The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Stephen Davis

  • Why Davis claims on Boko Haram cannot be dismissed – Soyinka

    Why Davis claims on Boko Haram cannot be dismissed – Soyinka

     In this piece titled Wages of Impunity, Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka says he knows Stephen Davis as federal government negotiator and worked with him in negotiations with the Nigeria Delta militants under Late President Umaru Musa Yaar’adua’s  administration.
    The dancing obscenity of Shekau and his gang of psychopaths and child abductors, taunting the world, mocking the BRING BACK OUR GIRLS campaign on internet, finally met its match in Nigeria to inaugurate the week of September 11 – most appropriately. Shekau’s danse macabre was surpassed by the unfurling of a political campaign banner that defiled an entry point into Nigeria’s capital of Abuja. That banner read:  BRING BACK JONATHAN 2015.
    President Jonathan has since disowned all knowledge or complicity in the outrage but, the damage has been done, the rot in a nation’s collective soul bared to the world. The very possibility of such a desecration took the Nigerian nation several notches down in human regard. It confirmed the very worst of what external observers have concluded and despaired of  – a culture of civic callousness, a coarsening of sensibilities and, a general human disregard.
    It affirmed the acceptance, even domination of lurid practices where children are often victims of unconscionable abuses including ritual sacrifices, sexual enslavement, and worse.  Spurred by electoral desperation, a bunch of self-seeking morons and sycophants chose to plumb the abyss of self-degradation and drag the nation down to their level.  It took us to a hitherto unprecedented low in ethical degeneration.
    The bets were placed on whose turn would it be to take the next potshots at innocent youths in captivity whose society and governance have failed them and blighted their existence? Would the Chibok girls now provide standup comic material for the latest staple of Nigerian escapist diet?  Would we now move to a new export commodity in the entertainment industry named perhaps “Taunt the Victims”?
    As if to confirm all the such surmises, an ex-governor, Sheriff, notorious throughout the nation – including within security circles as affirmed in their formal dossiers – as prime suspect in the sponsorship league of the scourge named Boko Haram,  was presented to the world as a presidential traveling companion. And the speculation became: was the culture of impunity finally receiving endorsement as a governance yardstick?
    Again, Goodluck Jonathan swung into a plausible explanation: it was Mr. Sheriff who, as friend of the host President Idris Deby, had traveled ahead to Chad to receive Jonathan as part of President Deby’s welcome entourage.  What, however does this say of any president? How come it that a suspected affiliate of a deadly criminal gang, publicly under such ominous cloud, had the confidence to smuggle himself into the welcoming committee of another nation, and even appear in audience, to all appearance a co-host with the president of that nation?
    Where does the confidence arise in him that Jonathan would not snub him openly or, after the initial shock, pull his counterpart, his official host aside and say to him, “Listen, it’s him, or me.”? So impunity now transcends boundaries, no matter how heinous the alleged offence?
    The Nigerian president however appeared totally at ease. What the nation witnessed in the photo-op was an affirmation of a governance principle, the revelation of a decided frame of mind – with precedents galore. Goodluck Jonathan has brought back into limelight more political reprobates – thus attested in criminal courts of law and/or police investigations – than any other Head of State since the nation’s independence. It has become a reflex.
    Those who stuck up the obscene banner in Abuja had accurately read Jonathan right as a Bring-back president. They have deduced perhaps that he sees “bringing back” as a virtue, even an ideology, as the corner stone of governance, irrespective of what is being brought back. No one quarrels about bringing back whatever the nation once had and now sorely needs – for instance, electricity and other elusive items like security, the rule of law etc. etc. The list is interminable. The nature of what is being brought back is thus what raises the disquieting questions. It is time to ask the question: if Ebola were to be eradicated tomorrow, would this government attempt to bring it back?
