The Nation Newspaper

Category: Hardball

  • Fed Govt shifts goal post and glib talk again

    Four years ago, Nigeria had hoped it could catapult itself into membership of the G-20 (Group of twenty) major economies by the year 2020. That ambition was not only imprecise and misleading, it was rather too grand for both the competence of Nigeria’s political leadership and the structure of its economy. When Nigeria enunciated its developmental ambition in 2009 and christened it Vision 20:2020, the ordinary man on the street believed it implied that Nigeria could squeeze at least one country off the G-20 list and ensconce itself in their midst. But the G-20 is actually 19 major economies plus the European Union (EU) which is represented by President of the European Council and by the European Central Bank. Precisely, the EU is a group of 27 countries in Europe generating about 20 percent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) measured in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP). “The G-20,” according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), “account for 82.2 percent of the world’s economic growth by GDP (PPP).

    In effect, four years ago, Nigeria had hoped to displace in real terms some 27 countries, wherever they come from out of the 46 countries that are, by and large, in the G-20. But even if the EU is one country in the group, as it is statistically represented, why would Nigeria hope it could carry out that strange feat of joining the elite economic group in 11 years? The president who could answer that question, and the one under whose watch the target was set in 2009, Umaru Yar’Adua, is no longer with us. But mercifully, according to the National Planning minister, Dr. Shamsudeen Usman, the 2020 date is no longer realistic for Nigeria to become a member of the G-20. We should look at perhaps joining the G-25 as the more realistic group our economic output merits, the minister said wistfully.

    His consolation, however, is that we have made much more progress than we give ourselves credit for. Hear him: “Where were we in 2009? We were number 44. By the end of 2011, we were number 39, by the end of 2012, we were 36.This is progress. We made quite a lot of progress. In other areas we are not. I don’t want any of you to meet me in 2020 and say you are the one telling us that we are going to be among the top 20. But what I am saying is that even if we are not among the 20 by that time, we were number 44 in 2009. If by 2020 we are number 25, I will be a very proud man. The reason is because we are consciously moving and doing all the necessary things to move up there. It’s not saying we must be there. What I am saying is if we get there then these are the actions we must need to take as a country. We must do this and that in governance, in human development, in infrastructure…”

    Setting aside the absolute lack of realism in our economic planning, as evidenced by failed expectations over the decades, is it not possible that Nigerian leaders are simply too besotted to sloganeering for their own good? Do we not remember how magical it sounded in the early 1990s when our leaders ululated over Year 2000, when, they hoped, everything from poverty to malnutrition, lack of housing and eradication of all forms of injustices and health problems would be banished? Were we too young to remember that once the magical Year 2000 became unrealistic, our leaders began to whoop for Vision 2010, from whence their irrepressible souls soared on the wings of imagination to the sweet-sounding Vision 20:2020? What next? Might Vision G-8:2080 not be appropriate, even poetic?

    It is uncertain our national fecundity for coining socio-economic catch phrases can be mollified by disappointments, but now that Nigeria’s enduring flight of fancy has proved repeatedly and spectacularly unreal, even surreal, if we consider the chasm between goals and ability, would we now embrace reality and moderation with the simplicity and innocence of a boy? It is good, of course, to dream, but how does the hopeful idealist draw a line between dream and daydream? The answer should not prove too arcane for our gifted and imaginative economic planners.

  • Still on the bloodbath in Baga, Borno

    In spite of the controversy surrounding the Friday clash between Boko Haram militants and soldiers of the Multinational Joint Task Force (MJTF) in Baga, Borno State, enough is known to lead us to question the attitude of the federal government to the crisis. Though President Goodluck Jonathan has ordered a full-scale investigation, it is disturbing that four days after the clash, there is still no authentic list of casualties. If the Jonathan inquiry is to be relevant, it should grapple with more fundamental questions like the factors that triggered the clash, whether rules of engagement were breached or not, an assessment of the magnitude of force used, and how the militants deployed themselves in Baga.

