FLUSH from the unprovoked bombing of St. Rita’s Catholic Church, Unguwan Yero, Kaduna on October 28 in which about 30 defenceless worshippers perished , Boko Haram’s November 1 call for peace talks is doomed to mass distrust.
To boot, the terrorist organisation was listing its own preconditions! It proposed Saudi Arabia as venue; and listed six moderators, without whom it would never trust the Nigerian government: Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, Dr. Shettima Ali Monguno, Senator Bukar Abba Ibrahim, Ambassador Gaji Galtimari, and the Alkali couple – Alkali Wakil and his wife, Aisha.
If the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) under Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor angrily dismissed the talks and virtually warned the Federal Government to steer clear of it, that stand is perfectly understandable. In the Boko Haram war of blood and gore, Nigerian Christendom, under Oritsejafor’s presidency, had been unprovoked victims. Christians who for nothing got their temples routinely bombed and their members killed and maimed, certainly have a right to be sore.
No less is Gen. Buhari, Boko Haram’s preferred chief moderator – but for a different set of reasons. The former military head of state and Congress of Progressive Change (CPC) national leader would be naive to have his name linked to a murderous gang, even for the sake of peace, in a political milieu where bad faith, cynicism and blackmail come with the territory.
So, it is little wonder Gen. Buhari has turned down the offer, insisting that Boko Haram could be any of these three: the slain Muhammed Yusuf group protesting brazen injustice by the Nigerian state, free-wheeling criminals cashing in to kill in Boko Haram’s name and the Jonathan Presidency which, in Buhari’s view, has showed prodigious incompetence in dealing with the menace. Aside, CPC, Buhari’s party, had fingered an alleged Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to tar Buhari with a link to Boko Haram.
Even the generality of Nigerians would be riled by a lawless and murderous band, having bombed a defenceless populace into submission, having the temerity to call for talks, and stake claims to amnesty and compensation, as if terror was the key to the pocket of the Nigerian state. The same pattern prevailed in sorting out the Niger Delta militancy crisis, though terrorism then was targeting Nigeria’s oil facilities rather than mowing down defenceless citizens.
Still, all these are emotional responses, understandable as they are. The stark reality is that there is an urban warfare which Boko Haram cannot win but which the state could not subdue. Such infernal stalemate calls for fresh thinking and a clinical approach to peace and security. That is the window the Boko Haram offer has opened. No matter how it hurts, that window should not be shut. That is why the Jonathan Presidency’s open door approach is welcome.
Certain principles, however, must guide the talks. Under no condition must this talk be about jumbo payout to some malcontents who have levied war against their country and recklessly taken innocent lives. That would be rewarding anarchy and criminality; and it would just be motivation for future malcontents to tread that path for blood-soaked profit.
Rather, it should tackle the fundamental causes: mass poverty, cavalier injustice, wanton impunity and lack of opportunity, especially in the North East, which makes a large swathe of the hopeless to gravitate towards doomsday pseudo-saviours.
That was the trigger of the Maitatsine crisis in the Second Republic, which though exploded in Kano had its roots in the North East. That is the trigger of the current Boko Haram insurrection. That would be the trigger of any future insurrection, if the poverty question is not addressed.
By tackling poverty and injustice, therefore, this bloody cycle of blood and gore would be broken. That should be the goal of the talks.