    Well, while awaiting the Chibok girls, and in that very connection, there is at least an individual whom the nation needs to bring back, and urgently. His name is Stephen Davis, the erstwhile negotiator in the oft aborted efforts to actually bring back the girls.  Nigeria needs him back – no, not back to the physical nation space itself, but to a Nigerian induced forum, convoked anywhere that will guarantee his safety and can bring others to join him. I know Stephen Davis, I worked in the background with him during efforts to resolve the insurrection in the Delta region under President Umaru  Yar’Adua. I have not been involved in his recent labours for a number of reasons.
    The most basic is that my threshold for confronting evil across a table is not as high as his –  thanks, perhaps, to his priestly calling. From the very outset, in several lectures and other public statements, I have advocated one response and one response only to the earliest, still putative depredations of Boko Haram and have decried any proceeding that smacked of appeasement. There was a time to act – several times when firm, decisive action, was indicated. There are certain steps which, when taken, place an aggressor beyond the pale of humanity, when we must learn to accept that not all who walk on two legs belong to the community of humans – I view Boko Haram in that light.It is no comfort to watch events demonstrate again and again that one is proved to be right.
    Thus, it would be inaccurate to say that I have been detached from the Boko Haram affliction – very much the contrary. As I revealed in earlier statements, I have interacted with the late National Security Adviser, General Azazi, on occasion – among others.  I am therefore compelled to warn that anything that Stephen Davis claims to have uncovered cannot be dismissed out of hand.
    It cannot be wished away by foul-mouthed abuse and cheap attempts to impugn his integrity – that is an absolute waste of time and effort. Of the complicity of ex-Governor Sheriff in the parturition of Boko Haram, I have no doubt whatsoever, and I believe that the evidence is overwhelming. Femi Falana can safely assume that he has my full backing – and that of a number of civic organizations – if he is compelled to go ahead and invoke the legal recourses available to him to force Sheriff’s prosecution. The evidence in possession of Security Agencies – plus a number of diplomats in Nigeria – is overwhelming, and all that is left is to let the man face criminal persecution. It is certain he will also take many others down with him.
    Regarding General Ihejirika, I have my own theories regarding how he may have come under Stephen Davis’ searchlight in the first place, ending up on his list of the inculpated. All I shall propose at this stage is that an international panel be set up to examine all allegations, irrespective of status or office of any accused. The unleashing of a viperous cult like Boko Haram on peaceful citizens qualifies as a crime against humanity, and deserves that very dimension in its resolution. If a people must survive, the reign of impunity must end. Truth – in all available detail – is in the interest, not only of Nigeria, the sub-region and the continent, but of the international community whose aid we so belatedly moved to seek.
    From very early beginnings, we warned against the mouthing of empty pride to stem a tide that was assuredly moving to inundate the nation but were dismissed as alarmists. We warned that the nation had moved into a state of war, and that its people must be mobilized accordingly – the warnings were disregarded, even as slaughter surmounted slaughter, entire communities wiped out, and the battle began to strike into the very heart of governance, but all we obtained in return was moaning, whining and hand-wringing up and down the rungs of leadership and governance. But enough of recriminations – at least for now. Later, there must be full accounting.
    Finally, Stephen Davis also mentions a Boko Haram financier within the Nigerian Central Bank. Independently we are able to give backing to that claim, even to the extent of naming the individual. In the process of our enquiries, we solicited the help of a foreign embassy whose government, we learnt, was actually on the same trail, thanks to its independent investigation into some money laundering that involved the Central Bank. That name, we confidently learnt, has also been passed on to President Jonathan. When he is ready to abandon his accommodating policy towards the implicated, even the criminalized, an attitude that owes so much to re-election desperation, when he moves from a passive “letting the law to take its course” to galvanizing the law to take its course, we shall gladly supply that name.
    In the meantime however, as we twiddle our thumbs, wondering when and how this nightmare will end, and time rapidly runs out, I have only one admonition for the man to whom so much has been given, but who is now caught in the depressing spiral of diminishing returns: “Bring Back Our Honour.”

