Ceasefire With Already Degraded Boko Haram Whose Interest Does It Serve
nkem360@googlemail.com
On
Monday July 8, 2013, the British interior ministry announced that the Islamic
fundamentalist group Boko Haram operating in Northern Nigeria is to be banned
in Britain under anti-terror laws with effect from Friday July 12, 2013. To be
banned too is Minbar Ansar Deen, also known as Ansar al-Sharia UK. The ban,
which many believe will receive the blessing of the British parliament, “will
make membership of, and support for, these organisations a criminal offence”
according to the ministry. Explaining the rationale behind this move, the
ministry stated that “The government is determined to work with the
international community to tackle terrorism and take the steps necessary to
keep the UK public safe.” The action of the British government may not be unconnected
with the brutal murder of a British soldier, Lee Rigby, on a London Street in
May this year by two British Nigerians, Michael Adebolaji and Michael Adebowale.
Hours
after the British interior ministry made the above announcement; the Federal
Government of Nigeria announced that it had signed a ceasefire deal
with Boko Haram. According to the Nigerian Vanguard newspapers, the
ceasefire agreement announcement was made by Alhaji Tanimu Turaki on Radio France
International Hausa service monitored in Kano that Monday afternoon.
Alhaji Tanimu Turaki is the Minister of Special Duties and Chairman of the
Presidential Committee on Dialogue and Peaceful Resolution of the security
challenges in Northern Nigeria, commonly derisively referred to as Amnesty
Committee by many Nigerians, who are outraged by the plan of the government of
Dr. Goodluck Jonathan to reward these religious ideologues that have murdered
thousands of innocent Nigerians with amnesty. Alhaji Turaki was to be reported
the next day to have modified his statement that what his committee and the
terrorist group had reached was an “understanding for ceasefire” largely for
the sake of Ramandan, which was to begin the next day July 10, 2013. As cogent
as the reason for the ceasefire is, one still wonders if the statement made in
London and that of Alhaji Turaki’s, surprisingly made on Radio France
International Hausa service instead of the BBC Hausa service that Nigerians are
so accustomed to, were mere coincidences.
In
any case, besides the latest British move, the United States had on June 20,
2013, labelled the acclaimed leader of Boko Haram, Imam Abubakar Shekau, and
two of his partners in perpetration of horrendous acts against innocent
Nigerians - Abubakar Adam Kambar and Khalid al-Barnawi as global terrorists thus
giving the US the leverage it needs to hunt down these terrorists. And on June
3, 2013, the US raised the stakes by posting a reward of $7m (N1.1bn) to anyone
that would provide information that would lead to the capture of the leader of
the Boko Haram terrorist group, Imam Shekau. It is hard to tell though if the
US has abandoned its initial resolve of slipping in strange excuses for Boko
Haram insurgency while attacks by the group were accompanied by silence from Washington.
Both Washington and London have been known in the past and in recent times to
robustly advance the cause of the North, the birth place of the Islamic group.
There are enough grounds to believe America may have been worried over Boko
Haram not being content with appealing to locals for support but engaging in
what amounted to sacrilege by openly calling on the Afghanistan Taliban for
help. And London may not rule out a passageway between the so-called Underwear
Bomber and the latest Nigerian British attackers of the British soldier to the
fundamentalists in Nigeria. Be that as it may, it all indicated that the door
was closing for Boko Haram.
Of
course, everyone in Nigeria and beyond knows that the Nigerian ruler Dr.
Jonathan on May 14, 2013, finally found the courage to declare a state of emergency
in three states in North East Nigeria; notably Borno, Yobe and Adamawa.
Although Dr. Jonathan’s critics, especially the members of opposition parties,
do not see the impact of that action, the truth is that Boko Haram has been
significantly degraded since then. The fact is that many of these opposition
members deliberately refuse to accept a well understood phenomenon that it
takes just one successful operation by terrorists to create doubts in the minds
of citizens of any nation fighting
terrorism with regards to the effectiveness of the action(s) their government
has taken to protect them. It took the successful Boston Marathon bombings allegedly
carried out by the Chechen brothers, Tarmerlin and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on April
15, 2013, to puncture the superb job the United States government had done in
preventing terrorist attacks on in the US since the 11th day of September 2001.
