The Nation Newspaper

Category: Festus Eriye

  • Karma and the PDP meltdown

    Karma and the PDP meltdown

    President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan promised Nigerians transformation: in ways he, his supporters and opponents may never have anticipated, he is delivering.

    The ongoing war of attrition within the ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) rather than being a tragic event, could ultimately lead to radical transformation in the way the business of politics is conducted in Nigeria.

    It may also result in reining in the monstrous, rampaging presidency constructed by former President Olusegun Obasanjo in his eight years in office. This was a presidency more committed to enforcing its will than upholding the rule of law.

    It was a presidency unabashedly given to using state apparatus to undermine constitutional institutions, emasculate elected officials and subvert the commonweal.

    But for a brief window when the late Umaru Yar’Adua was still trying to find his way and Jonathan as Acting President was coming to grips with exercising ultimate power, we have reverted to the Obasanjo years when a president’s wish was law and dissent well-nigh treasonable.

    One can be forgiven for dubbing this administration OBJ-lite. It has copied all the former president methods – especially in dealing with perceived enemies. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is ever ready to be deployed for sudden investigation of all who fall foul of the powers-that-be. Elected officials can be blackmailed with the sudden withdrawal of their security detail. Election outcomes are recognised only when they are favourable. Even throwbacks to the OBJ era are wheeled out of retirement to reprise their erstwhile attack-dog roles. You cannot run down the list without experiencing that strange sense of déjà vu.

    Unfortunately, those we are dealing with are not the sort to split hairs over originality. They are too pre-occupied with the struggle for survival, and for desperate men anything goes – as long as it works.

    The real tragedy for a party that loved to describe itself as the ‘biggest in Africa’ is that it has been so preoccupied with staring at, and admiring its image as mirrored by the water, it didn’t realise the moment it fell into the river! Even in its death throes some who should know better are deluding themselves that the party will emerge from the current trauma stronger.

    The only way that can happen is if there is genuine reconciliation in which the grievances of ‘New PDP’ elements are addressed and the rebels receive amnesty. But that is an unlikely scenario because what is driving the split is a cocktail of burning ambition, betrayal, broken promises and deep-rooted bitterness.

    Jonathan is committed to running again. His embittered foes are bent on holding him to commitments he made when he first sought the presidency under equally contentious circumstances in 2011. The other eruptions like the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) debacle and Rivers PDP crisis are all symptoms traceable to the disagreements over 2015 which are destabilising the party.

    Anyone who has followed the exchanges across the PDP divide in the last one week will not have escaped the old pattern of denial and looking for scapegoats. Rather than embark on some desperately needed introspection, party hacks have descended on the usual suspects. Predictably, some of Jonathan’s supporters now see in Obasanjo the Macchiavelian directing the drama. Never mind that the possibility of the former president and his erstwhile deputy, Atiku Abubakar, sitting together to cook up a conspiracy – given all the issues between them – just beggars belief.

    In reality the spiritual principle that you reap what you sow holds true in the PDP mess. Everything the ruling party and its managers have done in the last 14 years created the impression that with sufficient might you can get away with impunity.

    I have been amused to no end at the recourse by PDP chairman, Bamanga Tukur and elements in the presidency to legality as the means of fighting the rebellion. Tukur has been huffing and puffing about how he was properly elected by the special convention. He has even gone as far as threatening to declare the seats of rebels in the National Assembly vacant, and send security agents after them for daring to have a difference of opinion.

    Coming from party leaders who have encouraged this sort of unorthodox conduct in the past, the whole legal posturing is just risible. The PDP has 23 governors, but its national leadership was sacked by Atiku and a mere seven governors! What is wrong with that? Given what has been happening in the polity in the last few months the ruling party should not see this as a strange development.

    It is hypocritical for the president and his supporters to cry foul over ‘New PDP’. Without shame they recognised Plateau State Governor, Jonah Jang, as NGF chairman after he received just 16 votes in an election in which 35 governors voted. Jonathan used the power of his office to encourage Jang’s dubious claims. So why is he discomfited that a mere seven governors will topple Tukur and replace him with one-time Acting Chairman, Abubakar Baraje?

    It is rib-tickling watching the outrage of the same people who have been addressing the impostor, Evans Bipi, as ‘Speaker’ of the Rivers State House Assembly. This was a fellow who along with five others purportedly toppled the real leader of the 24-member assembly in the now infamous fracas where legislators assaulted each other with dangerous weapons while the police looked on like spectators at a boxing tournament.

    If Bipi and his Gang of Five can seize power in a 24-man assembly, what is wrong in seven governors overthrowing the leadership of the ‘biggest party in Africa’? In the PDP’s universe this should not elicit surprise. Over the last 14 years this party has sown impunity and injustice, now it is reaping a whirlwind harvest.

    This isn’t a beauty contest between Jonathan and Atiku or the governors and the president. This is about the underlying things stoking the crisis. This is about a system that has received too many shocks and now the absorbers have given way. This is purely a case of what has been going round finally coming around. So PDP deal with it!

  • The strange case of Charity Uzoechina

    The strange case of Charity Uzoechina

    For mischief makers religion is always a useful tool. That point was hammered home again in the Nigerian Senate last week when in the course of retouching a section of the constitution dealing with citizenship lawmakers veered off course.

    Today, senators find themselves battling the backlash from outraged Nigerians who say their action opened a loophole for people to legally take child brides.

    Although they insist they didn’t lower the age of consent or amend the Child Rights Act, Senate President David Mark has admitted many of his Muslim colleagues were blackmailed into voting a certain way once former Zamfara State Governor Ahmed Sani Yerima introduced religious sentiments.

    That a group of people at that level could blithely ignore the serious ramifications, and endorse a clause that is open to all sorts of interpretations, underlines the power of religion.

    It is not only in the Senate that badly-managed religion is playing havoc with people’s lives. This Thursday, August 1, a Sharia Court in Bida, Niger State, will rule whether one Charity Uzoechina, a 24-year old student of the Federal Polytechnic in the town, will be allowed to return home to her parents.

    The case has been rumbling for months, and revolves around Uzoechina’s alleged renunciation of Christianity and embrace of Islam.

    Her father, Raymond Uzoechina, a pastor with The Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), Abuja, denies his daughter converted to Islam, alleging she was hypnotised and kidnapped, and is being held captive in the palace of the Etsu Nupe, Alhaji Yahaya Abubakar.

    For his part, the traditional ruler claims Charity, or ‘Aisha’ as she’s now called, was not being held against her will. He has presented legal documents where Charity claims to have converted to Islam and says her father could kill her for the move. That threat ostensibly prodded her to seek protection from the Palace and the Sharia Court.

    The court duly obliged, ordering “that the custody of the plaintiff be entrusted in the hand of Etsu Nupe for the time being and the Etsu Nupe should employ a qualified Islamic scholar who will be teaching her and showing her what the Islamic customs is all about and the plaintiff can even be watching and selecting a man of her choice whom she will want to marry as her partner.”

