigeria, Socrates of the Supreme Court and philosopher-judge.  It is not possible to capture  some of  his thoughts here as reflected in his verdicts. But check: ”Justice is not a one-way traffic. It is not justice for the appellant only. Justice is not even only a two-way traffic. It is really a three-way traffic, justice for the appellant accused of a heinous crime of murder; justice for the victim, the murdered man, the deceased, ‘whose blood is crying to heaven for vengeance’ and finally, justice for the society at large…”

    ”It is the duty of the courts to safeguard the rights and liberties of the individual and to protect him from any abuse or misuse of power or what my learned brother Eso, J.S.C in Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu described as ‘executive lawlessness’. When the court is described as the last hope of the common man that implies that it is the duty of the judiciary (a duty which it owes to the course of justice) to ensure that any encroachment on the rights of the individual, any coercive action is justified by law. In the unequal combat between those who possess power  and those on whom such power bears, the court’s primary duty is protection from the abuse of power”.

    To  present day judges, who are fond of throwing out cases on technical ground, I commend to them these immortal words of the sage : ”The courts should see to it that justice is never defeated by technical rules of procedure. These rules should be seen as subservient handmaids to justice not as omnipotent masters at war with justice”. On the power of the Supreme Court as final arbiter, he said: ”We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this court are human beings capable of erring. It will certainly be shortsighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth…”

    This is the candour that stood him out as a respected jurist. He has run a good race. May he find rest in the bosom of the Lord.

  • Nigeria: Let the truth be told and devil be damned

    President Bill Clinton is the most generous spirit among the topmost citizens of our world. He commands great intellectual penetration to know and understand the pains of the poor and oppressed peoples of the world. But, more importantly, he has so great a share of human empathy that he never turns away from the people who are being brutalized and hurting – he tries to do something about it. Some months ago, President Clinton adverted his attention to the Boko Haram insurgency in our Northern Nigeria, and he came to the assessment that the root of the problem was desperate poverty – the fact that our Northern Nigeria is dangerously far behind the rest of Nigeria in education and, therefore, in almost all other facets of economic development. Most informed Nigerians know that he is right.

    What President Clinton probably didn’t know – or what he did not wish to touch upon – and what the world needs to be told, is that the political leaders of our Northern Nigeria bear most of the responsibility for the horrific poverty of our citizens in the North. These men are capable political leaders but, sadly, they think that their cardinal task as political leaders is to control Nigeria at all costs – to strategize at all times to hold Nigeria down under their thumb, and to successfully resist any change that could rob them of that control. In the process they are hurting their own people abysmally.

    Between 1962 and now, they have been almost entirely responsible for turning the federal government into the sole controller of all power and resources in Nigeria – an accomplishment that has destroyed all peripheral centres of development as centres of development, sapped the spirit of local initiative, wrecked all local morale, turned the federal government itself into a podgy, incompetent, and hideously corrupt establishment, spread corruption deeply all over Nigeria, destroyed the spirit of enterprise among our people, turned even some of the best among us into abject favour-lickers and outright thieves, and handed the lives of the masses of Nigerians to ever-escalating, grinding, poverty.  That is the heritage of the successful centralizing crusade which the northern leadership, as civilian politicians and military dictators, have championed since independence. A prominent northern citizen made the very important statement recently that, in the light of Nigeria’s natural and human wealth, the ever-deepening poverty among Nigerians was paradoxical and embarrassing. Yes, it is embarrassing, but it is not paradoxical. It is a direct outcome of policies that deliberately seek to rob all sections and localities of Nigeria of the power and ability to tackle their needs and concerns in the context of Nigeria. And as long as our northern political and intellectual elite continue to oppose and frustrate decentralization and devolution, as long as they continue to believe that they and the North have vested interests in federal control of all power, resources and assets in Nigeria, the poverty among the masses of our people will only get worse and worse – and Nigeria’s chance of cataclysmic revolts or even implosion will get bigger and bigger.