As it is commonly said, any government fighting terrorism has to be hundred
percent successful all the time, while the terrorists just need to be
successful once to create an impact.
Undoubtedly,
the Nigerian security forces have inflicted a devastating blow on the Boko
Haram terrorists. Therefore, it is pertinent that one asks, “Ceasefire with
Already Degraded Boko Haram: Whose Interest Does It Serve?” It is important that
this question be asked, knowing that Boko Haram is a spent force now.
Therefore, the Nigerian people should not allow this government to take the
wrong steps.
One
of the reactions which I found quite apt while reviewing the immediate
reactions of some Nigerians interviewed by the Vanguard late evening of Monday
8 July, 2013 was a statement credited to Afenifere’s National Publicity
Secretary, Mr Yinka Odumakin. Mr. Odumakin while offering his views to a
Vanguard reporter on the development asked, “Is it a strategy to rule or what
is it all about?” I found this statement quite appropriate in view of the fact
that the previous day, Sunday July 7, 2013, the Governor of Niger State and
Chairman Northern Governors Forum, Dr. Babangida Aliyu, had declared that the
North would negotiate with those angling to become Nigeria’s president in 2015
in order to protect the interests of the North. Governor Aliyu stated this
while inaugurating the office complex for federal workers in Enagi headquarters
of Edati Local Government of his state. Hitherto, Governor Aliyu had spoken on
the North’s quest for Nigeria’s presidency in 2015 in a manner that conveyed
the impression that it was a core Northerner’s entitlement to become Nigeria’s
president in 2015. He used the occasion to dispel that widely held impression.
Incidentally,
in the early hours of the previous day, Saturday July 6, 2013, insurgents
operating in the ruthless fashion of Boko Haram Islamic militants had stormed
the Government Secondary School in the town of Mamudo, Yobe State, North East
Nigeria and gruesomely murdered 30 innocent children and a teacher, with scores
injured. I found it quite unsettling that Dr. Aliyu didn’t use that occasion to
strongly condemn that inhuman act. Instead he found the occasion more
auspicious to talk about the 2015 presidential election. It makes one wonder about
what is actually important to Nigerian rulers. Is it the sanctity of human life
or the quest for power? In bears reminding Nigerian rulers that the great
Nelson Mandela once said that, “In countries where innocent people are dying,
the leaders are following their blood rather than their brains.”
Not
quite a few Nigerians believe that the upsurge of the activities of Boko Haram
since Dr. Goodluck Jonathan was elected to rule Nigeria is a stratagem by some
powerful core Northerners to make the country ungovernable for Jonathan. Such
people point to the threatening statements made by some of these Northerners
after the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) picked Dr. Jonathan to fly its flag in
the 2011 presidential contest, as evidence of the Northerners’ complicity. Of
course, the Northern leadership believes that poverty and not the above reason is
responsible for terrorism in their region. However, the unvarnished truth is
that Boko Haram members are a group of people who have declared on a number of
occasions that they are fighting for the establishment of a Nigerian state based
on the Sharia Law. Only a few occasions have they targeted Muslims. Their
targets have always been Christians in churches on Easter and Christmas Day and,
of course, a critical symbol of the Nigerian state, the security forces. The
fact that Boko Haram never declared any truce during Easter and Christmas celebrations
is a pointer to the fact that the principal targets are Christians and will
always be.
But
if one may ask; Which Boko Haram group has the government of Nigeria reached
“ceasefire understanding” with? Does the government know how many splinter
groups of the Congregation and People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad
(Jamā'a Ahl al-sunnah li-da'wa wa al-jihād) widely known as Boko Haram that are
in existence? At least, we know of one splinter group, Vanguard for the
Protection of Muslims in Black Lands (Jamāʿatu Anṣāril Muslimīna fī Bilādis
Sūdān), commonly called Ansaru. There could be several other splinter groups.