    While the Sharia Court is already making marriage plans for her, Charity has dropped out of school and remains holed up in the Etsu Nupe’s palace.

    Pastor Uzoechina vehemently denies the version of events as retailed by the palace and the court. On the day when that ruling was given he was not present. He rejects talk that the Emir tried to broker peace between him and his daughter – insisting that the last time he saw Charity she had an emotional breakdown.

    “My daughter was crying when we saw her. They never allowed us speak with her. It is not true that the royal father invited me and the girl for talks, with the hope of reconciling us. On March 2, I came to the palace and was taken before the Etsu Nupe. The Etsu Nupe never asked the girl to go back home with me as claimed,” he said in The Nation this week.

    In the four months over which this controversy has raged, virtually everyone has had their say. Charity’s father, as is to be expected, has been vocal in expressing his outrage. President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, to whom he ran for help, has been relentless in demanding answers.

    His intervention provoked a response from the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA). Both the Sharia Court and the Etsu Nupe have also tried to defend themselves. The only missing voice in the hubbub is the most critical – Charity’s.

    Third parties have been regaling us with what she said or didn’t say. But this needless controversy can be cleared up in a minute if the lady at the center of the storm would be allowed by those in whose custody she presently is, to speak for herself.

    Every side claims to be telling the truth and yet we know there can only be one version of the truth. The only person who can clear things up is not being allowed to speak. All those interested in the unvarnished truth ought to ask why?

    Section 38 (1) of the 1999 constitution provides for freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change one’s religion or belief. It also allows us to propagate our religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

    However, in canvassing one’s beliefs there’s no room for coercion. Uzoechina’s claim that his daughter was abducted is very grave. Kidnapping is a criminal offence. The fact that neither the parents nor the Etsu Nupe can agree on the circumstances that caused Charity to wind up in the palace ought to attract more than cursory interest from the police. That is assuming they can export the same zeal with which they are ‘enforcing the rule of law’ in Rivers State to probing a matter involving a high profile traditional ruler in Niger State.

    The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) ought also to be very interested for we might just have on our hands an egregious case of violation of a citizen’s rights.

    There are issues about the legal process that judicial authorities need to look into. For example, what notion of justice makes it acceptable to drag a Christian before a Sharia Court?

    Does any court under our constitution have the power to circumscribe a person’s liberty just to propagate a religious belief? Does any court have the power to assume custody of an adult who has not committed any crime? Under which law can a court commit an adult into the care of a traditional ruler?

    We need to understand whether justice is being served in this case or whether this is another manifestation of impunity for which present day Nigeria is becoming notorious.

    Uzoechina alleges that he has not received fair hearing. He claims not to have been served notice of hearing and that the same day – March 4, the complaint was presented before court, judgment was given and executed. Those who exercise oversight over the courts ought to investigate this.

    We must acknowledge that the individual involved in not a minor but 24 years old. Even then she was living with her parents and was still responsible to them. She may be old enough to take her own decisions – assuming she did indeed convert – but her father and mother were entitled to an explanation. The absence of such a discussion will make any parent suspicious. This is especially so given that reports of forced conversions are rife in the north.

    Despite the Etsu Nupe’s protestations there are just too many unanswered questions and posers. As the girl’s father has pointed out, even if Charity wants to practice Islam, it doesn’t have to be under the Emir’s roof. His home is not a government remand center.

    This whole business is not positive for the traditional ruler. The Etsu Nupe stool is one of the most respected in the country. He doesn’t need this messy controversy to drag on. He can control the damage being done to his image by setting Charity free.

  • Pontius Pilate strikes again

    Pontius Pilate strikes again

    I read an online reaction to a story on the political crisis in Rivers State that went something like this: ‘If you have a quarrel with your wife, blame Jonathan; if your dog falls sick, blame Jonathan.’ The implication is that President Goodluck Jonathan is being unfairly criticised for his perceived role in fanning fires threatening to consume the state.

    Picking up on this, the Presidency issued two statements distancing it from the storm. One by Jonathan’s spokesman, Reuben Abati, said in part: “There is absolutely no factual basis for suggestions that some of the politicians involved in the current dispute are acting at the behest of the President.

    “President Jonathan certainly did not instigate the crisis in the Rivers State House of Assembly and as President of the nation he will never support any actions that negate his avowed commitment to the rule of law.”

    Is the president taking undeserved flak for the show of shame in Rivers? I don’t think so. I will add that anyone expecting a video showing Jonathan at the head of a mob descending on the assembly, or hoping to hear some tape recording of the commander-in-chief giving marching orders to Joseph Mbu’s men, will wait in vain.

    But this is politics and the president’s acts of omission and commission, his wife’s ungainly stamping on the Rivers political terrain, have left indelible fingerprints of the presidency all over the crime scene. Supporters know better than to expect a written script. They simply decode their leader’s body language and utterances to decipher where he’s headed.

    That is the reason why till today former President Olusegun Obasanjo swears he never ordered anyone to prosecute a Third Term Agenda on his behalf.

    But millions were squandered in pursuit of the goal; his henchmen in the National Assembly actively pushed the idea, and never once did he denounce the project with the vehemence that would have stopped the jobbers. Is it any surprise that Obasanjo’s disavowal of the plot continue to ring hollow?

    Let’s examine Jonathan’s denials in the light of what we know. Months before the May election that re-elected Rotimi Amaechi as chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), the president let it be known he wanted the incumbent out. He called governors individually and made his pitch. That was how signatures on that piece of paper endorsing the president’s choice were collected.

    After the spectacular failure of presidential might to deliver, Jonathan quickly issued another statement distancing himself from NGF intrigues.

    His denial could have amounted to something if he hadn’t revealed his partisan interest in the matter thereafter by recognising the losing candidate, Plateau State Governor Jonah Jang, as NGF chairman at an Aso Villa event!

    The man received only 16 votes out of 35! Aside from further entrenching the diabolical Nigerian trait of never accepting unpalatable electoral outcomes, his endorsement of Jang only got him mired deeper in the quicksand of NGF politics.

    From the moment Amaechi decided – against Jonathan’s wish – to run, hitherto cold relations became glacial. When the courts sacked the state Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) executive friendly to him, the new gang loyal to Abuja made it clear they were out to execute a hostile agenda.

    Things that have unfolded in recent days have been the object of speculation in newspapers. Shockingly, both the outlandish and the illegal have played out as projected. Despite an overwhelming numerical disadvantage, the Evans Bipi-led Gang of Five pressed ahead with their power grab in an assembly that sits 32. What could have given them such courage than comfort in powers greater than a governor’s? Check the chain of events in the preceding weeks.