    There are at least two other very important issues that require the attention of both the government and people of Nigeria. One is the issue of the operations of the MJTF itself. Nigerian military authorities had admitted shortly after the clash that Nigerien and Chadian troops were involved in the Baga operation. It is, therefore, important to probe the MJTF’s operations in order to get answers to the following puzzles: when was the multinational agreement signed, and what are its outlines? When did it take effect, and what has been the experience so far? Does the agreement empower multinational troops to enter one another’s territories? What role did Chadian and Nigerien troops play in the Baga invasion?

    The second issue involves the obnoxious and unacceptable lockdown of Baga after the invasion, thus preventing relief and medical help and supplies from reaching the ravaged town and its deeply traumatised victims. Is that behaviour consistent with the rules of war, especially in domestic crisis? Reports from Borno State indicate that by Tuesday, humanitarian agencies were still struggling to be allowed access into the town to offer succour to distressed residents. The fighting took place last Friday, but four days after, significant help was yet to reach the town. Perhaps the federal government needs to be educated afresh on the purpose of government.

    While it is necessary to ask all these questions and receive answers to them, it must be pointed out that the involvement of Nigerien and Chadian soldiers in the attack, if it is of any significance, does not absolve Nigerian troops of responsibility for extra-judicial killings and deployment of irrational force in the pacification of the town. While the investigation ordered by the government continues, it is important for the National Assembly to also inquire into the clash along the lines itemised above. They will find it imperative to censure the president for his unhelpful public utterances during his belated and angry visit to the twin states of Borno and Yobe. After all, those who used the media to incite the Rwandan genocide were later tried for crimes against humanity.

    The last has not been heard of the Baga battle. But the people and governments of Nigeria, and especially the National Assembly, must ensure that such killings never reoccur. While it may be necessary to use firm measures to combat insurgency, care must be taken to ensure that such measures do not become counterproductive nor aggravate the insurgency in the region. Meanwhile, the JTF should be compelled to allow relief into the town. The state government has a responsibility to urgently take the lead in the provision of that relief if we are not to become a cruel, barbarous and unfeeling people.

     

  • Jonathan, Shettima and Borno mass killings

    Jonathan, Shettima and Borno mass killings

    A pall of death on Monday descended over Baga town in Kukawa local government area of Borno State as the military Joint Task Force (JTF) combating terrorism in the north-eastern part of Nigeria clashed with suspected members of the Islamic sect, Boko Haram. Some residents of the town claimed an estimated 185 people, mainly women and children, were killed in the clash, and a market, and scores of houses and shops were said to have been torched. One soldier was also reportedly killed. There is, so far, no explanation for why the death toll in just one clash was so high while only one soldier was killed. The disproportionate toll may explain why many speculated it was mass killings deliberately orchestrated by the JTF.

    The JTF itself has not given a definitive account of the clash or of the death toll. But it claims that the figures were exaggerated. Officials of the Borno State government have also suggested that while the clash and killings were deeply troubling and the scale of destruction deplorable, it was too early to give a precise figure of the dead and wounded. The compilation was still ongoing, they said. But the early release of the unsubstantiated figure of 185 dead created such a panic that even the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, rushed out a press statement condemning the high death toll and advising that authorities had a responsibility to safeguard human rights even in the thick of the anti-terror war.

    For once, since the counterinsurgency operations by the JTF began in the Northeast, President Goodluck Jonathan has taken the salutary step of ordering a probe of the clash to establish whether there was indeed a slaughter of such proportions and whether the military rules of engagement were adhered to. This sensible step contrasted with the defiant and insensitive statement made by the president in the same Northeast early March when he warned ominously that he was no longer willing to hear of or tolerate the killing of even one security agent. That regrettable statement was widely interpreted at the time to offer security forces an unrestricted licence for human rights abuses and extra-judicial killings. Hopefully the probe will establish what went wrong, or whether, as a state official said, the locals exaggerated the death toll to curry sympathy and favour.