  • Stephen Davis: Gaps in narratives

    SIR: Since that statement by the Australia-based Boko Haram negotiator Stephen Davis, a whole lot of information has surfaced to call the veracity of his claims to question.  While some people see him as a rabble-rouser who benefits from causing chaos, others believe he has since been compromised in his dealings with Boko Haram.

    Some of his revelations are interesting indeed while others are downright suspicious.  He said some of the things we already knew, like telling us that the sect had ‘political sponsors’ and that the insurgency was being supported by opposition elements.

    The true picture of his ‘revelation’ started unravelling with the claim that former Borno State governor, Ali Modu Sheriff, is a sponsor of the violent Islamic sect, a story that simply feeds into a popular rumour mill.

    The mention of the former Chief of Army Staff, Azubuike Ihejirika as a Boko Haram sponsor is ridiculous. It calls to strong question, the whole purpose of Dr. Davis’ activities. As some Nigerians commented, he was simply being mischievous in his effort to link the President with the violence which he has done all in his power to stop.

    Surely there is a gap in the narratives; it is a gap the so-called negotiator needs to fill, or forever hold his peace. To throw incredulous narratives into the mix is to cause unnecessary distraction from government efforts to unmask the real sponsors of this sect that has taken the lives of thousands of Nigerians.

    Johnson Momodu

    Benin City.

  • Boko Haram can’t declare funding sources, says Sani

    Boko Haram can’t declare funding sources, says Sani

    •NLC: we must not lose any part of Nigeria

    Civil Rights Congress (CRC) President Shehu Sani yesterday ruled out the possibility of Boko Haram disclosing its source of funding and sponsorship to Dr. Stephen Davis, an Austrialian hostage negotiator.

    Dr. Davis, in an interview, had alleged the involvement of some prominent politicians, military officers and government officials in sponsoring Boko Haram.

    Reacting to the allegation by Dr. Davis on his facebook wall yesterday, Sani, who facilitated the meeting of former President Olusegun Obasanjo with the group in Maiduguri in 2011, said it was impossible for genuine Boko Haram top rank to disclose to any negotiator their source of funding.

    “I have been asked by many people to confirm whether the statement credited to the Australian negotiator, which implicates two persons over the sponsorship of Boko Haram is true or false.

    “The truth and little I know is that it is very impossible for genuine Boko Haram top rank to disclose to any negotiator their source of funding.

    “Any negotiator who deviates from his acclaimed role of a broker and tried to seek information about their source of funding, they will likely treat him as a spy.

    “How logical is it for the group to be sponsored by persons they consistently despised and targeted?

    “The government has denied any link with the mediator and I believe the group will make their statement on the issue,” Sani said.

    Also yesterday, the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) asked the Federal Government to use maximum force to repel the Boko Haram Insurgency.

    In a statement in Abuja entitled “We must not lose any part of Nigeria to insurgents” and signed by NLC President Abdulwahed Omar, the Congress said the fact that members of the group had decided to come out in their number to attack towns and villages in the Northeast is a clear indication that they had declared war on the country and must be repelled by every force available.

    The umbrella body of workers expressed concern at the speed with which the insurgents are taking over towns and villages, pointing out that if not curtailed, it is capable of discrediting the Armed Forces that have performed creditably in peace keeping missions across the world.

    The statement reads: “The Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, is worried about the recent incursion into some towns and villages, especially in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe states in the north eastern part of the country by the Boko Haram terror group.

    “These violent attacks and reported seizures and declaration of an Islamic republic remain unacceptable and must never be allowed as a republic cannot exist within a republic.

    “While we appreciate the commitment of Nigeria’s security agencies, particularly the armed forces, to the battle against insurgency in Nigeria, we strongly warn that the consequence of allowing any part of the country to be forcefully seized by any group will be overwhelmingly harmful to our collective unity and socioeconomic advancement, just as it would also endanger the growth of democracy.

    “We are worried at the speed with which the insurgents are taking over communities even in areas reported to have heavy security presence. It is time the Nigerian armed forces prove their preparedness to protect and defend the Nigerian people and their territories by using all within their armoury to protect our territorial integrity.

    “The credibility and professional image of our armed forces would be at stake, even in global ratings, if our forces who have been widely acclaimed to have performed so well during peace keeping operations in different parts of the world would allow themselves to be overrun by insurgents back home.

    “While we commend the Federal Government for providing necessary human and material needs for the battle against these insurgents, we believe the government can do more in ensuring the troops are well kitted with modern weapons and all that is required to fight contemporary wars as the situation has obviously moved beyond mere insurgency.