More
importantly, whose interest is a ceasefire with a significantly degraded Boko
Haram that unarmed kids who should be in school are now on the streets of Maiduguri
trying to fish out going to serve? Is it
a strategy to rule or what is it all about as Mr. Odumakin penetratingly asked?
Is it a way the North wants to use to get as much resources as what they think
the Niger Delta region is getting? Is the ceasefire with a significantly
degraded Boko Haram going to be used to blackmail the Jonathan government into
allocation of huge resources to youth programmes or outright pay off to mass
killers at the expense of Nigerian youth from other regions of Nigeria? Is the ceasefire with a degraded Boko Haram
going to serve some interests among the ruling class in Nigeria who are waiting
in the wings for the dole outs to sustain their opulent lifestyle? Or is it a
move to support Dr. Jonathan for a second term in 2015? So far, the Northern
Elders Forum (NEF) through its spokesperson, Professor Ango Abdullahi had vociferously
insisted that if Jonathan returns to power, Nigeria will breakup. Is this the
point of the North’s willingness now to negotiate with any presidential
aspirant for the 2015 election? How would a ceasefire with a significantly
degraded Boko Haram serve the interest of the victims of Boko Haram’s years of
murderous campaigns?
Some
people may point at the Taliban’s new move of trying to have direct talks with
the United States by opening a political office in Doha, Qatar. Instructively,
since June 18, 2013, when the Taliban opened that office and draped it with the
flag of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, not much progress has been made. Recently,
that flag has been removed to address the concerns of Afghan President Hamid
Karzai. Reuters of July 9, 2013 quoted diplomatic sources as saying that the
move is “expected to be a difficult and unpredictable peace process”. And
Taliban is not known to have a splinter group. Taliban were former rulers of
Afghanistan. Even though the talk of negotiation is in the air, the Taliban continues
to launch frequent and effective attacks on the Afghan army, the international
military forces in Afghanistan and other targets of interest.
But
this is not our case in Nigeria. Boko Haram has been significantly degraded.
And Nigeria is not dealing with former rulers of Nigeria, who were ‘smoked’ out
of office. Nigeria is dealing with a group that believes that Nigeria should
become “Islamic Emirate of Nigeria” with them in charge. Nigeria is dealing
with a group of demented ideologues who in the pursuit of their objective,
massacred thousands of innocent Nigerians, maimed many more, displaced and
destroyed the business enterprises of the victims.
On
Tuesday July 9, 2013, a federal high court sitting in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja,
sentenced four members of Boko Haram to life imprisonment for killing 19 people
in separate bombing incidents in Suleja, Niger State, near Abuja, in 2011, as
well as an explosion that took the lives of 3 policemen in Dakina Village,
Bwuari, Abuja. This is the first time any member of the Islamic fundamentalist
group was jailed. Many Nigerians are disappointed that these people responsible
for abruptly terminating the lives of their fellow citizens would be kept in
prison to be sustained by tax payers’ money instead of having them executed. In
the United States, one of the surviving alleged Boston Marathon bombers, Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev, was arraigned in a federal court in Boston on July 10, 2013, for his
suspected role in the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15, 2013. Dzhokhar, if
convicted, will face the death penalty. If a terrorist who inflicted minimal
damage on the American people could face death penalty why should terrorists in
Nigeria, who have murdered thousands, have the luxury of life sentence? Is
Nigeria more civilised than America? Knowing the way state pardon is granted to
all manner of criminals in Nigeria, the possibility of these murderers being
released after a few years in imprison is quite high. Is that the path Nigeria
should take not to talk of granting them amnesty?
The
blood of thousands of innocent Nigerians gruesomely murdered is crying for
justice. That justice does not rest upon a ceasefire with Boko Haram,
especially now that the Nigerian security forces have significantly cut down
Boko Haram’s capacity to freely operate; now, that the United States actions
and the UK move have made their invincibility extremely vulnerable. Therefore,
what is required at the moment is that the Nigerian security forces be further
encouraged to mop up the remnants of this group and for the Nigerian government
to bring the captured to face justice like the four just sentenced for life.
*This
article first appeared on Nkem Ekeopara's website
Comments