    Clearly, the JTF counterinsurgency operations are not being conducted with the skilfulness and restraint such operations call for. Whether the death toll is as high as initial reports suggest or not, the alarm raised by the early accounts of the Baga clash should serve as a wake-up call for both the Jonathan presidency and the military authorities. It is time everyone in government realised that the Boko Haram crisis is a domestic problem threatening the peace, development and unity of the entire country. Consequently, the death of security agents, innocent civilians, Boko Haram fundamentalists and any other victim should be regarded as a tragedy that diminishes all of us. No death is more regrettable than the other. While efforts are being intensified to pacify the sect and restore the affected region to normality, the JTF has a responsibility as a disciplined force to ensure scrupulous adherence of its men to the rules of engagement. It is unacceptable and undisciplined to embark on revenge missions whenever an officer is killed in combat.

    The response of Governor Kashim Shettima of Borno State to the Baga killings has been heartwarming. He recognises his obligations to the troops fighting the insurgency, and has made statements showing his state appreciates their sacrifice. But he also clearly gives indication of the anguish he feels seeing the scale of destruction and killings everywhere a clash has taken place in his state. He probably gets more accurate but disturbing information than he has cared to release to the public. And by announcing his readiness to rebuild the destroyed and obviously traumatised fishing town of Baga, he has admirably discharged a part of his obligations as a responsible governor. Hopefully, Mr Jonathan will learn from Alhaji Shettima’s evenhandedness and dispassion.

     

  • Tambuwal on Obasanjo

    Tambuwal on Obasanjo

    Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was not the main subject of Hon Aminu Tambuwal’s lecture last Wednesday in Kano, but the former president (1999-2007) received unsparing and uncomplimentary mention enough to merit strong headlines in the following day’s newspapers. In an exhaustive treatise delivered at the annual Mallam Aminu Kano memorial lecture, Tambuwal, who is Speaker of the House of Representatives, described Obasanjo’s government as a proponent of lawlessness. He went beyond just describing that government as lawless and arbitrary, he added that it also endangered the country’s democracy. He damned the Obasanjo presidency with faint praise for establishing various institutions to undergird democracy and good governance, and concluded that that government lacked the discipline to restrain its law enforcement agencies from mass killings in both Zaki Biam and Odi towns in Benue and Bayelsa States respectively.

    Drawing on various sources, Tambuwal gave the following summary of the Obasanjo presidency and the Umaru Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan governments: “A closer examination of the actions and inactions of the government since 1999 shows that the rule of law has been relegated to a mere declaration in conformity with the ideological smokescreen of the government. An example of the strangulation of the rule of law is the failure in recognising and respecting the constitutional roles of the three main institutions of State namely the legislature, the executive and the Judiciary. The political imbroglio between the Lagos State government and Federal Government over the failure of the latter to remit funds allocated to local government councils in Lagos following the State Governor’s creation of some additional council is a case in point of bizarre executive lawlessness on the part of the executive arm of government in Nigeria. Despite the judgment of the Supreme Court on the matter, the federal government turned deaf ears to the ruling of the highest court in the land ordering the Lagos State to be given all the statutory allocations due to LG councils in the state. Indeed it was the late Yar’Adua regime in 2007 that enforced the Supreme Court ruling and ordered the immediate release of the funds to Lagos State amounting to N10.8 billion.”

    The Tambuwal conclusion is not significant simply because he mourned the abject failure of Obasanjo and his successors to seize opportunities to consolidate democracy, or because he wanted the mass killings in Zaki Biam and Odi to be censured. It is in fact not clear that the Speaker saw any significance. What is significant is that the governments the Speaker spoke disapprovingly about were all produced by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). He is, however, not the only one with such strident views of the ruling party, though he is a member of the party. But to hear him and others in the PDP speak forthrightly and dismissively of all the governments that have ruled Nigeria since 1999 gives the heartwarming impression that the process of party formation is just beginning. The political dividing lines are not yet cast in granite, and in the foreseeable future there will still be movements across party lines, with patriots sensibly ignoring party loyalties and structures in order to form and nurture alliances capable of rebuilding the country’s democracy.