    “We must never allow any part of Nigeria to be subjected to perpetual fear and nightmares, which the entire north east seem to have been boxed into. The need for an urgent intervention in the funding and provision of appropriate equipment to the Nigerian armed forces as well as proper policing of communities across the country cannot be over emphasized at this juncture.

    “The failure to do this will be a monumental discredit to the Federal Government under whose direction and authority the armed forces as well as the overall safety of all residents is constitutionally placed.

    “It is clear that the insurgents have decided to massively move out of their hideouts to launch massive attacks on the country and this must be seen as a declaration of war and should be repelled with the best weapons, which must be made available for our collective defence.

    “Every part of the country is as important as other parts and our collective interests and future would be subjugated if any part is taken by anti-Nigeria forces. The events of the last few weeks clearly indicate the determination of the sect to violate Nigeria’s territorial integrity”.

     

  • Boko Haram can’t disclose its source of funding – Sani

    President of Civil Right Congress, Comrade Shehu Sani, on Monday ruled out the possibility of Boko Haram sect disclosing its source of funding and sponsorship to the Australian hostage negotiator, Dr. Stephen Davis.

    Davis in an interview with the media had alleged the involvement of some prominent politicians, military officers and government officials in the Boko Haram insurgency.

    Reacting to the Australian allegation on his facebook wall on Monday, Sani who also facilitated the meeting between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and the group in Maiduguri in 2011 said it was impossible for genuine Boko Haram members to disclose to any negotiator the sect’s source of funding.

    Sani, who dismissed the allegation said, “I have been asked by many people to confirm whether the statement credited to the Australian negotiator about the involvement of some people in the Boko Haram insurgency is true or false.

    “The truth and the little I know is that it is very impossible for genuine Boko Haram top rank members to disclose to any negotiator their source of funding.

    “Any negotiator who deviates from his acclaimed role of a broker and tried to seek information about their source of funding will likely be treated as a spy.

    “How logical is it for the group to be sponsored by persons they consistently despised and targeted?

    “The government has denied any link with the mediator and I believe the group will make their  statement on the issue,” Sani stated.

  • Stephen Davis’ charges

    Stephen Davis’ charges

    Boko Haram: The naming of Sheriff, Ihejirika and a shadowy CBN official should not be taken lightly 

    We cannot dismiss these allegations merely by making press statements or assuring Nigerians of investigations or by solemn declarations about official aversion to terrorism. The charges now in the air from the lips of Stephen Davis, a hostage negotiator for the release of the over 200 kidnapped Chibok girls, are serious and hint at the level of high-powered backing of the infectious sect, Boko Haram.

    The charges, in their gravity, are simple. One, former governor of Borno State, Ali Modu Sheriff, was accused of being a long-term sponsor of the sect. Two, former chief of army staff, retired Lt.-General Azubuike Ihejirika was accused of also another sponsor. The third charge is laid at a shadowy individual described as a top official of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). Davis shied away from naming the CBN official.

    Davis stakes his claim on his familiarity with the Boko Haram sect, especially in negotiations for the release of the beleaguered Chibok girls. His bona fides are also stressed by his work with two successive Nigerian presidencies, Olusegun Obasanjo’s and Umaru Yar’Adua’s. He has also established strong links with al-Qaeda cells, up to three of them, around Africa. He is an Australian, and holds a PhD in political geography. Above all, he has gained the trust of the militants and governments in Africa, and he has leveraged this credential in raising the stakes of his activity in the topsy-turvy terrain of the religious zealots.

    When he issued those charges, he said he was a negotiator working at the behest of the Jonathan presidency. This led to a flurry of furious arguments from Nigerians, politicians, journalists and human rights activists. Both Sheriff and Ihejirika have denied the charges. The charge against Sheriff is not new. In fact, he ignited partisan furies when the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) called the All Progressives Congress (APC) a Boko Haram sponsor on the strength of Sheriff’s membership. Sheriff has now moved to the PDP. With the Davis allegations, the ruling party is at the butt of the same charges.

