Tag: Zaria killings

If spokesmen of the Nigerian Army are credible, fewer than 10 people died in the skirmishes between the army and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, otherwise more popularly called Shi’ites, in the December 12 clash in Zaria. If spokesmen of the Shi’ites are also credible, hundreds, if not thousands, died in the clash, including a wife of their leader Sheikh Ibraheem Yaqub el-Zakzaky, and one of his sons. Recently, the Shi’ites have leaned more to the ‘hundreds’ figure, and are uncertain whether their injured leader is not dead. They have promised to compile names and photographs of those they said were killed in the clash. The country waits for them to do so. But if hospital authorities have been quoted correctly, some 61 or so bodies were deposited in the morgue. The Shi’ites said they were not armed with guns when the clash, which they described as a premeditated attack, began. The army insists the Shi’ites were not only armed, but that they attempted to assassinate the Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai, on his way to a function in Zaria. For now, the army is yet to give a figure of its own wounded and dead.

After initially rejoicing that the pesky Shi’ites had been taught a lesson or two in civic responsibility, Zarians, the rest of Nigeria, Iran and the world at large have been horrified by the scale of the slaughter. Iran, the self-styled guardian of the world’s Shi’a community, has taken umbrage and called for an independent probe. The Nigerian government at first ignored the slaughter, misjudged the problem, and when it woke up, reacted tamely. But whether it can handle the impending fallout remains to be seen. The army itself, after venting its spleen on the audacious Shi’ites, quickly attempted to control the fallout from the clash by publicising its own version of the clash, announcing a casualty figure that did not reflect the scale of the trouble, and rushed preemptively ad disingenuously to the Human Rights Commission to lodge a complaint against the Muslim Brotherhood. The public was both miffed by and distrusting of the army’s reactions.

Since its tough and irreverent beginnings in the 1980s, few have felt comfortable with el-Zakzaky’s Shi’a community, whether in the Sokoto redoubt from where they were flushed out some seven or eight years ago after a misunderstanding, or in and around their commodious Hussaniyya headquarters in Zaria, or other places in Kaduna State and elsewhere. They have a tendency to overwhelm law enforcement agents, block roads in the process of worship and teachings, muzzle those around their neighbourhoods, engage in generally disruptive long-distance treks, and are indifferent to the pains and complaints of other road users. Their actions and disregard for secular authorities naturally bring them in conflict with other road users and the government.  Repeated clashes have led to terrible losses, but the Shi’ites have hugged martyrdom eagerly thereby causing and fueling exasperation among security agents. In Zaria where the army maintains a major presence, the clashes, it seemed, were inevitable.

Sheikh el-Zakzaky has had repeated brushes with the law. But his adroit leadership has seen membership increase phenomenally, with many intellectuals, brilliant students and graduates flocking into the group. Last year’s clashes were especially bloody, and might have presaged this year’s. On that occasion, the Sheikh lost three of his sons and 32 other members to rampaging soldiers, indicating that he led by example and neither he nor his group shirked a fight. But they always insisted killing others was not part of their philosophy, and that they did not carry guns.

From all the accounts of the clash, it is unlikely that the army would be given the benefit of the doubt. The Shi’ites acknowledged blocking the road that leads to their headquarters, but not the main thoroughfare which the Chief of Army Staff’s convoy passed. They insisted a detachment of soldiers laid siege to their headquarters and fired into the air. And finally, they said even after the COAS had passed, a reinforcement of troops came to vandalise their premises and kill scores of their members. They poured contempt on the video clip the army is circulating, insisting that it was a clip of a clash somewhere else the day before the army/Shi’ites clash. Given their antecedents in the counterinsurgency war so far, and the reputation for extra-judicial killings perpetrated by troops in the early years of the war in the Northeast, the world is naturally unwilling to give the army the benefit of the doubt in the Zaria clash. They see the December 12 killings as a massacre, and consider the army undisciplined, vengeful and unwilling to accept responsibility for its actions.

The Kaduna State government has rightly instituted a judicial panel of inquiry into the clash. The public expects the panel to be fair and just in its findings and conclusions. In 2009, the country and justice system failed the equally troublesome Boko Haram sect, then a foundling organisation calling itself the Nigerian Taliban. The repercussions to the Northeast and the entire country is so staggeringly obvious that it is shocking no lessons have been learnt. In 2009, both the police and the military believed that any serious problem could be solved with force. That solution has proved both elusive and pigheaded. Sadly, both the police and the military think the Shi’a problem will respond well to the use of force. It will not. The group’s brazen and provocative stance and doctrine need carefully calibrated political and law enforcement measures to tackle. Mindless slaughter of the scale witnessed against Boko Haram members in 2008-09, and probably now against the Shi’ites, whether the authorities lie about it or not, will only compound the problem.

The army has prevaricated over whether Sheikh el-Zakzaky and his wife and son are alive or not. All the army says is that the Sheikh is no longer in their custody. It will be ominous should he be dead, for the public remembers to their dismay how the extra-judicial killing of the first Boko Haram leader Mohammed Yusuf radicalised the Northeast sect beyond any palliative and worsened the revolt. It will be foolish if the army had given vent to their frustrations, as many now fear, and killed el-Zakzaky. After all, there is no guarantee that his successor, as was the case with Boko Haram, would not be more radical, assertive and brutal. Nigerians will hope another gate of hell has not been opened in the bowels of the North.

The federal government’s response to the crisis was poor and shambolic. It didn’t move fast enough. It must now begin to ask how the army is deployed, or whether the army now has a life of its own. After the initial skirmish with the Shi’ites and the COAS had left, the inquiry must find answers to who gave orders for the army to mobilise reinforcement to invade the Shi’ites headquarters, and whether that order was still within the purview of the rules of engagement. Hopefully, the judicial panel will answer all questions relating to the clash and help the slow federal government guard against future occurrences. While the troubles of the Shi’ites are well known and must be tackled appropriately, it is difficult to absolve the army of blame. Troubling days are definitely ahead.