It is the Nobel season once again. This time Nigerian names are in the frame more than at any time in recent memory. Already, perennial favourite, Chinua Achebe, has lost out in the literature stakes to the Chinese writer, Mo Yan.
This year, in one of the more curious nominations, the shortlist for the Peace Prize has thrown up the names of the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Muhammed Sa’ad Abubakar III, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, John Onaiyekan.
Ordinarily, the prospect of two of our countrymen picking up the coveted prize is something that should fill Nigerians with a sense of pride. Such an honour would be a welcome bit of good news amidst an unrelenting deluge of the bad stuff.
But coming at a time when the brutal actions of the fundamentalist Islamic sect, Boko Haram, are threatening to tear the country apart, this ranks as another in the long line of controversial nominations for the Peace Prize.
Without question the insurgency in large parts of northern Nigeria is the greatest challenge to peaceful coexistence this country has faced since the Civil War. The Niger-Delta insurgency was limited in scope to targeting Nigeria’s economic interests and making it impossible for multinational oil firms to operate.
But Boko Haram, combining the incendiary mix of politics and religion, has set as its goal the toppling of the current constitutional order, and replacing it with a theocracy where Sharia law will be the law of the land.
Such is the level of brutality deployed by Boko Haram in its campaign, that it has been cited – along with military agents of government – as committing possible crimes against humanity in the present theatre of conflict in the North-East.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) estimates that in the last three years the intense war between the sect and Nigerian security forces might have claimed at least 2,800 lives. With their use of crude IEDs for mass killing, we can credit the bulk of that body count to the terrorists.
A new report by HRW says some of these attacks were “deliberate acts leading to population ‘cleansing’ based on religion or ethnicity”. These are very grave charges indeed. They hold out the prospect that those being accused – whether on the side of the extremists or the government – could one day find themselves facing justice at the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague.
Despite its deployment of military force as the sect’s attacks became more brazen and catastrophic, the government has not been able to crush it. But many argue that this failure is also down to collusion on the part of local communities and their leadership who have shielded known elements of Boko Haram for years. This protective cover has made it almost impossible for security forces to get quality intelligence in their fight against the group.
Of course, Boko Haram has been able to cow large sections of the North – both ordinary people and elite – by showing potential collaborators with the Federal Government that they and their families could only expect sudden, brutal death for their folly.
A little over a year ago former President Olusegun Obasanjo embarked on a peace mission to Maiduguri to meet Babakura Fugu , the representative of the late Boko Haram leader, Mohammed Yusuf’s family. A few days later he was shot dead by assailants suspected to be from a faction of the sect.
Little wonder that such collaboration has been few and far between, and over the last few years a blanket of silence has descended upon the entire region. It is hard to get any major regional leader to publicly denounce the actions of the sect with the kind of trenchant rhetoric they deserve.
Where they have been forced to comment, such statements have been embarrassing balancing acts that in one breath offered anodyne words of condemnation while at the same time making excuses for the killers – or finding fault with the actions of the security agencies.
There is no question that in the North the Sultan remains the most influential and powerful traditional-cum-religious leader. But beyond making the usual bland, politically-correct statements, I cannot recall when he ever denounced the activities of Boko Haram with force that they deserve.
We do know that the sect are not exactly enamoured with him. If anything they hold defenders of traditional Islamic orthodoxy like him in great contempt, and would do anything to destroy his influence and all he represents. So it is a mystery that he has not come out as hard as he could have on the issue of Boko Haram.
As for his fellow nominee – the archbishop, I have no doubt that as a man of the cloth he is equally committed to peaceful coexistence of the two major faiths in Nigeria. I recall seeing a picture of him serving fruit to some Muslims at a gathering he organised to help them break their fast during the last Ramadan.
Still I am not convinced that such gestures alone, or offering the right platitudes after some terrorist outrage, qualify one to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
But again, stranger things have happened. After all United States President, Barack Obama, while still trying to find his feet in office was handed the Peace prize on a platter less than one year after he was elected.
In one of the most embarrassing chapters for the Nobel Academy in recent times, they strained for a reason for giving the prize to a president who at that point was superintending wars in two different theatres outside the American mainland. The best that apologists could offer was that the prize was to encourage the ‘apostle of hope’ to work toward global peace in the future – ‘a call to action’ they said it was.
How I wish the Sultan and the archbishop will win. What I am not sure of is whether Boko Haram insurgents who have not responded to the deadly persuasion of Joint Task Force (JTF) bullets, would be impressed by some shiny medals minted in Sweden.
