IN his brief admonition during an inter-denominational church service to mark the 2018 Armed Forces Remembrance Day Celebration at the National Christian Centre, Abuja, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo cautioned against politicising herdsmen killings in some parts of the country. He insisted that such politicisation could ignite far worse and uncontrollable crisis. His position is not difficult to understand. Overall, he seems to predicate his warning on what he believes were the factors that fuelled the Boko Haram insurgency in the Northeast. One of such factors, he thinks, was the politicisation of the Boko Haram crisis. Rather than actively tackle the Boko Haram menace, the vice president seems to suggest in reference to the beginnings and course of the insurgency in the Northeast, it was politicised. He did not, however, spell out how the herdsmen killings have been politicised. It can only be inferred from his remarks.
Presidential spokesman, Femi Adesina, however sheds some direct light on the so-called politicisation of the herdsmen killings. He argues in a message he posted on his Facebook account that the killings predated the assumption of office of President Muhammadu Buhari, a Fulani. Said he: “Something that is disturbing that I have heard about it is linking those developments to the fact that a Fulani man is president and so, he is brooking such kind of evil acts. I think that is very unkind. And I will try to back my position with statistics. In 2013, particularly, there were nine cases of herdsmen invading communities in Benue State alone and more than 190 people were killed…In 2014, there were about 16 of such tragic developments, with more than 231 people killed…There was a change of government in May 2015, but between January and May 2015, there were six attacks which left about 335 people dead. Now, the question is, during that period, did we have a Fulani president? This is showing us that the issue of herdsmen attacking settlements, attacking farmers, attacking communities, is pure criminality and it is something that government must deal with…Therefore, let nobody say that all this is happening because we have a Fulani president.”
Mr Adesina’s argument appears sound on the surface, almost indisputable. The killings predated the presidency of President Buhari, and may in fact have nothing to do with him. But the spokesman did not explain why if past governments were indolent and incompetent in handling the herdsmen killings, then it seems inoffensive and perhaps excusable that the Buhari government must reconcile itself to the past lethargic approach. What is indisputable is that the killings have persisted, and whole communities are being sacked. The president may not have instigated these atrocities, but he has done precious little, even as a Fulani man, to stanch the flow of blood. For more than two years since he assumed office, he has brought no real and practicable initiatives, and has not spoken forcefully against the killings. If he thought the governors of the states where the killings are being carried out had passed hostile laws against the herdsmen, as some have argued, the president ought to say a word, present his arguments, and champion a wholesome national effort to rein in the bloodletting.
Indeed, it is inevitable, contrary to what the vice president suggested, that the ethnically and religiously rooted on the supposition that the attackers belonged to a different ethnic and religious group from their victims.
Vice president Osinbajo stands on thin ice in cautioning against the politicisation of the killings. The government he represents possesses the security wherewithal to tackle the crisis but proved spectacularly negligent in squaring up to it with all the competence and efficiency those who voted them into office had ascribed to them. Here is what the vice president said: “We must recognise that as dangerous and as deadly and heartless as these killings are, there is also the danger of our allowing politics to play a part as this could lead to what we sometimes say ‘pour petrol into an already burning fire.’ We must not permit the politicisation of this tragedy. One of the reasons why for years Boko Haram thrived was because of the politicisation of the insurgency. There were those who planned to benefit politically from the tragedy and they painted the opposition then as the perpetrator. We see some today who want to benefit politically from the killing of women and children in Adamawa, Benue, Jos and several other places stoking the embers of ethnicity and religion. By their hate speeches, they want to fix the criminal acts of the few individuals who…hold people, and they would want to create a religious crisis if they are allowed. Our obligation is to stop them from playing dangerous politics that could threaten our unity and stability just as we continue to enforce the peace in the troubled areas.”
Not only have the vice president and the Buhari presidency misconstrued the nature of the crisis, it is indisputable that they have been slow in reacting to what is evidently today the most acute threat to national peace and stability. The problem with Prof. Osinbajo’s position is that the government he represents has not been able to convince victims of herdsmen attacks that it is sensitive to their pains and losses. The losses have been staggering, both human and material. No succour has come from the government by way of words and material help, and, worse, the victims are beginning to fear that their lands are in the process of being appropriated by outsiders in the face of an insensitive and conniving government.
Prof. Osinbajo also seems to think that Boko Haram thrived for many years because that crisis was politicised. His analysis is a little far-fetched. While arguments can be adduced to support the conclusion that ex-president Goodluck Jonathan’s strange rationalisation of the insurgency as a tool in the hands of the opposition worsened and prolonged the menace, a historical analysis of Boko Haram suggests that the crisis also predated the Jonathan government, and even predated the late Umaru Yar’Adua government. Its roots and course can be located squarely in socio-economic privations, the appalling and reckless misuse of religion, which is still continuing in those regions, and the horrifying mishandling of the law enforcement responses to the menace. To suggest that Boko Haram thrived because the problem was politicised misses the point very badly. The politicisation of the crisis, such as can be gleaned and defended, was a reaction to the nature and course of the crisis.
It is a red herring to argue that the problem of the herdsmen crisis is its politicisation by mischief-makers. If the government had reacted promptly to the crisis as it broke, and had even been proactive in tackling its multiple facets, it is unlikely anyone would be wondering about the role the president’s ethnic or religious background is playing in the crisis, stigmatising the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) as an Islamic party, accusing the government of indirectly encouraging the expropriation of Benue State lands for Fulani herdsmen, and giving cover to self-confessed murderers. The government has itself to blame, not to begin to profile the bitter and injured