    Ihejirika’s charge is curious because he was a point man as army chief in the war against terror. How come his name has popped up in this awful conversation?

    Marilyn Ogar, the spokesperson of the Department of State Security (DSS) has denied that Davis was running an errand for the President. She has also denied that Ihejirika has any link with the terror group, while reaffirming the common knowledge that Sheriff has been quizzed a few times by the nation’s intelligence agency, the State Security Service (SSS).

    We cannot say that Davis has all the facts unless we see them. So, it will be foolhardy and presumptuous to believe the words of the Australian simply because of his biography. For the same reasons, we cannot ignore them. He is clearly in the position to know, and he has staked his life and name in his personal journeys into the lairs of the dangerous humans.

    He is also no loafer having bagged a PhD. He is also a Christian cleric, which is antipodal to the world views of the terrorist. He apparently has no happy stake in the success of terror. We also wonder if he was specific in the case of Sheriff and Ihejirika, why was he nebulous on the matter of the CBN high roller?

    The other reason we cannot ignore the charges is that by accusing the former army chief, his points a specific finger at the door step of President Goodluck Jonathan. Ogar has said that the allegations seek to devalue the service of the former army chief who laid his life for his country. Her point is well taken, but that does not stop us from raising questions. So, where is Davis’ evidence that the army chief helped fuel the escalation of the enemy’s fire power? Ogar also denied that a top sponsor was related to at least two of the nabbed Nyanya bombers. If that is true, where are Davis’ counter facts? Or is Ogar fibbing?

    The Stephen Davis charges touch three sensitive institutions. With the charge of Sheriif, it stalks the executive and potentially compromises governance. On Ihejirika, it nudges the military. With the shadowy CBN official, the infrastructure of money is tainted. If these charges are true, then it means that Nigeria is helping the enemy through its high rollers.

    Some quarters have argued that the history of Boko Haram leaves no institution innocent. First, it seemed only southerners and Christians were victims. Later, it alleged collaborating Muslims. Then, emirs and Muslim clerics and anybody became victims. The narrative has also taken on regionalist and ethnic accusations. Those in the inner sanctum of the Jonathan administration as well as its supporters have seen the insurgency as a political move to besiege the Jonathan presidency. They argue that a northern oligarchy unhappy to cede power did not want President Jonathan to succeed. They have also cited some statements from northern henchmen as evidence.

    But the northerners say the Jonathan administration has been encouraging the insurgency. This, they argue, is orchestrated to gain sympathy for the government. It is in that context that some have placed the charge against his former chief of army staff.

    President Jonathan himself had said in the past that Boko Haram has moles in his government. Who are they? Does Davis know them? Or is he working on inconclusive evidence? We cannot find this out by simply asking our government to investigate it. We cannot trust the Nigerian institutions on this matter for three reasons. One, the administration’s innocence has been impugned by the allegations. Two, because of the tentacles of Boko Haram, the investigations could be compromised by the working of fifth columnists within our institutions. The third point is that terror has morphed into an international network, and the best way to unravel its seedy dynamics is to internationalise its investigation.

    We therefore support those who want this matter to be taken to the International Criminal Court. We believe that it will help bring out some of the shadowy information since top Nigerians may be involved in the operations of the sect. These allegations are too serious to be left in the realm of speculations. Boko Haram is waxing stronger and our soldiers are looking weak as the insurgents take territory after territory in the northeast.

    It is not important whether Davis is working as an independent or at the behest of the Jonathan administration. The allegations are grave. The deaths and fall of northern towns are also grave. Our corporate security and prosperity are in danger. We should do the right thing and save this country from the barbarous hordes and their sponsors, whoever and wherever they are.

  • Stephen Davis’ charges

    Stephen Davis’ charges

    Boko Haram: The naming of Sheriff, Ihejirika and a shadowy CBN official should not be taken lightly 

    We cannot dismiss these allegations merely by making press statements or assuring Nigerians of investigations or by solemn declarations about official aversion to terrorism. The charges now in the air from the lips of Stephen Davis, a hostage negotiator for the release of the over 200 kidnapped Chibok girls, are serious and hint at the level of high-powered backing of the infectious sect, Boko Haram.

