Having to pardon Alamieyeseigha for his role in the Niger Delta suggests that we may need to do the same thing for Onanafe Ibori if he too chooses as an Urhobo leader to help prevent young people in Delta State from stopping the flow of petroleum.
Two words are rife today in political governance and public communication in our country. Both are words that are used by powerful men to give the impression of solving fundamental problems in the country. These words represent policies that the federal government in particular believes can put an end to some of the basic challenges facing the country’s security-economic, political, and physical. In consonance with the proverbial Nigeria Factor, these words quickly assume magical powers capable of serving as panacea to all problems. The words are Amnesty and Pardon.
When the youths of Niger Delta chose to carry arms to reinforce their leaders’ demand for economic justice some years back, the federal government came up with amnesty as the way to end a long-standing problem. Niger Delta militants that were fighting for more revenue to oil-producing states and communities were persuaded to receive special stipends in lieu of what should have come to compensate the Niger Delta for ecological disaster spawned by oil drilling and gas flaring. Unlike the political demands of Niger Delta leaders that were ignored for years, the militants were assuaged with amnesty payments, special scholarships, and occasional contracts to high-profile militants. For Niger Delta militants to qualify for amnesty payments, they were asked to hand over their guns to federal government agents in exchange for forgiveness for attempting to disrupt the flow of oil. Of course, the issue of economic justice to the Niger Delta remains unsolved after granting of amnesty to militants who agreed to surrender their weapons.
Shortly after implementation of amnesty payments to thousands of militants, a new group emerged in the North, Boko Haram (Western education is sin). This group hit the ground harder than Niger Delta militants. Boko Haram has for about two years acted as terrorists in every sense of the word, killing innocent Nigerians and non-Nigerians. In response to Boko Haram, high-profile Nigerians are calling for amnesty as a way to restore peace and security to the country. The case for amnesty has been built on mass poverty and illiteracy in the North: the birth-place of Nigeria’s foremost terrorist group. It is being suggested that empowering and educating the masses in the North will pacify Boko Haram warriors and end the culture of terror in the country.
The belief that amnesty has solved the problem of the Niger Delta must have influenced the thinking of leaders who now believe that amnesty would also end the challenges created by Boko Haram. Amnesty as panacea to the country’s problems focuses not on resolution of conflict but on assuaging the feelings of individuals by giving them material inducement to abandon the cause that led to physical struggle against the Nigerian state. It does not matter to proponents of amnesty as panacea to Nigeria’s social problems if those given amnesty actually change their orientation or if the cause that led to militancy or terrorism that is to be doused by amnesty is addressed. Apart from President Jonathan’s statement that he is not ready to negotiate with ghosts, he too seems to believe that amnesty is an option for his government to end the security challenge posed by Boko Haram. Having been a part of the government that used amnesty to address the demands of Niger Delta militants, it is not surprising that the President thinks that amnesty is an option to change the minds of Boko Haramists, once they show their faces.
It is, therefore, surprising that the presidency is using the pardon of Diepreye Alamieyeseigha to warn the country that amnesty given to Niger Delta militants has addressed just symptoms rather than cause. Giving official pardon to Alamieyeseigha is, according to the presidency, in the interest of Nigeria’s economy: “Alamieyeseigha is a foremost leader of the Ijaw nation, and his political and stabilising influence in that region has impacted positively on the overall economy of the nation, bringing crude oil exports from the abysmally low level of 700,000bpd to over 2.4 million bpd, …Therefore, it is obvious that, Alamieyeseigha has been a major player since his release from prison in ensuring that the blood that runs through the artery of the Nigerian economy is not cut off.”
The import of the statement above is that President Jonathan needs to pardon Alamieyeseigha, to prevent the country’s oil-dependent economy from dying. In other words, the first governor of Bayelsa must have been helpful in ending the fight of militants against Nigeria before the adoption of the policy of amnesty. We are also being told that, without Alamieyeseigha’s freedom to interact with Niger Delta militants, the flow of oil may be stopped, with the consequence of killing what holds the country together: uninterrupted flow of petroleum. The presidency is unequivocal about letting Nigerians know that President Jonathan is doing Nigeria a big favour by giving his former boss official pardon. The fact that Alamieyeseigha was convicted for crime against the state is no longer as important as the role that he can play in ensuring that militants in the Niger Delta are kept at bay.
From the role the presidency claims that Alameyeseigha is playing to keep the country’s economy afloat, it is clear that even the over cited amnesty has not worked. If anything, it has only addressed the symptom of the problem that led youths to carry arms against the state for neglecting the oil-producing states of the Niger Delta. In addition, the fear that new militants may spring up if Alameyeseigha is not given the freedom and respect to rein in potential militants suggests that amnesty is not an effective way to respond to calls for justice in the Niger Delta. It is also conceivable that if amnesty is given to Boko Haram terrorists, it may not work beyond bribing terrorists temporarily to abstain from violence.
The right approach to solving problems is to face the cause and not symptoms of such problems, as we have done in the last few years. We threw money at Niger Delta militants but failed to put an end to demands for principle of derivation. Instead, we were able to pay off militants at work at that time without having any way of preventing other younger people from becoming militants, thus having to need perpetually the service of Alamieyeseigha to ensure the flow of petroleum. We are also being encouraged to give amnesty to Boko Haramists, without ensuring that they denounce their desire to extend Sharia all over Nigeria; their hate of Christians in a multi-religious and multiethnic country; and the sect’s opposition to Western education or civilisation, the origin of Nigeria itself.
We will not be able to fight corruption if we have to pardon corrupt politicians for being in a position to appease militants, just as we may not be able to fight religious bigotry if we only choose to give amnesty to citizens that have waged war against the Nigerian state and its citizens. Having to pardon Alamieyeseigha for his role in the Niger Delta suggests that we may need to do the same thing for Onanafe Ibori if he too chooses as an Urhobo leader to help prevent young people in Delta State from stopping the flow of petroleum. The federal government needs to address problems frontally instead of treating symptoms.
