By Theophilus Ilevbare
 |
|
Sultan Muhammadu Sa'ad Abubakar III
|
The call by the Sultan of Sokoto and National Leader of the
Muslim faith, Alhaji Sa’ad Abubakar III, to grant total amnesty to the dreaded Boko
Haram members was rather outrageous and unfortunate. In what has become a
public show of genuflection, prominent Nigerians from the North has since
echoed the sentiments of the Sultan to grant amnesty to a terrorist sect that
has received funds and training from global terror groups, such as al-Qaeda and
al-Shabaab.
The insurgents have almost collapsed the economy of North-east,
leaving more than 4,000 people dead and thousands injured. The Sultan has
emboldened others in the drumbeat of amnesty that has eclipsed public discourse
in the weeks that ensued, and surely for a long time to come. One would have
expected to hear a better argument than the refrain that suggests, if the Niger Delta militants were pardoned to bring
about peace and security in the country, why would same not be extended to Boko
Haram? I will revert to this shortly.
My first thought on President Jonathan’s disapproval of the
Sultan’s amnesty call was commendation. I reasoned he struck the right note for
once but on a closer look at his remark, I was crestfallen. President Jonathan
said: “For you to declare amnesty, you have to be communicating with people.
You cannot declare amnesty for people that are communicating under a veil…”
This
can be rephrased to insinuate, as soon as they identify themselves and declare
their intention, the government will consider granting them amnesty. And with
the pardon gate flung open by him for Alamieyeseigha and others, this might
prove to be a tricky one for the president, particularly as there are cheap
political points to pick up from the North ahead of the 2015 general elections.
The amnesty that was granted to the Niger Delta militants
should not in any way translate or equate to same for the Islamist
fundamentalist. The agitations of the militants then, to some extent, were germane,
save for the violence. They were being ripped off by multi-nationals, leaving
them and their environment marginalized and
underdeveloped even though their zone produced the oil that provides for the
entire country. They
agitated for resource control.
They wanted their lives to be touched by the oil
that was been explored daily from their neighbourhood. We all agreed, at some point
in their struggle, that the Niger Delta region had been neglected for too long.
Regardless of the sympathy their plight elicited, their
resort to armed banditry was condemned in strong terms.
Juxtapose with the Boko Haram uprising and its attempt to
forcefully impose a religious ideology on a secular Nigerian society. The
terror, senseless and wanton destruction of lives and property they have
unleashed on Nigerians in a gutsy bid to oppose not only Western education, but
Western culture and modernisation is despicable. Their acts of terror have gone
from the horrendous to the tragic as reflected in the ghastly suicide attack on
five luxury buses in Kano that left about 25 people dead and over 50 others
injured. These attacks are based on a warped and shallow religious ideology; the
islamisation of Nigeria.
They ignorantly disdain anything Western, but wittingly get
by daily with the help of simple machines, the very symbol of Western influence
in our lives. The blood of Nigerians should not atone for such a cause that does not only trivialize what amnesty stands for,
but it seems to suggest that the activities of the sect are legitimate and
tolerable. Niger Delta militants focused their attacks on oil installations and
multi-national oil expatriates, but Boko Haram is engaged in indiscriminate
killing and maiming.
There is a thin line between amnesty and negotiation
(dialogue) in the light of the controversy raised by the Sultan’s comments. To canvass for amnesty is to promote the culture of crass
impunity that desecrates the sanctity of human life. The government can sit
with the leaders of the sect, if they wish to reveal themselves, for dialogue.
Whatever be their demands, excluding amnesty, can be met by the government.
As Bill Clinton rightly pointed out
recently while in Nigeria, deprivation, illiteracy and poverty are root causes
of Boko Haram. The government can dialogue with the sect for a ceasefire and then
develop the region, by creating employment and putting infrastructure in place.
At this juncture, we must all come to the realisation that sometimes battles
are not won with brute use of military force but on the table of dialogue.
The United States and other developed countries posit that
they don't negotiate with terrorists because they have the capacity and Intel
to crush - in the case of al-Qaeda, the killing of Osama Bin Laden - the terrorists.
Same cannot be said of Nigeria where there has been nothing to show for
billions voted for security in the last few years. Security issues should be holistically
approached because it takes more than JTF boots on the ground, armed to the
teeth in troubled states to restore peace and stability.
There is a bigger picture to the diversionary and ill conceived amnesty being canvassed for the Islamic extremists. The
government will be sending a wrong signal to the teeming population of
unemployed Nigerian youths and yet another dangerous precedent after the amnesty
to Niger Delta militants. It is akin to presidential pardon to felons, or a
national honour which is a reward for criminality. It will only buck up splinter
sects like Ansaru, and new rebellion from other parts of the country.
And if the government were to give unconditional pardon to
the Boko Haram, will the government use the same methods of rehabilitation and
reintegration for the Niger Delta militants? Skill acquisition centres, training
and re-training methods at home and abroad? How will the government change
their mentality to prepare them for their return to mainstream Nigeria? Whichever
approach the government intends to employ, it will be a clear negation of the
sects’ ideology of abhorrence for anything Western. It is not rocket science
that their angst with the government has nothing to do with money. All they seek
is that Sharia be entrenched across the country.
Amnesty should not be a leeway for the Nigerian government
to wriggle itself out of security challenges. Only a weak government, with its
security and anti-corruption agencies bereft of ideas reward criminals,
militants, extremists, rapists and ex-convicts with pardon. Granting amnesty to
Boko Haram is a latent approval to other forms of social vices and a continuum
of the vicious cycle of legalised lawlessness.
Finally, there is a need to understand the Boko Haram agenda
before contemplating amnesty for the sect. They are part of a global network of
terror. Their Jihad is not motivated by money, but a relentless drive in their fanatical
religious ideology of eradicating all forms of Western influence on the African
continent using Nigeria and Mali as springboards. The promise of material
wealth that an amnesty holds for the sect is a disincentive.
The
counter-terrorism war has never been won anywhere in the world with amnesty.
theophilus@ilevbare.com
No comments:
Post a Comment