    State Commissioner of Police, Joseph Mbu, who reports to the president’s appointee, Inspector-General of Police, Mohammed Abubakar, had just been engaged in a public slanging match with Amaechi. Among other things he called the governor a ‘despot.’

    Did this civil servant get even a slap on the wrist for his outrageous conduct? No way! How else will anyone interpret that episode than to conclude that the police chief had the backing of higher powers to go toe-to-toe with the ‘heady’ governor?

    While Ameachi was still digesting that helping of humiliation, Her Excellency the First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Dame Patience Jonathan, swept into town. Interestingly, she had come to play the role of ‘Mother of the Day’ at the wedding of Mr. Bipi – leader of the Gang of Five.

    In the course of those celebrations, the Right Honourable First Lady fired off a couple of political missiles in the direction of Amaechi. Among other things she said Port Harcourt which used to be a pleasant place to visit under former governors had degenerated under the incumbent. She them went on to heap praise on Amaechi’s nemesis, Minister of State for Education, Nyesom Wike.

    Later that day, she met with the ‘Gang of Five’. The following morning virtually all newspapers were agog with reports that madam had come to tidy up the impeachment of Amaechi.

    Although, her spokesperson denied that her visit to Port Harcourt had anything to do with piling more woes on the governor, anyone who knows the formidable dame would have taken the explanation with a generous helping of salt.

    Mrs. Jonathan has redefined the role of president’s spouse. She was never going to be a glamour puss – content with parading in pretty clothes, doing good works. She has taken things to another level: now we have a First Lady who is both political partisan and enforcer.

    The dame has been credited as one of the major pillars behind the president’s rise. She has not allowed a little thing like the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) clearance stop her from flagging off her husband’s 2015 campaign. Whatever she was doing in Port Harcourt was certainly advancing those interests. And someone will say the president’s not involved.

    I have watched the horror video of last Tuesday’s events at the Rivers State House of Assembly. At some point, Bipi is enveloped in a friendly embrace with some unidentified individual who appeared to be trying to calm him. After hearing out the peacemaker, the warrior-lawmaker could be heard muttering: “But why must governor came (sic) here to supervise beating up of my colleagues; why must he insult the president; why did he insult my ‘mother’…”

    Is the president involved? In Bipi’s words you have your answer. Jonathan may not have been physically present but what is going on is all about his personality and political clashes with the governor.

    Back in 2011, in a moment of exasperation with his critics deriding his laidback style, the president declared he was neither Pharoah, nor a lion or general. I agree that given the package we were sold in that election year, the man Nigerians voted back then would not fit those descriptions.

    However, in the light of what has happened over the last few months, and the constant of denials of the obvious, I think a more appropriate comparison would be Pontius Pilate. He released Jesus Christ to a baying mob and thought that by washing his hands with water he could free himself from blood guilt. How wrong he was. Jonathan’s name keeps ringing in this Rivers matter because he’s involved.

    He can show that his hands are clean by doing what Obasanjo failed to do in the face on the Third Term accusations: denounce in clear, unambiguous terms every unconstitutional attempt to unsettle Rivers State.

    A few days ago the Federal Government denounced the street-instigated military coup in Egypt. To keep silent in face of similar underhand tactics in the president’s backyard would be height of hypocrisy.

  • Senators and their unusual passion

    Senators and their unusual passion

    Of the two houses of the National Assembly, the Senate is the place where you are less likely to find unbridled passion. You can count the number of times when things threatened to spin out of control. One occasion was the ‘burial ceremony’ for former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s Third Term Agenda.

    The ‘officiating minister’ was then Senate President Ken Nnamani. Even in such heady circumstances, the best senators could come up with were comedy skits – like Adolphus Wabara’s speech mocking the then president before voting ‘no’. When the gavel finally came down it was to off-key chants of something akin to a football match victory song.

    But for pure, undiluted passion you have to go to the ‘Green Chamber’ where the House of Representatives sits. Over time, in their bid to resolve thorny issues, punches have been thrown and furniture hurled in all directions.

    Sometimes the passion in the House gets deadly. When the so-called Integrity Group decided in 2007 to overthrow then Speaker Patricia Etteh, the chamber was split down the middle. One legislator who opposed the insurrection was dragged on the floor and dumped outside the chamber. Dino Melaye, the Speaker’s most vocal advocate, had his expensive shirt shredded. For the late Aminu Safana, another loyalist of the embattled regime, it was all too much: he slumped and gave up the ghost.

    Many have sought to make sense of the difference in character of the two chambers and have come to a few plausible conclusions. Senators are fewer in number and tend to be older. The House, on the other hand, accommodates over 400, much younger individuals. The youth factor means there will be hundreds with very low boiling points – making for a very combustible chamber.

    Against this backdrop, you can imagine my surprise watching on television as two senators tugged at each other’s voluminous babanrigas – waiting to let fly with jabs and uppercuts. We were denied what was turning out to be quite superb entertainment by the spoilsport intervention of a couple of peacemaking senators.

    The day after the aborted senatorial boxing match I read accounts of what provoked the altercation, but came away even more confused. Some said the fight was triggered by the debate over President Goodluck Jonathan’s failure to sign a bill requiring him to deliver a state of the nation address yearly at the National Assembly.

    Another version blamed it on the charged discussion over plans by Zamfara State Governor, Abdulaziz Yari, to arm a local militia as part of his administration’s efforts to curb spiraling crime.

    For me, what was important was not legislators getting excited once in a while: we’ve seen them do similar things in places as far afield as Turkey and South Korea. What was great was that debate was shifting – even if for a day – from the ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) agonies.

    It was great to see our lawmakers at work. But what work?

    Before the shoving incident, the legislative business on everyone’s lips was the amendment of the 1999 constitution. But of all Nigeria’s most pressing problems the highlight of that exercise from the Senate end was a proposal limiting executive tenure to a single six-year term. Now, we can add another priority item to the lawmakers’ list of achievements – a bill requiring the president to deliver one more boring speech.

    Not to be outdone, the House committee saddled with the same constitution-tweaking assignment has rolled out its own recommendations. One move guaranteed to generate much discussion is the proposal to strip executive office holders of immunity.

    The question I ask myself is: who cares about immunity? In a country of 160 million people those likely to be directly affected by this provision are less than 100. Even if you impeach and jail all of Nigeria’s governors it will not resolve our electricity crisis.

    How many government officials who don’t presently enjoy this constitutional protection from prosecution – be they in legislative houses or some parastatal – have been brought to book? Removing the immunity clause is no guarantee that there will be diligent prosecution, or that men would swear off crime, or corruption will suddenly plummet.

    I would feel much better if it is established that dueling senators nearly came to blows over the Zamfara security question. Insecurity is an issue for which the political establishment has not come up with anything that approximates an answer. Yari’s proposal may be unorthodox and even dangerous, but at least he’s come up with an idea.