    The charges, in their gravity, are simple. One, former governor of Borno State, Ali Modu Sheriff, was accused of being a long-term sponsor of the sect. Two, former chief of army staff, retired Lt.-General Azubuike Ihejirika was accused of also another sponsor. The third charge is laid at a shadowy individual described as a top official of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). Davis shied away from naming the CBN official.

    Davis stakes his claim on his familiarity with the Boko Haram sect, especially in negotiations for the release of the beleaguered Chibok girls. His bona fides are also stressed by his work with two successive Nigerian presidencies, Olusegun Obasanjo’s and Umaru Yar’Adua’s. He has also established strong links with al-Qaeda cells, up to three of them, around Africa. He is an Australian, and holds a PhD in political geography. Above all, he has gained the trust of the militants and governments in Africa, and he has leveraged this credential in raising the stakes of his activity in the topsy-turvy terrain of the religious zealots.

    When he issued those charges, he said he was a negotiator working at the behest of the Jonathan presidency. This led to a flurry of furious arguments from Nigerians, politicians, journalists and human rights activists. Both Sheriff and Ihejirika have denied the charges. The charge against Sheriff is not new. In fact, he ignited partisan furies when the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) called the All Progressives Congress (APC) a Boko Haram sponsor on the strength of Sheriff’s membership. Sheriff has now moved to the PDP. With the Davis allegations, the ruling party is at the butt of the same charges.

    Ihejirika’s charge is curious because he was a point man as army chief in the war against terror. How come his name has popped up in this awful conversation?

    Marilyn Ogar, the spokesperson of the Department of State Security (DSS) has denied that Davis was running an errand for the President. She has also denied that Ihejirika has any link with the terror group, while reaffirming the common knowledge that Sheriff has been quizzed a few times by the nation’s intelligence agency, the State Security Service (SSS).

    We cannot say that Davis has all the facts unless we see them. So, it will be foolhardy and presumptuous to believe the words of the Australian simply because of his biography. For the same reasons, we cannot ignore them. He is clearly in the position to know, and he has staked his life and name in his personal journeys into the lairs of the dangerous humans.

    He is also no loafer having bagged a PhD. He is also a Christian cleric, which is antipodal to the world views of the terrorist. He apparently has no happy stake in the success of terror. We also wonder if he was specific in the case of Sheriff and Ihejirika, why was he nebulous on the matter of the CBN high roller?

    The other reason we cannot ignore the charges is that by accusing the former army chief, his points a specific finger at the door step of President Goodluck Jonathan. Ogar has said that the allegations seek to devalue the service of the former army chief who laid his life for his country. Her point is well taken, but that does not stop us from raising questions. So, where is Davis’ evidence that the army chief helped fuel the escalation of the enemy’s fire power? Ogar also denied that a top sponsor was related to at least two of the nabbed Nyanya bombers. If that is true, where are Davis’ counter facts? Or is Ogar fibbing?

    The Stephen Davis charges touch three sensitive institutions. With the charge of Sheriif, it stalks the executive and potentially compromises governance. On Ihejirika, it nudges the military. With the shadowy CBN official, the infrastructure of money is tainted. If these charges are true, then it means that Nigeria is helping the enemy through its high rollers.

    Some quarters have argued that the history of Boko Haram leaves no institution innocent. First, it seemed only southerners and Christians were victims. Later, it alleged collaborating Muslims. Then, emirs and Muslim clerics and anybody became victims. The narrative has also taken on regionalist and ethnic accusations. Those in the inner sanctum of the Jonathan administration as well as its supporters have seen the insurgency as a political move to besiege the Jonathan presidency. They argue that a northern oligarchy unhappy to cede power did not want President Jonathan to succeed. They have also cited some statements from northern henchmen as evidence.

    But the northerners say the Jonathan administration has been encouraging the insurgency. This, they argue, is orchestrated to gain sympathy for the government. It is in that context that some have placed the charge against his former chief of army staff.