    Beyond the façade of one-party dominance of the polity, a façade PDP leaders said could continue for some 60 years, clearly discernible undercurrents of resentment against mediocre governance, executive arbitrariness, and mishandled economic reforms are being seen and felt. Tambuwal’s lecture, assuming it is the product of deep conviction rather than a mere academic exercise, indicates quite appropriately that substantial change is afoot, perhaps strong and copious enough to save the polity and engender growth and stability.

     

     

     

  • Okonjo-Iweala could speak more circumspectly

    Okonjo-Iweala could speak more circumspectly

    By her confession, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Coordinating Minister for the Economy and also Minister of Finance seems to be the target of online ethnic slurs, some of which she said were vicious, provocative and full of innuendoes. She is unhappy that she is being vilified in both the regular media and unregulated social media for allegedly favouring people of Igbo origin in public service appointments. She is right to feel uncomfortable with the accusations, for as she argued, most of the appointees used as examples in the allegations against her actually assumed their various offices before she became minister.

    But if she is really worried, she must find more effective ways of dispelling the rumours circulating about her lack of fair-mindedness. So far, the allegations have not gone away, and in fact may become even more complicated as a result of her distinctive approach to the problem. Last week, a newspaper reported that she complained to the leadership of the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) over an article said to have been written by the agency’s image maker, Yushau Shuaibu. The article reportedly argued that Okonjo-Iweala favoured professionals of Igbo extraction in public service appointments and promotions. According to the report, Mr Shuaibu has since been relieved of his position on account of the trenchancy and inflammability of the article.

    It is doubtful, however, whether the allegations against the minister will go away soon, no matter how many people are sacked on account of her complaints. There is of course no proof that she is guilty of what she is accused of. In fact it is possible that her accusers are misinformed on her role in the promotion of Igbo officials in the public service. But there is no doubt that she is handling the allegations rather pigheadedly, if not insensitively. For instance, while responding to some of the allegations against her during a lecture she delivered at the Ola Ndi Igbo symposium in Lagos a few days ago, she offered explanations that were far from satisfactory. Miffed by the allegations, which she said were unfair, she had declared during her presentation entitled “Values, Mindsets and Culture” that she couldn’t give a damn – like President Goodluck Jonathan once said – what people said about her.

    Said she: “Somebody wrote an article on this saying that I have come there to prosecute an Igbo agenda, and then I saw another one saying this a big lie what has she done for the Igbos? She is there with Jonathan prosecuting a South-south agenda. So I thought that was wonderful. So my point is, I don’t give a damn. If the people got their on merit, they deserve it and we will stick with it as long as we know they didn’t get it through the back door.” But this idiosyncratic defiance was probably the tamest part of her reaction to the allegations.

    Hear her again, and note the hint of persecution complex: “There is something ethnic, and I am going through it now. If you check on the internet there are articles saying that Okonjo-Iweala has gone ethnic, but I believe in merit and competition and I don’t really care what part of the country you come from as long as you can do your job, and that has always been my tenet. So, actually Igbo don’t find that I am that convincing because, I think, in Nigeria, we need to have a culture of merit. But by the way, when you think of merit and competition Igbos don’t do badly and that is a problem, we do rather well. Somebody said everybody in the financial sector is Igbo then they began to list people like the deputy governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Director-General of Stock Exchange, Director-General of Securities and Exchange Commission, Director-General of Debt Management Office, myself and Sovereign Wealth Fund.”