    Boko Haram is the screaming advertisement of Nigeria’s crisis of insecurity. But far from the frontlines of terror in the North-East, the country lies prostrate before an army of armed robbers, kidnappers, pirates, illegal bunkerers, ethnic militias and sundry malcontents.

    National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd), speaking at the National Civil-Military Dialogue in Abuja a few days ago painted a picture of the gravity of the situation. He said terrorism and other security challenges had thrust the armed forces into joint operations with the police and other para-military outfits in 28 states. That is all of Nigeria bar eight states!

    It is an unusual situation when soldiers get involved with internal policing; it is an emergency when an ad-hoc measure becomes the norm. Our embrace of the unusual is admission that the Nigeria Police as presently constituted cannot deliver on internal security.

    We should be asking why our police are so overwhelmed. At over 400,000 men ours must be one of the largest national police forces in the world. Yet the force is hobbled by its structure, underfunding as well as manipulation by political office holders.

    Those who are unnerved by Yari’s armed militia have not come up with a more creative alternative. Their solution is as lame as they come: post most policemen to Zamfara. The question is what difference have they made in the states where they are supposedly found in numbers.

    Nigeria is too complex to continue to operate one national force. Even the British who once ran the police here don’t have one national organisation, but city and community outfits like the London Metropolitan Police and others.

    The exchanges involving Rivers State Governor, Rotimi Amaechi and the Police Commissioner, Joseph Mbu, are further evidence that the present structure has long overshot its sell-by date.

    A situation where a supposed chief security officer of state cannot give instructions to the resident police boss is impractical. You can extrapolate and envision a scenario in which the Inspector-General of Police doesn’t take instructions from the president – but from some higher powers elsewhere.

    It all brings the state police solution front and center of the discussion. The Federal Government cannot fund the police adequately. The force is running in most states because of the benevolent intervention of governors.

    People say states are not sensible enough to manage their own police, yet they are mature enough to fund the force. Managing the police is no different from running any other human organisation. The fact that they bear arms is irrelevant. What is needed is definition of the parameters under which state police will operate.

    Yari’s proposal in Zamfara is a crude form of local policing. But rather than burying our heads in the sand and hoping that the Nigeria Police will suddenly become effective, let’s admit that times like these call for more radical solutions.

    Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba who understands what we’re saying nailed it in the senate last week when he said it was time to look again at the state police idea. Here’s hoping his colleagues can overcome their fears and embrace the future.

  • The Mandela example

    The Mandela example

    Former South African President Nelson Mandela’s life has been one long drama. This last week the plot reached new heights of intensity on account of the twists and turns in his battle for life. One minute it he’s on the verge of passing, the next we get bulletins declaring he’s doing much better.

    The drama has transfixed not just his homeland but the entire world – drawing a media circus to the hospital in Pretoria where he remains a Very Important Patient.

    Such is the media interest in the story, and the jockeying for advantage to tell it better than the rival, that news outlets are pushing the boundaries as they seek to do their job. Already, a clash of perspectives has seen Mandela’s eldest daughter, Makaziwe, denounce the foreign media hordes as vultures waiting to pounce on the buffalo’s carcass.

    Some others were more charitable – arguing that for the hero of the anti-Apartheid struggle whose sacrifices had the world in thrall, the media interest could not have been less. But whatever side of the divide you find yourself the common agreement is that Madiba is loved by his people.

    One wall of the Mediclinic Heart Hospital where he’s receiving treatment has been transformed into a ‘Wall of Tributes’ by the forest of flowers and messages left there by sympathisers and supporters.

    On account of what is playing out, South Africa – not noted for its embrace of religion – has suddenly discovered God in a big way. From Soweto to Pretoria prayers are being volleyed upstairs to the Almighty in the hope that He might yet dole out a few more years to the old man.

    There are not too many leaders on the face of the earth who can be spoken of in the same breath as Mandela. But that does not make him superhuman. He remains a mere mortal with typically human frailties. The difference is that he made certain choices and lived his life according principles that many merely pay lip service to.

    His sterling human and leadership qualities have brought him as close to sainthood as any living being can be. Still, being good is no guarantee that men will love you. Jesus Christ was without sin and went about doing good to all He encountered: He was killed by men for His troubles.

    That said it’s not hard to see why Mandela is so loved and popular. People see in him qualities they wish they had; they see an ideal to aspire to.

    As I read the latest stories about his state of health, I couldn’t help but compare the drooling affection being lavished on him to the flood of bile and invective regularly hurled at a succession of Nigerian leaders. It doesn’t matter how much goodwill they begin with, they always end up in the slime pit – reviled by the same people who once sang their praises.

    What is it about Mandela that causes him to have this effect on people? Granted that his life story is powerful, still there has to be more. There are many others with equally gripping biographies, but not too many are held with such reverence and fondness.

    And it is not because he all his decisions as a political leader were always popular or correct. In many instances they were downright controversial. Indeed, many in the more radical fringes of black South Africa felt that he went overboard in accommodating the white demographic in his country after Africans took over the government. Add to that the fact that after the euphoria of the collapse of Apartheid, the new African National Congress (ANC) government didn’t exactly deliver an economic Eldorado. Up till date white South Africans still control the wealth of the country.

    I think one of the things people appreciate about him is that he could have chosen the easy way and let the next man be the hero. He didn’t: he sacrificed 27 years of his years so that millions of his country men who he didn’t know from Adam could be free. He believed in something and fought for it.

    I ask myself what many of our leaders believe in. What did a Sani Abacha care about millions of ordinary Nigerians over whom he reigned uninvited? According to Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Adoke, a total of 22.5 million euro has been recovered by the government from seizures of money laundered by the late Head of State. In addition, 175 million euro was also recovered from his family following a confiscation order given by the Supreme Court of Liechtenstein.

    For this ruler, leadership came down to stealing enough for family members yet-unborn. Little wonder that a combination of his brutality and greed ensured that his demise was greeted, not with mass handwringing as in the case in South Africa, but by widespread jubilation by a people for whom God wrought an uncommon deliverance.

    After Mandela was swept into office by irresistible historical forces, he could have perpetuated himself in office in the manner of his next door neighbor, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. South Africans would have been only too glad to have him as life president. Instead, he did the most unexpected and dignified thing: he spent four years and passed on the baton to the next generation.

    His action was such a breath of fresh of air in a continent that is home to sit-tight rulers, that some in Nigeria began canvassing the ‘Mandela Option’ when former President Olusegun Obasanjo was in the third year of his initial term. Of course, their campaign was not born of altruism and came to nothing. Obasanjo simply showed he was no Mandela by twisting every arm in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to award him a second four-year tenure.

    Being the anti-Mandela it was no surprise that mid-way through that final term he began orchestrating a constitutional amendment that would have cleared the way for him to run a third time. By the time he left office in 2007, a man in whom many had invested so many hopes at the onset headed for retirement with his image sullied by his underhand manipulation of the system.