    Unhappily, the masses of Northern Nigerians have been dished the largest, and disproportionate, share of the contrived poverty of Nigeria. Northern Nigeria is not just the poorest part of Nigeria today, it is one of the poorest places on the African continent. The main cause of this has been the ambivalence of the northern leaders about Western education – their hesitance to promote it as hard as the southern leaders of Nigeria have been doing. The massive prevalence of illiteracy has thus stunted all other facets of socio-economic development among the peoples of Northern Nigeria. But another factor has been the centralizing zeal of the northern political leadership. As northern leaders focus most of their political leadership assets on pushing and pulling all power and resources in Nigeria towards the federal centre, they have tended to show not much confidence in local initiative and development, and given correspondingly little energy to local development. Things were obviously not like this under the first Premier of the Northern Region, Sir Ahmadu Bello, in 1952-65. Under Sir Ahmadu Bello, though the Northern Region started with serious educational deficits, the Northern Region was a credible contestant in the development rivalry among the three regions of Nigeria. But, gradually since 1966, most of the regional strength has been dissipated, and much of the socio-economic gains have been lost. For instance, “federalization” virtually destroyed the main export crops (cocoa in the West, palm produce in the East, and groundnuts in the North) which had been the backbone of the Nigerian economy at independence – because each was robbed of the serious kind of support and encouragement that they had enjoyed in the hands of their regions.  And then, to further worsen the situation in the north, there came a series of prolonged droughts. These devastated the already declining groundnut economy of northern farmers, and decimated the north’s ancient cattle industry. All these became particularly terrible because the government of Nigeria was almost totally focused on petroleum to the exclusion of other economic factors; neither the federal government nor the northern leadership was disposed to give the kind of massive response that was needed; and the petty little states that were being created (for the political purpose of weakening local energy and strengthening the federal centre) simply did not command the kind of muscle that the serious emergency demanded. In the circumstance, the north sank – and has continued to sink.

    What I write today is a message to the ongoing Nigerian National Conference in Abuja. It is also a message to the wider world – especially to such great and concerned leaders of our world as Clinton, Tony Blair, President Carter, President G. W Bush, and President Barack Obama. Unbelievably, at the National Conference today, Nigeria’s northern political elite are still fighting might and mane for the preservation of the destructive status quo that they have been mostly responsible for creating. They do not care that the status quo is destroying their own northern Nigerians even more than the rest of Nigerians.  It does not mean anything to them that one of their own foremost men, Atiku Abubakar, recently Vice-President of Nigeria, has sent a message to the National Conference asserting that over-centralization is hurting all parts of Nigeria, and passionately urging that we should restructure our union with the objective of unleashing the energies of our states and localities, and making our states fewer and stronger.

    A young friend of mine who tried to reach me by telephone from Abuja left this message: “The northern leaders are going around here sir, arrogantly telling everybody that they will not let this conference achieve any change, that they oppose any kind of restructuring or devolution whatsoever. President Jonathan seems impotent. I fear now that our country is going to break up. I have tears in my eyes. Do something sir. Anything”.

    In response, I have written this message. I am not confident that President Jonathan will, or can, do anything to improve the situation. His sole preoccupation seems to be to win re-election in 2015 – at whatever cost. But the world can help. And the world must help. I am crying out about the well-being of 170 million people.

  • Boko Haram, in the name of God, cease fire

    The spate of bombings and killings by Boko Haram in recent times including the recent one in Abuja has become frightening. No one can understand the justification for what has been happening for almost three years. If Boko Haram and its members are born by women and are created in the image of God, they should cease fire and negotiate with the authorities on what they want. Surely it cannot be that they want to convert people to their own kind of Islam by killing the same people including Muslims. It is unislamic for any Muslim to deliberately reduce the size of the Ummah– the community of Muslims. When this campaign started many of us thought that it was a campaign against Christians because that was what it appeared to be initially but now nobody can make any sense out of these terrible attacks. Perhaps to make an impression on all of us Nigerians, Boko Haram for the third time since their campaign began has struck a deadly blow at the outskirts of Abuja.