    President Jonathan himself had said in the past that Boko Haram has moles in his government. Who are they? Does Davis know them? Or is he working on inconclusive evidence? We cannot find this out by simply asking our government to investigate it. We cannot trust the Nigerian institutions on this matter for three reasons. One, the administration’s innocence has been impugned by the allegations. Two, because of the tentacles of Boko Haram, the investigations could be compromised by the working of fifth columnists within our institutions. The third point is that terror has morphed into an international network, and the best way to unravel its seedy dynamics is to internationalise its investigation.

    We therefore support those who want this matter to be taken to the International Criminal Court. We believe that it will help bring out some of the shadowy information since top Nigerians may be involved in the operations of the sect. These allegations are too serious to be left in the realm of speculations. Boko Haram is waxing stronger and our soldiers are looking weak as the insurgents take territory after territory in the northeast.

    It is not important whether Davis is working as an independent or at the behest of the Jonathan administration. The allegations are grave. The deaths and fall of northern towns are also grave. Our corporate security and prosperity are in danger. We should do the right thing and save this country from the barbarous hordes and their sponsors, whoever and wherever they are.

  • Boko Haram: FG denies hiring Davis as negotiator

    Boko Haram: FG denies hiring Davis as negotiator

    The Federal Government has denied hiring Australia’s Stephen Davis as a Boko Haram negotiator.

    The Coordinator of the National Information Centre, Mike Omeri, who disclosed government’s position on the issue in Abuja on Friday, said the government has no plan of prosecuting any Nigerian for now following the allegations made by the Australian.

    Davis has insisted that former governor of Borno State, Ali Modu Sheriff and former Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Azubuike Ihejirika are Boko Haram sponsors.

    He also mentioned an unnamed senior official of the Central Bank of Nigeria and an Egypt-based man as those funding the sect.

    Davis, who refused to disclose the identity of the CBN official, said his allegations were informed by discussions he had with several Boko Haram field commanders.

    But Omeri insisted that government has not hired anybody to negotiate on its behalf with the Boko Haram.

    “For now nobody has been hired by the government to negotiate on its behalf with Boko Haram. Anytime the government decides to do so, it will make it known to the public.

    “The government is still investigating the allegations made by the alleged negotiator. However, the government has no plan to question anybody because of those allegations made by the Australian,” he stated.

     

  • Stephen Davis’ Boko Haram bombshell

    Stephen Davis’ Boko Haram bombshell

     ‘I have learned to hate all traitors, and there is no disease that I spit on more than treachery.’ —-Aeschylus (525 BC – 456 BC)

    This column has sturdily believed that the current inscrutable myth behind the Boko Haram rebellion would be unravelled one day, but when that would happen is what remains cloudy. Blissfully, a salient layer of deceit on its operations was torn last week when an Australian exploded by revealing scintillating clues about the likely characters behind the cankerworm. Stephen Davis, a 63-year-old political geography expert may not be known in Nigeria’s public domain, but he is definitely not new to the country’s power house having served as an adviser to ex-presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and late Shehu Yar’Adua. This Australian hostage negotiator was involved, on behalf of the current federal government, in efforts to secure the release of more than 200 Nigerian schoolgirls abducted in one day by Boko Haram militants in Chibok, Borno State. So, he could not be described as a neophyte in the political conflicts engulfing the nation.

    No wonder that his recent interviews on Arise Television, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), THISDAY newspaper and subsequently Sahara Reporters, an online newspaper on the identity of some secret sponsors of the notorious sect is generating so much hullabaloo in the right quarters because two of the mentioned names are those of Nigerians that had held powerful positions in the past.

    Davis alleged in the reports that former Governor Alli-Modu Sherriff of Borno State and a former Chief of Army staff, General Azubuike Ihejirika (rtd) are alleged top backers of the Islamist rebel group that butchered and is still abducting and slaying vulnerable Nigerians and foreigners in the north-eastern part of Nigeria. In his words: “First thing to do is to arrest the former Governor Sheriff. Former Governor Sheriff has been funding this for years… There is a former Chief of Army Staff, who retired in January, rightly sacked by the president, who is another sponsor.’’ Davis was cocksure of what he said for he declared in the course of the interview that he had information on some of them “…from Boko Haram about three years ago; one of them four years ago,’’ and that “one sponsor particularly was providing money and also in one case provided six (Toyota) Hilux vehicles used for suicide bombing.” This is indeed a money-guzzling adventure in the midst of poverty-ravaged people of the entire north.