    The ailing ex-South African leader could have been vengeful given what he and other black leaders went through at the hands of a succession of racist white rulers. Instead he chose to spread love, compassion and inclusiveness. Today, the Rainbow Nation concept he patented is one many countries round the globe would dearly love to replicate.

    Not for him the sort of vindictiveness that we’ve seen in the ongoing feud between President Goodluck Jonathan and Governor, Rotimi Amaechi. For daring to challenge the president over the oil wells dispute between Rivers and Bayelsa States, for having the temerity to triumph at the last Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) election, Amaechi has been on the receiving end of an unrelenting barrage of attacks from the barrel of federal might.

    Mandela didn’t set out to make a name for himself. His actions, utterances and principles have made him larger than life. Will Nigeria ever have a leader who would come close to wiping this icon’s shoes by standing up for something? May be in some future generation.

  • Maximum leader, minimal democracy

    Maximum leader, minimal democracy

    Nigerians are loud, opinionated and impatient. Ordinarily, those traits should make for a vibrant and fascinating democratic adventure where freedom of expression and choice, as well as transparency in public affairs would take root.

    But for a people who are quick on the draw when expressing their views, recent events are evidence that we would also be content with a system of governance where a maximum ruler lays down the law and his loyal subjects fall obediently in line.

    Over the last two weeks we’ve been celebrating democracy with two symbolic dates. May 29 speaks to an uncommon longevity of civil rule – an unbroken run of 14 years. June 12 reminded us of the subversion of the very ideal we claim to hanker for.

    How interesting that the celebrations took place in the shadow of the bitter battle to elect a new leadership for the influential Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF). While it was fun for a while reducing what happened to a David and Goliath contest in which an increasingly overbearing president received his comeuppance at the hands of a Lilliputian governor, there are deeper issues at play here.

    Thirty-five governors locked themselves in a room and willingly subjected themselves to a democratic contest. When the dust settled, two “chairmen” emerged in a contest that could only produce one! The winner had a majority of 19 votes; the other claimant had a majority of pre-polling endorsements but only 16 votes.

    How telling that 20 years after General Ibrahim Babangida and his military co-conspirators annulled the results of the June 12, 1993 election, Nigerians are still being made to endure a brazen attempt to annul what was a clear-cut victory by Rivers State Governor, Rotimi Amaechi.

    Many governors who until now had been posturing as democrats have been exposed as they sought to deny what had happened by explaining that there had never been an election in the NGF, or that the polling should never have been filmed.

    Today, everyone has a version of the history of forum; how it had always chosen its leadership by consensus. One wonders where all the historians were in the run-up to the election. How come none of these custodians of the NGF folklore never piped up with a word of dissent all those months when it was clear that the next leader would emerge through balloting?

    One of the most disgraceful aspects of the NGF fiasco is the meddling by President Goodluck Jonathan. Following the defeat of his preferred candidate, Plateau State Governor, Jonah Jang, the president and his aides have sought to distance him from the mess. But then there he was recognising and addressing the “loser” as chairman of the governors forum at some Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) event in Abuja.

    What sort of example is that? Of course, he had never hidden the fact that he was opposed to Amaechi’s return. But then he’s president of Nigeria, not of the PDP and ought to elevate himself above certain things because of the exalted position he holds.

    When it suits them, those around Jonathan are quick to flay the opposition for “playing politics with everything.” They are also known to deliver lectures pointing out that elections had been held and won, and now was the time for governing, not politicking. That sermon was clearly lost on Jonathan who ought to have done everything he could to insulate himself – at least publicly – from the bitter politics of the NGF.

    By endorsing Jang and refusing to recognize the man who won the election on the night, Jonathan and the PDP have behaved in the same fashion as those who refused to accept the electoral outcome of June 12, 1993. The ‘annulers’ equally had reasons for refusing to concede.

    If Jonathan and his henchmen have refused to lead and set an example with something as simple as the NGF election, why should they expect the opposition accept any electoral outcome that isn’t favourable to them? In the same breath why would anyone believe that PDP, given their conduct in this instance, will accept anything short of victory in 2015? Put simply the bane of Nigerians elections which is mutual suspicion of the participants and the electoral umpire has only just been tragically reinforced.

    In the aftermath of the collapse of the PDP strategy to impose its man on the NGF, the party has gone overboard as it sought to exact revenge against the “traitors” who torpedoed its agenda. Both Amaechi and Sokoto State Governor, Magatarkada Wamakko, are out on their ears – the latter suspended for the most flimsy of reasons: refusing to take party chairman, Bamanga Tukur’s calls.

    Whatever may be the sins of these two men, it is evident that their greatest fault is refusal to toe the party line one hundred percent. In democratic practice there is certainly a place for enforcing the supremacy of the party. But truly democratic parties also allow room for dissent otherwise they would be no different from the old Communist parties in the USSR, China or Cuba. I may add that this flaw is not a failing of only the PDP.

    So instead of beginning to build a democratic culture with robust parties with internal traditions of vibrant and open disputation, what we now see is debate being driven underground. Parties are being split along the lines of ultra loyalists and the band of Judases.

    Debate and dissent are now dangerous foreign bodies to be stamped out at all cost. In this setting, the president or whoever is the maximum ruler at federal or state level simply lays down the law, and the rest of the cadres fall in line. In other words, the president has become the party.

    Amidst all the sentimentality that has trailed the NGF polls, the incongruity of trying to create of a new maximum ruler in a democratic environment seems lost on even the most sober of us. I have heard very intelligent people argue that governors had become too powerful and needed to have their wings clipped.

    Let’s hold this thought for a moment: if the governors are less powerful than they are now, the president simply becomes a Frankenstein monster no one can rein in. Even with the checks and balances in our system a reckless occupant of Aso Rock can unsettle the leadership of the states and National Assembly. Things even out when all sides realise there’s a balance of terror.

    In the end having these various centers of power is not so bad after all. Decisions can be arrived at on a more consensual basis. The different tendencies in the country would be carried along, and people wouldn’t feel too alienated. But beware the fake democracy where one man’s word is law.

  • Thoughts on the emergency

    Thoughts on the emergency

    As is to be expected, the declaration by President Goodluck Jonathan of a state of emergency in the Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states, continues to generate considerable heat for all manner of reasons.

    What on the surface seems like a surgical procedure against a cancerous growth threatening national security and unity is open to be interpreted as equally dark political manouver – depending on which side of the fence you sit.

    While many have expressed surprise that Jonathan would pull the emergency stunt barely a fortnight after celebrating with much fanfare the inauguration of the Boko Haram amnesty committee, I take the position that his latest action was inevitable. In fact, what is amazing is that it took him so long to take the decision to move against the insurgents in a more muscular fashion.

    In the end, the decision was virtually made for the president as before his very eyes huge chunks of the nation were becoming no-man’s land where gunslingers was lords of the manner. In other parts where there was no organised insurgency the fear of kidnappers has virtually paralysed society.