    Not only did she miss the import of the complaints against her style, especially on the issue of her interpretation of merit, she incredulously gave the impression that merit could not be compromised by subjectivity and that given Nigeria’s ethnic pastiche public officials did not need to be more sensitive and more restrained in public service promotions. Worse, it beggars belief that a minister of her standing could sound so ethnically triumphant by gloating that “when you think of merit and competition, Igbo don’t do badly, and that is a problem, we do rather well.” How very smug! As a minister Okonjo-Iweala needs to be magisterial, wiser, more temperate and circumspect in her utterances. Any minister, Hausa, Igbo or Yoruba, who makes the kind of utterances credited to her should be censured for unacceptable indiscretion. And this has nothing to do with whether she is guilty or innocent of the allegations levelled at her.

  • Lynching the Kano bombers

    Lynching the Kano bombers

    No newspaper gave it more than a few paragraphs treatment. Two suspected Boko Haram militants riding a tricycle were believed to have detonated an improvised explosive device near the Emir of Kano’s palace on Wednesday. A mob, says the report, spotted them and gave chase. The two were apprehended and one of them was immediately lynched – burnt to death, according to the report. The other suspect was then handed over to the police, perhaps for interrogation. If he is lucky, he will have his day in court. Mob action, or more accurately jungle justice, was the last piece needed to complete the jigsaw puzzle of Nigeria’s lawless landscape. It is not known yet whether the lynching reflects the frustrations of the people of Kano (kanawa) in the fight against Boko Haram or Islamic militancy in general, or whether it is simply a demonstration of the love they have for their emir, who had been attacked once by the fundamentalists. Whatever the cause, it is significant that one of the suspects received jungle justice.

    Previously, the country had contended with mindless killings carried out by the Islamic sect, Boko Haram, and to a little extent, Ansaru, a splinter group, and other adventurous but nameless killers exacting revenge on their victims. After a while, another set of killings was added to the mix, this time from security agents. It began to manifest when the well-known leader of Boko Haram, Mohammed Yusuf, was extra-judicially murdered in 2009 after he was arrested by the army and handed over to the police. After first denying the shocking act, the police eventually owned up, took the offending officers into custody and later charged them in court. The case has become tortuous and winding, further infuriating Boko Haram. In sum, killings by security agents, Boko Haram militants and the civil populace have completed the cycle of lawlessness in the country. We should be deeply worried that the ruination of our country is virtually complete.

    Nigerians were contending with, but never able to make sense of, Boko Haram’s mindless killings. Sometimes the killings seemed ethnic, and at other times they seemed sectarian or even political. In any case, no one was immune to the attacks, not Christians, not Muslims, not Yoruba, not Hausa, not Igbo; and no one was too small or too big to be murdered. The country’s anguish was then exacerbated by both the overwhelming force deployed by security agents in battling the insurgency in the north and the deliberate, cold-blooded killings they sometimes perpetrated. But while the country was still trying to prod the government into putting some order and leash on the security agents’ rules of engagement, the people themselves, as evidenced by the Kanawa, have decided to take the law into their own hands. It is not as if the Kano episode was the first manifestation of jungle justice in the country, but it is significant that this is the first time Boko Haram suspects would be caught by the people and lynched.

    From now onward, there would seem to be no further restraint in the total expression of our murderous instinct and rage. The Kano mob action may in fact mollify the suspicion of many who had in the past few years felt northerners connived at Boko Haram killings; and others may see it as an attempt to conjure a people’s deterrent against the sect. But perhaps, like security agents and Boko Haram militants, the people are also beginning to do away with the last vestige of restraint that entitles us to be described as civilised. Henceforth, we would no longer be deterred by the fear of lynching innocent people or any suspect who has not been tried in court. Once caught, rightly or wrongly, the suspect will be summarily executed. It is thus becoming crystal clear that in Nigeria we deserve one another, with everyone running the gauntlet of murderous Boko Haram militants, self-righteous security agents and vengeful mob. Every which way you turn, your goose is cooked, for no one gives you the benefit of the doubt.

