Amnesty: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

Tweet

By Abubakar Usman

President Goodluck Jonathan

Few weeks ago, the Sultan of Sokoto, Abubakar Sa’ad, asked the Federal Government to grant members of the militant group, Boko Haram, a “total and unconditional amnesty” for the sake of peace in the country. The Sultan’s basis is premised on the fact that a presidential amnesty to even one member of the sect, could make others to lay down their arms for peace to reign in the nation. 

In reaction to sultan’s call, President Jonathan during his visit to Maiduguri said his administration would not grant members of the group amnesty until such a time the group comes out in the public to dialogue with the federal government.

Since these two prominent figures made these comments, Nigerians seem to have been divided on the justification of amnesty for Boko Haram. Although this division can be understood if viewed from different perspectives, it is quite disappointing that most of the views expressed are either beclouded by sentiments or emotions, especially on the part of those who think that an amnesty for Boko Haram will be a tragic mistake. It is even more disheartening when those who are in support of amnesty for Boko Haram are immediately branded Boko Haram sympathisers, just because they dared to proffer a solution. It doesn’t even matter to this people if you have been affected in one way or the other.

I particularly decided to write this piece following an insult I got from a fellow on twitter because I dared to ask why we should continue to harp on the use of force to fight Boko Haram when that very strategy has failed to achieve any meaningful result. It shows the extent at which Nigerians make surface conclusion rather than analysing issues with the merit it deserves. I won’t be surprised to get more of that insult with this piece, especially from those who apart from displaying ignorance, are also beclouded by sentiments and emotions. However, it doesn’t change the fact that what needs to be said must be said.

It’s been over five years since the military were deployed to states like Borno, Yobe, etc., to fight the insurgency. Apart from the various atrocities which the military under the JTF have meted especially to innocent civilians in those states, the actions of the military have not succeeded in taming Boko Haram, rather it has fuelled it further. 

Bombings and killings despite heavy military presence are still occurring almost on daily basis. The question then is if you have applied a particular strategy to a problem for over five years without any meaningful progress, do you need to be told that there is need to employ other measures? While it is arguable that amnesty is the sole strategy that is needed to solve the Boko Haram insurgency, it is only necessary that it should be explored to see how far it can help in ameliorating the problem.

I do not live in any of those states where Boko Haram have laid siege and fortunately, I have not been directly affected by any of their atrocities, but I do not need to be or wait till I am before I seek for a way out of the evil perpetrated by these men for whatever reason, because I may not be this lucky forever. My support for amnesty is not spontaneous. I actually kicked against it when it was first suggested, but over time, I realized the need for it and that reason is not borne out of the fact that I think Boko haram deserves amnesty. 

Those evil men have caused untold harm against the Nigerian state and her people. Ordinarily, they should be made to face justice for their crimes and this I believe is the argument advanced by many of those who kicked against granting them amnesty, but while this has failed to bring about peace or at least succeed in putting a stop to the insurgency, it is only normal to give amnesty a try so as to prevent further carnage. After all, an unjust peace in the views of Cicero is better than a just war.

Even as some persons kicked against the amnesty, they have not been able to tell us what they think can solve the problem or at least guarantee peace to the affected people, except for a continued military onslaught whose outcome has resulted in more deaths of civilians than the Boko Haram members itself. There is no guarantee that amnesty will be all that is needed, but there is even a guarantee that the presence of the JTF in those areas affected will not stop the killing of citizens of those states. At least we have seen that for over five years.

The argument by some of these people is that amnesty for Boko Haram is not in any way comparable to the amnesty granted Niger Delta militants. What they failed to realise is that crime against a state is a crime. No doubt, the Boko Haram sect has killed countless number of people and destroyed properties belonging to individuals and the authority, but if Wikipedia’s definition of  terrorism which it says “refers to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)” is anything to go by, then the Niger Delta militants are also liable, because they've also killed and destroyed properties, whether comparable or not to Boko Haram.  

Although I quite agree with what the agitations of the militants were about, assuming it is true they did what they did in the overall interest of the Niger Deltans, it still doesn’t exonerate them from what many people want for Boko Haram. That is by the way though.

An amnesty for Boko Haram does not necessarily need to be the same amnesty granted to Niger Delta Militants. Fact is that not everybody in the sect will accept amnesty, especially those who are hardliners like Abubakar Shekau, but you can be sure that a good number of them will accept it, especially those who joined because their mosques were destroyed, their leaders or members were killed extra-judiciously or even those who joined because they suffered victimization from the hands of security agencies. 

Personally, I think amnesty for Boko Haram should come with a lot of conditions. Those who are willing for example could be asked to submit their arms; all members should be screened and those who actually deserve the gesture should be given, while those who are found to have committed heinous crimes should be made to face the course of justice. Also, the training and monthly allowance as is the case with Niger Delta militants should either be minimal or completely excluded from the amnesty package. 

As this is going on, a combined strategy of dialogue, improved intelligence gathering and use of force will be stepped up to tackle those who will not accept the amnesty. Gains against this terror group are even more realistic now that there seem to be different factions in the sect, as this must have weakened their ranks. There are no guarantees of success with this strategy though, but it will go a long way in reducing the number of enemies the government will have to deal with.

The government really needs to step up its responsibility of protecting the lives and properties of every Nigerians instead of playing politics with the issue. The claim by President Jonathan that Boko Haram is ghost and therefore cannot be granted amnesty is not only laughable, but irresponsible. 

We have not forgotten that the government told us severally that it is in dialogue with Boko Haram. We have also not forgotten that at a point, the government promised to publish the names of their sponsors which it never did. How come these same people all of a sudden became ghosts? President Jonathan said the elders of the terrorist stronghold should fish out the Boko Haram members.

When late President Yar'Adua granted amnesty to Niger delta militants, he didn’t sit down in Aso rock and asked leaders in the Niger Delta to fish out the militants. He empowered his vice President, who incidentally is now the President to enter into the creeks and dialogue with the militants before they finally accepted amnesty. 

Dr Goodluck Jonathan as vice president then worked in conjunction with governors and elders of the Niger Delta states to dialogue with the militants which eventually ended up in the amnesty. That exactly is what President Jonathan ought to do, especially now that the vice president is also a son from the north and not to sit down in Aso rock and handover his responsibility solely to those who do not have the requisite capacity to carry out such assignment.

Until we are ready to explore as many options as possible part of which is an amnesty, we may just have to continue to live with the evils of Boko Haram for a long time.

___________________________________________________________________________

Abubakar Sidiq Usman is an Urban Planning Consultant; Blogger and an Active Citizen working towards a better Nigeria. He blogs on HERE and can be engaged directly on twitter @Abusidiqu