    What I get from much of the criticism of the emergency declaration is that it hinders the smooth running of our democratic structures. The harsh truth, however, is that democracy had ceased to function where the insurgency was hottest. Many local government officials had fled their bases, and newspapers were beginning to carry headlines like ‘Boko Haram: Fear of kidnap grips governors.’

    It has also been argued that the latest move will not solve the problem. While I agree that the best we can hope for from the military action is pacification of the troubled spots in the short term, I don’t agree that what Jonathan was doing prior to sending in the troops was the right thing.

    Frankly, he was floundering – one day talking tough and denouncing the terrorists as ghosts who needed to show their faces in order to be taken seriously as potential partners in a peace process. The next minute he’s caving in to pressure after a night time visit by prominent northern elders, and accepting to offer amnesty to the same “ghosts” he just refused to do business with.

    Rather than make life easier for Jonathan, Boko Haram kept thumbing their nose at the government with series of lethal strikes that embarrassed the security establishment.

    While the killing at Baga may have represented a frustrated military straining at the leash to engage the foe, the insurgents sortie into Bama – in which 55 persons were killed – represented an unprecedented display of strength by the terrorists.

    The question which critics of the emergency have not addressed their minds to is what other option was available in the short term? A national conference of whatever hue, provisions of full employment for all the hungry and disaffected youths in northern Nigeria would take a long time to put together.

    Something needed to be done urgently. The insurgents were beginning to hold ground – even planting strange flags on territories they had conquered. Senator Ahmed Khalifa Zanna has been quoted in the media as saying 23 of the 27 local government areas in Borno State had fallen to the sect.

    Every time the insurgents carried out a fresh and audacious attack, and were greeted with pacifist sermons from Aso Rock, they became emboldened. They never showed either by their utterances or actions that they were remotely interested in the pack of goods Jonathan was peddling. To have delayed action a day longer while innocent people were being indiscriminately executed would have been a more criminal act.

    So much has been made of the brutal ways of the members of the Joint Task Force (JTF) in the conflict zone. The fact that these soldiers are fighting the bad guys does not make human rights violations and extra-judicial killings acceptable on their part. But then Nigeria has shown that it has the capacity to bring to justice members of the security forces who derail. That is evident in the trial of policemen fingered in the killing of the late Boko Haram leader, Mohammed Yusuf.

    What is so disappointing in all of this is that thousands of Nigerians had to lose their lives before the president came to the conclusion that the country was at war. No war is every pretty: people will lose their heads and accidents will happen. Sometimes even your friends shoot at you. We should not be surprised therefore if there are more tales of JTF excesses. But that is not enough justification for the government to sit on its hands and do nothing.

    Some have argued that if the January 2012 declaration of state of emergency in 15 local government councils failed, there was no reason to expect the latest exercise to be an improvement. I disagree. What Jonathan did at after the Christmas Day bombing at the Catholic Church in Madalla was to give emergency rule a bad name.

    What was done was not only badly conceived, it was ill-timed and executed halfheartedly. The soldiers were so thin on the ground they were virtually invisible. It was no hard task for the insurgents to simply drift into surrounding local councils and states and carry on business as usual.

    Anywhere in the world where an emergency proclamation is made the intent is to prevail and restore order; not just make an announcement in the vain hope that your tormentors will simply disappear because you made a speech. What Jonathan is doing now is what he should have done in January 2012: go against the insurgents with sufficient force to calm the situation and restore some semblance of order.

    In the course of the week, some northern elders led by the increasingly vocal former Vice-Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University, Professor Ango Abdullahi, likened the emergency proclamation to a declaration of war on the region. They would rather the peace track being pushed by the amnesty committee had been maintained.

    Unfortunately, while the said committee were roaming around like tourists, the insurgents never let up in their brutal killings. Should those atrocities have been left unchallenged because we are talking peace? If by the government’s action war has been declared on the region, should we take it then that what Boko Haram had been doing all this while was spreading peace and love?

    Ultimately, we need to address the root causes of the insurgency in the North-East and rampant insecurity in other parts of the country. This is not just about poverty and unemployment, underlying the Boko Haram agitation is a battle for the right of some people to live and run their lives in a particular way.

    They should not be denied that right. But by the same token they must be made to understand that no Nigerian can be browbeaten into accepting any religion or way of life by force. It can only be through a negotiated settlement. Until they understand that they cannot prevail by force of arms, I cast an unqualified vote for the ongoing crackdown.

  • Dokubo, Kuku and the right to be obnoxious

    Dokubo, Kuku and the right to be obnoxious

    Drowned out by the outrage that greeted the atrocities at Baga, and later Bama, many would have missed an insightful contribution to the ongoing national discussion by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar in faraway Geneva, Switzerland.

    Speaking as guest of the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations last week, Atiku denounced what he called “the militarisation of democracy.” More than one decade after the end of military rule and the advent of constitutional democracy, he said the culture of political intolerance and impunity still pervades the country.

    He talked about how retired military officers, who came to power as politicians brought with them military mindsets, and in the process exacerbated the culture of intolerance and impunity.

    Atiku’s comments are pithy but not exactly novel. What he failed to add was that even civilians who have found themselves in positions of power, as well as their hangers-on, have quickly imbibed the worst character traits of our past military-politicians – turning what we practice in Nigeria into the worst form of ‘garrison democracy.’

    In this variant, orders are orders, and once an edict is issued from on high all lesser mortals are expected to fall in line. In this environment, independent-mindedness counts as treachery of the worst order.

    In addition to being allowed to crush the right to hold an opinion, the guardians of our democracy are also demanding to be allowed to dictate what sort of opinions we should hold. Political correctness is now rampant – so much so that a man has to lose his right to be foolish.

    The whole brouhaha over the comments made by the Special Adviser to the President on Niger-Delta Amnesty Programme, Kingsley Kuku; and retired militant leader, Mujahid Asari Dokubo, underscores how far we have descended.

    Kuku, at a recent meeting with United States officials in Washington, had controversially said: “The peace that currently prevails in the zone (Niger Delta) is largely because Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, who is from that same place, is the President of Nigeria. That is the truth. It is only a Jonathan presidency that can guarantee continued peace and energy security in the Niger Delta.”

    Not to be outdone, the voluble Dokubo jumped into the fray with even more incendiary comments. “I want to go on to say that, there will be no peace, not only in the Niger Delta but everywhere if Goodluck Jonathan is not president by 2015, except God takes his life, which we don’t pray for.”

    He didn’t stop there. He vowed that unless the incumbent was re-elected in two years, he and other ex-militants who had been “resting” would swiftly return the creeks and their old ways.

    I can understand the “do or die mentality” that runs through the remarks of the likes of Dokubo because he and other one-time Niger Delta militant leaders have seen their lot dramatically transformed under the Jonathan presidency. Today, some of them are sitting over pots of cash “protecting” pipelines and patrolling waterways.