  • Boston bombings: How Nigeria, US define terrorism

    Boston bombings: How Nigeria, US define terrorism

    Three people were killed and more than 170 injured in the United States on Monday when two explosions hit the finish line of the Boston Marathon. No one has claimed responsibility for the blasts. But it took less than 24 hours for President Barack Obama to describe the explosions as a terrorist act. “This was a heinous and cowardly act,” he said. “And given what we now know about what took place, the FBI is investigating it as an act of terrorism. Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror. What we don’t yet know, however, is who carried out this attack, or why; whether it was planned and executed by a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, or was the act of a malevolent individual.” Even if the US president had not been quick in describing the attack as terrorism, he would still have done so in the days ahead, as he belatedly did in last year’s attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, when four Americans were killed including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

    In contrast, after more than three years of active bombing of mainly civilian targets in the northern part of Nigeria by Boko Haram militants, the federal government, claiming poetic licence, has struggled not to describe the attacks as terrorism. Not only has it wrestled with its conscience, it has also put pressure on the US government not to categorise the attacks as terrorism. So far, the US has acceded to Nigeria’s strange request, perhaps because there is no consensus within Nigeria on how to describe the violent bombing campaigns in Nigeria. Some argue that the attacks manifest unmitigated terrorism, while others argue that once the bombings were categorised as terrorism it would stigmatise the country and inflict untold hardship on Nigerians travelling abroad. In determining how to describe the Boko Haram attacks, those who eventually won the argument and prevented the sect from being labelled terrorists gave the impression we owed more obligations to the comfort of travellers and the living than we owed to the more than 2,000 who have died and countless more who have been maimed or who can no longer smile.

    Indeed, in Nigeria, the US has found itself putting up with much more than merely wrestling with its conscience on how to categorise Boko Haram attacks. The Americans also squirm as they are made to respect, or pretend indifference to, the Nigerian government’s decision to negotiate with terror or grant amnesty to terrorists. It is of course not the business of any outsider what we do with ourselves, as long as our actions do not impinge on the wellbeing of others. So, whether we see a minor insurgency where other countries see terrorism is strictly speaking not the concern of the US.

    But as Obama reiterated clearly on Tuesday, the US has made it the cardinal principle of its domestic policy never to negotiate with terror or to prevaricate on the meaning of terrorism, for the life of every American is so valuable that the living has an unshakeable obligation to the dead to bring every felon to justice. If Nigeria chooses to negotiate with terror in exchange for peace, or to pretend that terror is not actually terror until it pleases us to consider it so, that is our business. We are at liberty to choose not to mind what the consequences of today’s appeasement will be on future generations of Nigerians, as we whimsically modify moral principles and set precedents that neither past nor present, nor yet future generations can be proud to cite or embrace

  • Between Tukur’s altruism and Anenih’s subterfuge

    Between Tukur’s altruism and Anenih’s subterfuge

    The ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) put up a contradistinctive show on Monday when two of its leading lights gave us insight into the party’s expectations in 2015. In Abuja, the party’s chairman, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, told the Southwest caucus of the party led by Professor Taoheed Adedoja that it was necessary for party members to gird up their loins to ensure the party won 32 states in the 2015 elections compared with the 23 states they now have. Whether we believe his altruism or not, Tukur actually spoke unambiguously and with a decent measure of civilised honesty and logic. According to him, “We have to show electoral strength this time. In doing it, we will work hard and work well. We will move with the speed of jet and we will deliver without any foul antics. I use this opportunity to appeal to our members to bury the hatchet and cast away whatever forlorn hope they nurse about the future. I appeal to our members to begin to invest in the future right away and doing so involves hard work, diligence and dedication to the cause of PDP.”