    Worse still, he also accused an unnamed senior official of the Central Bank of Nigeria as well as another man based in Cairo, Egypt as facilitator of illicit funds and purchaser of military uniforms and arms for Boko Haram. Despite his allusion to other powerful politicians as being members of the powerful ring, he surprisingly said that no Boko Haram commander has mentioned any of the leading chieftains of the opposition All Progressive Congress (APC) including Mohammadu Buhari and EL’Rufai’s as sponsors of the sect. Hitherto, wild accusations calling APC janjaweed promoters of the insurgent group by PDP henchmen particularly some APC defectors to the ruling party including security top shots went in the air. The PDP presidency has not woken up from the deep slumber that the Davis revelations threw it into and the earlier it did something effective and prompt in the interest of the stability of this nation, the better.

    The Davis’ allegations are so damning for he also said that Sheriff was ‘… satisfied that he will be picked up and he has now switched to the ruling party, PDP, in the hope this will give him protection.’ This compelled the former Borno governor to threaten in his reaction to the allegation that he would travel to Australia to sue his accuser. This column dares him to embark on this option in earnest for Nigerians are waiting with baited breath.

    Despite the theatrics in the responses of these alleged Boko Haram sponsors, one would expect the President Goodluck Jonathan administration to have got the strong message and for it to move against these and other elements swiftly. The Australian negotiator, despite his toil, at the peril of his life, is no doubt fed up with the tepid handling of the sect’s matter, for inexplicable political reasons, compelling him to speak out. His understanding of the problem is quite overwhelming but the angst and frustration in his voice are quite discerning over a problem that has avoidable held our president captive. He raised pertinent posers that are indeed minds agitating: Is it true that a man resident in Abuja, whose three nephews had been identified as being behind the Nyanya bus station bomb blast that killed 77 people, was one of the financiers of Boko Haram?

    Davis said that the sect, “…slip back and forth between two countries.’’ And that “they go in convoy to attack a town for about six miles in an arid land with about 60 vehicles with armed personnel without any interception by security forces; they stay for an hour or an hour-and-a-half and get out. That is enough time to hit them.” The question: Is this not a consequence of a high-level conspiracy somewhere along the security chain? Is it true that France, UK and the US, contrary to agreement reached in Paris to assist Nigeria, Cameroun and Niger work on this matter, especially on intelligence, has done very little to assist? Davis also exposed the president’s lack of grasp of the problem ab initio, when in October 2010 the first bomb exploded in Abuja and President Jonathan prejudiced investigation by publicly declaring that MEND, a notorious Niger-Delta militant group, was not responsible for the bombing. MEND had claimed responsibility and then the question: Was the president shielding MEND? Does he truly know who was responsible and had shielded Nigerians from sharing such vital information? Is the president afraid of stepping on toes of powerful elements in the Niger-Delta and the north generally? What then is the essence of his being the commander-in-chief if he remains a lilly-livered leader over all institutions in the country?

    This column considers baffling how this security compromising scandals and heart rendering revelations can be happening in a country with a military service chiefs and a commander-in-chief. It is indefensible that with all the touted bogus military budgets of the country, the rag-tag Boko Haram, according to Davis, is running about six major camps in the northeast and neighbouring countries with 700 fighters reportedly inhabiting each camp? These entirely points at nothing but leadership loss of focus?

    More distasteful is the revelation that the various intelligence units in the land are, according to Davis, not cooperating with one another by refusing to share information that could aid quick annihilation of the sect. This is the dilemma of a nation so endowed and yet so bereft of potent leadership and institutional strength. This Davis bombshell has indeed shell-shocked Nigerians that are daily rattled by President Jonathan administration’s crass display of lack of capacity and capability to contain the Boko Haram insurrection against the nation’s collective sovereignty.  So sad!