    It doesn’t require a soothsayer to predict that were a Pharoah who never knew Joseph to arise, the stream of cool cash will dry up as some of these dubious contracts will be swiftly cancelled. So it is understandable if Dokubo threatens to rain down fire and brimstone if his meal ticket is snatched away.

    I am certain though that he does not speak for millions in the Niger Delta whose lot has not been bettered under the regime of their “brother” Jonathan. Neither does he represent the millions who want to carry on in peace regardless of whether a particular individual loses or wins the 2015 polls. Statements by former Information Minister, Chief Edwin Clark and the Ijaw National Congress (INC) distancing themselves from the excitable comments of the twosome confirm this.

    For me the statements made by Dokubo and Kuku don’t make sense given the way the Nigerian constitution is rigged. In order to become president you must have strong support all over the country. That is why only broad-based parties ever find their way into power.

    It follows therefore that no matter how passionate some of Jonathan’s Ijaw supporters are they do not have enough AK-47s to hold to the heads of millions of voters in the five other zones of the country to browbeat them into voting for their favoured candidate. Truth be told: if Jonathan loses in 2015 the heavens won’t cave in – not even in Otuoke.

    That is why I amazed at the equally over-the-top reactions from certain Northern leaders and some members of the National Assembly. The House of Representatives quickly asked a committee to probe the comments. The increasingly loquacious Niger State Governor, Babangida Aliyu, and a couple of others demanded the arrest of Dokubo. Some called for treason trials. For goodness sake!

    As some have rightly pointed out – many people from the north and elsewhere have said even more damnable things and no one has been arrested. The former Kaduna State Governor, Lawal Kaita, and a couple of others threatened in 2010 to make the nation ungovernable if Jonathan muscled his way to the presidency riding roughshod over the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) zoning arrangements.

    There are many who like the late National Security Adviser (NSA), General Owoye Azazi, believed that the rise in the insurgency in the north is intricately tied to the fall-out of the 2011 polls.

    What we need to understand is that in every democracy – even developed Western ones – there will always be people who verge on the extreme or out-rightly inhabit the lunatic fringe in the opinions they hold. If we are to develop our political system we cannot make them align their views with the mainstream by force.

    Rather than getting all excited over the unrealistic positions of one or two individuals, we should be thinking of how to de-militarise our politics and reduce the role of violence in the scheme of things.

    For as long as we continue to reward the violent with things: Boko Haram with amnesty, kidnappers with generous ransom and politicians using thugs with high office – our politics will never be transformed.

    In Nigeria today, the way to get things from the government and society is by violence or the threat of it. The northern insurgents understand this; ex-Niger Delta militants like Dokubo understand this – after all they wrote the manual.

    It is only when those who control the levers of power start to assert themselves in a proper way that extremists will regain their respect for the state and its institutions. But when we cave in to every extremist waving a gun and a threat, all they will have for the state is enduring contempt.

     

  • A disintegration foretold

    A disintegration foretold

    When our super patriots want to reassure us that predictions of Nigeria’s demise are grossly exaggerated, they argue from the position that a shooting war between the constituent parts – something in the mould of the Biafran Civil War – is highly improbable.

    But if you reverse that to look at the disintegration scenario from the point of a badly constructed house collapsing in a heap, then it suddenly doesn’t look so farfetched. Before our very eyes the country is being transformed into a jungle where only the best armed can survive. From Bokostan in the North-East to the Niger-Delta creeks gunmen have overrun the place.

    To the north, Boko Haram have with their crude bombs bludgeoned the might of the Nigerian state into submission. It’s a measure of the triumph of terror that today we are chasing after the insurgents – begging them to accept a generous amnesty, when it should be the other way round.

    In Plateau State, the military Special Task Force (STF) is running around in circles trying to break the unending cycle of bloodletting. But for every attack they foil, there are five more cases of cold-blooded murder of hapless villagers – producing a grim and mounting toll in casualties, and widening the chasm between feuding tribes and communities.

    Last Monday in Lagos, unknown gunmen snatched Kehinde Bamgbetan, chairman of Ejigbo Local Council Development Area (LCDA), riddling his SUV with bullets in the process. As at the time of writing this he was still in the hands of captors who were demanding $1 million for his release.

    That same week, the police paraded some sorry fellows who confessed to the kidnapping of the mother of Finance Minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. Among the suspects was a former servant in the palace. Those two were just a few of a litany of kidnapping stories that have become daily fare in newspapers.

    Where amnesty for Boko Haram or the exploits of daredevil kidnappers are not dominating the headlines, the latest exploits of our army of armed robbers fill the gap. A couple of weeks ago some of them laid siege to Nigeria’s highest profile gateway – Murtala Muhammed International Airport – killed a couple of policemen and bureau de change operators, and carted away millions in foreign currencies.

    In many cities, areas that used to be safe havens have now lost their innocence. In Lagos in recent weeks, robbers have roamed free along the Lekki corridor – paying courtesy calls at places like Victoria Garden City. At about the same period, a Briton was snatched as he stood outside his residence on Victoria Island.

    Increasingly, authorities at federal, state and local government levels are discovering that areas over which they can assert proper control are shrinking by the day.

    Large swathes of border territory between Nigeria and Cameroon, and the countryside up north, have become no-man’s land where Boko Haram militants roam free and kill at will.

    In this veritable Bokostan being a government official is no guarantee of security. Last year, the insurgents took potshots at a residence of Vice President Namadi Sambo. Not too long ago, the country home of the Adamawa State Deputy Governor, Bala James Ngilari, came under attack with fatal consequences.

    The one region over which the government loved to gloat that it had restored order – the Niger-Delta creeks – is stirring once again. Two weekends ago, some gunmen who may or may not be members of a resurrected Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), ambushed and killed 12 policemen in a contingent providing protection for a retired militant who had come to bury his mother.

    Until now, it was fashionable in analysing security challenges facing Goodluck Jonathan’s administration to blame it all – especially in Bokostan – on disaffected politicians who had vowed to make Nigeria ungovernable for the “interloper” president from the creeks. But to continue to credit what is unfolding across the country to this bunch is to ascribe to them powers that they don’t have.

    It is equally tempting to blame the crisis on poverty and the parlous state of the economy. But that again will not tell the whole story because for all the talk of the state of things, the Nigerian economy is much bigger and more muscular than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

    If poverty was really the issue here, then no one will be able to walk around because all those living below the poverty line will be carrying guns, knives, machetes and slingshots – robbing their neighbours.

    Again, poverty doesn’t explain the Boko Haram phenomenon. In fact, in all their grievances they never mention poverty, but rather speak of Sharia and avenging themselves against Christians over imaginary injuries.

