It is double cause for concern that over 200 schoolgirls abducted by the Islamist terror group Boko Haram in Chibok, Borno State, have remained in captivity since April 15; and more importantly, the Jonathan presidency is yet to address the grave issue with reassuring decisiveness. It is noteworthy that Abubakar Shekau, the militia’s notorious leader, has spelt out conditions for the release of the kidnapped students of the Girls Senior Secondary School, Chibok. He said : “All I’m saying is, if you want us to release your girls that we kidnapped, you must release our brethren that are held in Borno, Yobe, Kano, Kaduna, Enugu and Lagos states, as well as Abuja. We know that you have incarcerated our brethren all over this country…We will never release them until our brethren are released.”
Shekau’s words were unambiguous enough, which is why it is puzzling that the Federal Government’s response presents a picture of unhelpful ambiguity. The nearest to an official reaction by the government came through a third party, namely, British Africa Minister Mark Simmonds who gave a clue to President Goodluck Jonathan’s thinking after a meeting in Abuja to discuss an international rescue mission linked with the kidnap, which has attracted worldwide outrage and condemnation. The BBC quoted Simmonds as saying in respect of Jonathan, “He made it clear that there will be no negotiation with Boko Haram that involves a swap of abducted schoolgirls for prisoners.”
There has been no contradiction from official quarters, which is not only food for thought but also raises a logical question as to the government’s plan, if any, to get the girls back alive. Perhaps the administration needs to be reminded that it is battling with a murderous group, which has again and again proved to be unpredictable. The inescapable implication is that the government may be running out of time to secure the girls’ freedom, and would need to act expeditiously to prevent the group from possibly having a rethink that might not favour releasing them.
Understandably, Jonathan is most likely anxious to avoid being perceived as vulnerable to bullying tactics, particularly against the background that he has often been criticised by the country’s political opposition for alleged weak leadership. However, this is a wrong occasion for him to attempt to change that perception, which may indeed be valid.
Moreover, given that the concept and practice of prisoner exchange or prisoner swap are not strange, yielding to the idea may not be a bad idea. Of relevance to the country’s situation is the model of Humanitarian Exchange or Humanitarian Accord popularised by the experience of Colombia in which the government reached an agreement with guerillas to swap prisoners for hostages, an idea that was pushed by the families of the captives. It is easy to imagine that in the Chibok case the affected families, if not the empathetic public, would readily endorse such arrangement.
In case Jonathan does not understand, it would be a demonstration of strength to ensure that the girls are brought back alive, no matter the cost. This is not the time for bluffing.