    On the other hand, Chief Tony Anenih, chairman of the party’s Board of Trustees (BoT), gave hint that the party was likely to play hardball in the 2015 polls. Together with top PDP leaders, including a few governors, Anenih had visited Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, a former president, at his Hilltop residence in Abeokuta, Ogun State on the same day Tukur was acting coy in Abuja. Since Anenih is not given to niceties or diplomatese, he predictably spoke invidiously about the strength of the party and its chances in the coming polls. Said he gravely: “PDP is not dead in Ogun or any part of the country. PDP is the party to beat. When the time comes, I assure you we will do what we know how to do best.” There is of course a chance, given the elementariness and accessibility of his terse language, that all he is suggesting is that the PDP is so big and strong that it invariably and naturally wins elections – against all odds. But there is also the discomfiting possibility that what the man with the drawn and sometimes sepulchral visage is saying is that his party knows how to subvert popular will through electoral chicanery.

    Yes, Tukur shocked Nigerians by alluding to a presidential directive to the party faithful to win nine more states than the party has at the moment, but it is Anenih who is likely to attract more attention, if not revulsion, with his offensive and mocking assertion that the next polls would be a cakewalk. Pressed to clarify what he meant by his party doing ‘what it knows how to do best,’ the BoT chairman would readily explain that his statement was a mere indication of confidence rather than subterfuge. But far more disconcerting to everyone is the appalling inability of the ruling party to gauge public mood, its apparent detachment from reality, and its overestimation of its modest record of achievements. The public will find it hard to understand why the party hopes to make political gains in 2015 when it has demonstrated nothing but sheer incompetence in the face of mounting insecurity.

     

  • MEND tastes blood, adds macabre threats

    MEND tastes blood, adds macabre threats

    It may sound downright farcical, but the fresh threats by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) to murder Islamic clerics, bomb mosques and hajj camps should not be dismissed casually. Indeed the threats assume ominous proportion in a country that is neck-deep in unimaginable, irrational and unjustifiable violence from its northernmost tip to its southernmost recesses. On April 6, a boatload of policemen had been ambushed somewhere along the creeks of Azuzama in Southern Ijaw local government area of Bayelsa State. In the encounter, 12 policemen were murdered and many others injured. Soon after, MEND and the little known ‘General’ Adaka Boro Jnr group claimed responsibility for the killings. There is no consensus on who carried out the killings, but it was observed that the Bayelsa ambush came shortly after MEND threatened to resume attack in the oil region on account of the jailing of their former leader, Henry Okah, in South Africa.

    If indeed MEND was responsible for the Azuzama killings, as it continues to assert remorselessly, then the new threat to widen the scope of its attacks should not be dismissed with a wave of the hand, whether its militants manage to carry out attacks as ferociously as the Islamist sect Boko Haram or as restrictedly as its limited resources can accommodate. The group anchors its fresh threats on the implausible logic of saving Christianity in Nigeria from annihilation. Hear MEND: “On behalf of the hapless Christian population in Nigeria, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), will from Friday, May 31, 2013, embark on a crusade to save Christianity in Nigeria from annihilation. The bombings of mosques, Hajj camps, Islamic institutions, large congregations in Islamic events and assassination of clerics that propagate doctrines of hate, will form the core mission of this crusade codenamed ‘Operation Barbarossa’.”

    Beyond its fecundity for labelling its operations with evocative and high-sounding code names, it is clear MEND recognises that its new targets are much softer than oil facilities and extremely difficult to police or defend. In addition, the group sees the preparedness of the Goodluck Jonathan government to offer amnesty to Boko Haram as insidious, illogical and discriminatory and an admission that impactful attacks on soft targets enervate the government. MEND’s claim to defend Christianity should consequently be seen as a mere pretext to pressure the government into taking a fresh look at the Okah case, a case it claims the federal government fraudulently connived at.

    It must of course not be forgotten that Boko Haram itself began modestly as a small-time proponent of terrorism, pretentiously threatening more violence than it had the capacity to deliver. It is also recalled that in 2009 the government haughtily dismissed the sect as a ragtag force. But less than three years after the sect seized newspaper headlines and started dominating public discourse, the government began suing for peace. MEND obviously thinks that that unsavoury tactic is guaranteed to bring results. Many analysts had in fact warned that entering into dialogue with terrorist groups, let alone offering them amnesty, would spawn other more violent groups armed with little grudges, all pressuring the government for favours or concessions. Even before Boko Haram had been placated, MEND is proving the fears of pessimists justified.