    First it was the Police Headquarters, then the United Nations building now a motor park at Nyanya. For those who are familiar with Abuja, Nyanya is where the poor people live irrespective of their religions. Some of us had sometimes thought that the Boko Haram rank and file were made up of poor people; some even saw their murderous campaign as some kind of class war. People tend to explain their campaign away as a reaction of the deprived and have-nots against the haves but how does one explain, striking at the hearts of the poor people’s quarter in Abuja?

    This violence does not make sense and it ought to end. Government is spending at least a trillion naira every year confronting these rural and urban terrorists in the north of Nigeria. This is a vast amount that could have been used to alleviate the suffering of the poor. It seems that our security forces and agencies have still not devised the right kind of strategies to confront this movement. It seems the intention of this movement is to make the country ungovernable even though they have largely been confined to the north-eastern part of Nigeria. Their ability and intention to strike in other areas are becoming worrisome.

    Personally for me, I want to appeal to members of the Boko Haram to lay down their weapons and come out and embrace negotiation. I say this because I spent years 1982-1984 in the then serene and quiet Maiduguri metropolis. I can never understand why the serenity of Maiduguri has become a distant past. Who would have believed that the point of entry of Islam into Nigeria and that the Kanuri, one of the most civilised people in Nigeria will be the one to be visited by this cruel tragedy? In their culture, particularly their cuisine, language and scholarship, the Kanuris are one of the best in this country producing the first crop of the Ulamas spreading the Islamic civilisation all over the country. In the production of modern western educated effendiyyah in northern Nigeria, the Kanuris were at the forefront. In fact the first Nigerian central Minister of Education, the late Sir Kashim Ibrahim was not only a distinguished educationist, a local patriot, a noble man of Borno, he was also the first indigenous governor of the entire northern region. If it were possible to see what is going on from heaven, what would he say about his homeland of Borno? And centuries before Sir Kashim Ibrahim, there was Idris Alooma, a forward looking Shehu of Borno who had built some kind of students’ hostel for Borno students studying in Al-Azar University in Egypt. This is the same Borno that produced first class politicians like Waziri Ibrahim, the apostle of politics without bitterness; Alhaji Zanar Bukar Dipcharima, frontline politician of the first republic and Alhaji Shetima Ali Monguno, a fine gentleman of great nobility of heart, a man of great and transparent integrity who is witnessing the degradation of his homeland in his evening years. Borno also produced Alhaji Ibrahim Imam, a revolutionary scholar politician and thinker of the first republic.

    Of course the Boko Haram is not a Kanuri movement but what I am saying is that it is largely destroying Borno, the home of these intrepid people and the movement has unfortunately been identified with Borno even though all kinds of copy cats and journeymen from other ethnic groups are now manifesting as Boko Haram. Outsiders particularly friends of Nigeria have suggested that the federal government should launch some kind of Marshall Plan for the development of the north-eastern part of Nigeria. Even if we have the resources, Nigeria alone cannot handle this task and if we deploy the entire Nigerian army to the north-east, they may not be able to put down completely this madness and terrorism. Besides, economic development can only take place in a peaceful environment.

    There has to be another strategy of wining the hearts of the people because it now seems that Boko Haram has a long hand that can reach any part of Nigeria. It is frightening to imagine what a determined group like Boko Haram can do to Nigeria. No Nigerian living anywhere should think that he or she is immune to terrorism; it is only a matter of time for all of us to become victims if we do not do something quickly. It has become clear that we alone cannot solve this problem we should therefore invite friends of Nigeria to help us. We are not the first country to witness this kind of insurgency, before us were Indonesia and Malaysia in the 1950s before the insurgencies there were successfully put down. Since then, the sophistication of weaponry in the hands of terrorists have made it difficult to suppress most insurgencies because of their embrace of suicide bombing. When people no longer fear death, it makes their being killed not a serious strategy because such a strategy is based on massive retaliation.

    The government should embark on provision of jobs for men who will then be physically exhausted by hard work and would not be dreaming and fantasizing about creating paradise here on earth or in heaven, it is only God who can do this. No man has the right to take the life of another man except if he has been found guilty by properly constituted authorities or in self defence. This is what the Holy Quran says; murdering people on a semi-industrial scale through terrorism is not an act of God.