    Poverty alone doesn’t explain the rash of kidnappings sweeping the land. These crimes are often executed by gangs who have been at it for a while and have developed a taste for easy millions and the good life. They may have been propelled initially by lack, but greed has since taken over as motivator.

    What we are seeing is the result of the relentless erosion of societal values which started in the 80s, and was encouraged by a succession of clueless military juntas and civilian administrations.

    We cast aside all the things that organised and stable societies everywhere value – hard work, thrift, honesty and modesty and replaced them with a celebration of vulgar wealth and ostentation. Politicians and persons in public office are only too glad to announce their arriviste status with obscene displays of opulence.

    While they are at it, universities remain shut for the better of a year on account of disputes over salaries. Pensioners who have served their nation for upwards of four decades are dropping dead on verification queues, while those who should care are taking care of themselves.

    By our actions we emphasise that the only thing that counts is cash and its ostentatious display. We send the wrong signals to young people and are aghast when they grab pistols to hasten their access to riches.

    We are raising a generation of kidnappers when all we feed them is a diet of games shows and reality TV that sell the fantasy that mind-boggling millions are just one dance step away. Moral instruction is a no-no; and history is just that – history – in many schools and homes.

    Our national football team wins a tournament and the president, governors and sundry moneybags go crazy doling out millions, lands and exotic cars. When last did someone in leadership honour the best student in mathematics or physics in Nigeria with millions, and choice land in Abuja? I cannot imagine the British Prime Minister opening the vault and handing out gold bars to footballers even if England wins the World Cup!

    The difference? The values we celebrate. The further we drift down this road, the more we cement our internal collapse. The answer is not in ephemeral solutions like state police or the creation of another security apparatus. It is for Nigeria to return to the basic values upon which decent societies are built. It requires leadership. The president and his team can take the lead if they have the will, and if they care.

  • Between the devil and the deep blue sea

    Between the devil and the deep blue sea

    Until President Goodluck Jonathan buckled in spectacular fashion and surrendered to the amnesty lobby following a late night visit to Aso Rock by selected Northern elders, the growing impression was that the shadowy characters in Boko Haram-land were all falling over themselves to embrace peace and dialogue.

    Apologists for the terrorists suggested that the hardline positions adopted by many in the leadership of the security agencies was down to the fact that certain powerful persons were profiting financially from the continued conflict. We certainly cannot discount the fact that where there’s war, people will make money prosecuting it. But that clearly is not the entire story.

    Some reports even suggested intriguingly that when the Sultan of Sokoto came out strongly in support of the amnesty, Jonathan missed an opportunity to quicken the journey to peace and quiet by not inviting him for further discussions. Instead, he headed to Maiduguri to make his uncompromising speech about not doing business with ‘ghosts.’

    Those who created the impression the Sultan had the Boko Haram hierarchy on speed dial, as well as a clear sense of their thinking and mindset must surely now be cringing in embarrassment. Would the traditional ruler have stuck out his neck if he really knew the sect’s high command will pull the sort of stunt they just did? I doubt not.

    Now, the spine of the extremists for whom the amnesty is being sought has come out openly to throw the deal in the faces of their potential boosters.

    But rather being a tragedy, I take the position that Shekau and his goons did everyone a favour by spurning a government amnesty that is yet to be formally made. Their action will reduce pressure on Jonathan and help him retrace his steps to the right course in tackling the North-Eastern insurgency.

    I expect the government will continue with its wrong-headed amnesty process since it has committed itself in that direction. Ultimately, a declaration will be made that will draw in elements in the faction led by one Sheik Abu Mohammed Ibn Abdulazeez which has said they are fed up with the bloodletting and now want peace. What no one has told us is how many people this fellow has under his wings.

    You also have to factor in the Ansaru faction which claimed responsibility for the execution of seven foreign hostages a few weeks ago, and still shows no indication of wanting peace. With Shekau and his team still at large, the amnesty rejection means a large number of anarchists will still be out there bent on perpetrating mayhem.

    Again, we don’t know how dominant or large these forces are. But the government will have no option than to confront them because they will be outside the amnesty net – meaning a return to the military force option that many in the northern elite are increasingly leery of.

    Unfortunately, in our confusion we begin to get things muddled up. For instance, the greatest obstacle to dialogue and negotiations has always been the intransigence and unrealistic positions taken by the Islamists, not the reluctance of the Jonathan administration to do a quick deal. And let no one deceive themselves; these outlandish demands are not negotiating gambits – but clear statements of belief by a band of people dancing to a different beat.

    This is Shekau in his latest video spurning Jonathan’s hand of fellowship: “Surprisingly, the Nigerian government is talking about granting us amnesty. What wrong have we done? On the contrary, it is we that should grant you pardon.”

    This is coming from the leader of a sect that has killed over three thousand people in the last three years. Some of their victims were unarmed combatants worshipping in churches; some were travelers like those blown to bits at the Kano bus park not too long ago. With so much blood of the innocents on his hands, this fellow has the gall to ask ‘what wrong have we done?’ That statement couldn’t have been made by someone with a grip on reality.

    Negotiations and amnesties are not the sort of things you offer to the likes of Shekau. What will you give him in exchange for peace? A fistful of naira in order that he renounces his belief in jihad, or repudiates his demand for Sharia law in the land? Will Jonathan’s deal get sect members to disavow their belief that Western education is sinful? Will you get them to drop their visceral hatred of Christians because of the promise not to prosecute? Not likely! The demands of Boko Haram are non-negotiable.

    I can understand the fear and frustration up north, and appreciate how desperate people are for a return to normalcy. However, we need to address our minds to the reality that there begin to will be no pain-free way to deal with this problem. That is why those passing off the amnesty as a sure-fire cure are guilty of selling their people a badly-packaged brand of false hope.

    Ultimately, some form of talks will take place between the Islamists and the authorities, but that will only come after they have been significantly broken militarily. It will take time, and the traumatisation of local communities by the actions of both sides with continue, until the forces of law and order prevail.

    It happened in Algeria. Some estimates say between 70,000 and 150,000 lives were lost as the government battled Islamists in war that lasted between 1991 and 2002. No one is wishing that sort of calamity on Nigeria.

    What started with legitimate grievances following the annulment of elections which the Islamists looked set to win soon snowballed into something else. The terrorists launched a brutal campaign of bombings and indiscriminate slaughter not just against security forces, but against unarmed villagers in the countryside. Several presidents came and went while the war lasted. In the end, the commitment of the security forces led to the collapse of the insurgency, and the unilateral ceasefire by some of the more notorious bands of Islamist guerillas.

    Some form of amnesty was introduced towards the tail of the conflict, and it is credited with hastening the end of the violence, as the holdouts could easily be isolated for the security forces to deal with.

    And that is part of the problem with our so-called amnesty. In our indecent haste to buy peace at all costs we are offering deals to a group that still feels it is in a position to call the shots – a clear case of insult compounding our injuries.