    Insecurity is today at its highest level in Nigeria. No one is safe anywhere. Unfortunately the government is unable to conceive intelligent solutions to the nightmare or to forge a security force capable of waging effective war against the sects, while showing restraint. In consequence, the problem of insecurity is compounded. If MEND carries out its new threats, even by a fraction, it will take a miracle to salvage the situation. Boko Haram itself had hoped its undiscriminating attacks would cause a conflagration. For nearly two years its wish was not granted because of an unusual countrywide restraint. Sadly, now, its wish may be about to be realised through MEND. Will the government dialogue as it is its habit, or will it fight brutally as its feverish mind sometimes leads it? Or will it continue to embroil itself in a needless dispute over whether pre-amnesty MEND is involved in the attacks or copycats are at work?

    More than ever before, the country is at a very delicate crossroads. It is not just the political and economic structures of the country that need fundamental change, considering that the status quo has proved hopelessly inadequate; new faces, confident and charismatic leaders are desperately needed to salvage the country and its democracy. The current situation is simply untenable.

     

     

  • Ding-dong over Boko Haram

    Ding-dong over Boko Haram

    After exulting for over a week on its decision to grant the Islamist sect, Boko Haram, amnesty, as if it were a great discovery, the Federal Government has had its hopes dashed and expectations cut short. Responding to the President Goodluck Jonathan government offer of amnesty, the sect’s leader, Abubakar Shekau, has insisted the one in need of amnesty is the government. The French news agency, AFP quoted the sect’s leader as saying “Boko Haram has not committed any wrong to deserve amnesty…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 (government) pardon.” It was an unexpectedly blunt repudiation of the last hope the government seems to have in bringing the insurgency in the northern parts of the country to an end.The government offer followed the strident calls by notable northern personalities suggesting that the only way to resolve the crisis was to extend amnesty to Boko Haram militants in the same way Niger Delta militants were pacified under the President Umaru Yar’Adua government. As soon as the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Sa’ad Abubakar, suggested Jonathan should embrace the idea of amnesty, many other northern leaders were quick to jump on the bandwagon. The near unanimity of opinion in the North on amnesty obviously encouraged Jonathan to give ear to the suggestion. Of course the fact that the Boko Haram violence was spiraling out of control also added urgency to the amnesty idea, notwithstanding the huge opposition to it from the south and from mainly Christian community.Though the government has shamefacedly stuck to pursuing the amnesty idea, last week’s announcement that amnesty was on the cards was not the first time the Jonathan government would flirt with the controversial option of entering into dialogue with the violent sect. The war against the sect was not going on well, especially with allegations of extra-judicial killings and use of excessive force by security forces. It was, therefore, no surprise that when the heat became too unbearable at a point, the government moaned that if only it knew the faces of Boko Haram commanders, it would be willing to enter into dialogue with them. That in itself was an admission of helplessness. Along the line, dialogue broke down, and many in government, including security officers, felt once again that the campaign could be resolved militarily.Now that Boko Haram leaders have rebuffed amnesty, what will Jonathan do next? It is hard to tell. Nor, judging from his flip-flops over the months, does he himself know. He is, however, pressing ahead with the search for a workable modality for administering amnesty, he said bravely, perhaps for the benefit of frustrated Nigerians. But privately, there is no proof he is not deeply troubled by the turn of events, especially the increasing violence in the north and the seeming hopelessness of the crisis. The president will probably be wondering just when the ding-dong with the intransigent sect will end. Since a military victory appears increasingly remote, he may in fact not be as confident today as he was when the war against terrorism began under his watch. Indeed, it can be said that he is struggling not to succumb to his worst fears, for the longer it takes to pacify the sect the greater the danger of one small, reckless action triggering a rapid descent to chaos.