WHY TERRORISM SPONSORS SHOULD BE NAMED

What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, argues Sonnie Ekwowusi

In his characteristic outburst, the Federal Attorney-General Abubakar Malami (SAN) last Friday alleged that the major financier and abettor of Oduduwa Republic agitator Sunday Igboho is a member of the National Assembly. He also claimed that the federal government has unmasked the financiers of Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu. He specifically alleged that individuals, groups as well as state and non-state actors both within and outside Nigeria are aiding and abetting Kanu in his activities.

You will recall that in his last Independence Day Anniversary broadcast, President Muhammadu Buhari alleged that an unnamed serving member of the National Assembly was among the high-profile sponsors of secessionism and terrorism in Nigeria. But in his reaction on the floor of the House of Representatives, Ben Roland Igbakpa (PDP, Delta), regretted that the President’s blanket accusation had breached his privilege as a lawmaker. He also stated that the unassailable deduction from President Buhari’s accusation is that the 469 members of the National Assembly are either criminals or terrorists. For example, he narrated how he was arrested and detained at Ghana Airport for four hours on suspicion that he was a Nigerian lawmaker-turned terrorist visiting Kenya to unleash his terrorism. He regretted that consequent to his said arrest and detention at the Ghana Airport he missed the wedding which he travelled to Ghana to attend. When he demanded to know from the state security agents detaining him the reason for his arrest and detention, the agents said to him, “sorry sir there’s an announcement in Nigeria that a member of parliament is sponsoring terrorism and we are put on red alert to ensure that no member of parliament comes here to hide or cause trouble”. After listening to Hon. Igbakpa, the House of Representatives urged President Buhari to disclose the name of the alleged terrorism sponsor in the National Assembly failure which the House will invoke the constitution to compel the president to do so. The House also unanimously mandated the House leadership to meet with their counterparts in the Senate and fix an appointment with President Buhari, so that he would name the terrorist lawmaker. Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila also promised the House that he would look into the matter and revert back to the House. Till date, nothing has been heard on the matter. For all you and I know, it is not impossible that President Buhari and the National Assembly have decided to “off the mic” on the matter.

He who asserts must prove. Allegations unsupported by concrete evidence are embarrassingly flawed. If President Buhari and Malami are alleging that the federal government has unmasked the financiers and abettors of Sunday Igboho and Nnamdi Kanu they should, in all honesty, name them especially now that Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Igboho are respectively on trial. It makes no sense leveling accusation of such high magnitude in public without any facts to back it up. By alleging that a member of the National Assembly is an aider and abettor of terrorism in Nigeria both President Buhari and Federal Attorney-General Malami have cast an odium and opprobrium on the distinguished members of the Senate and the Honourable members of the House of Representatives. They have lowered the estimation of the members of the National Assembly before the right-thinking members of the public. And by refusing/failing/neglecting to disclose the name of the terrorism sponsor in the National Assembly, Buhari and Malami have put all the 469 members of the National Assembly on the Watch List of terrorists. This is not good. Every citizen of this country is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved by a court of competent jurisdiction.

But in his defence, Malami argues that exposing and shaming the alleged sponsors of terrorism will jeopardize investigation. With the greatest respect, I beg to disagree. First, the two suspects-Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Igboho-are presently in incarceration, and, therefore will not tamper with investigation let alone evidence. If I may ask, what is the timeline for carrying out the investigation or will the investigation last forever? In any case, if investigation on the matter is ongoing as Malami claims, why rush to inform the public that the government had unmasked the financiers of Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Igboho? If investigation is ongoing, why hastily accuse the National Assembly of harbouring a sponsor of terrorism? If exposing the alleged sponsors of terrorism will jeopardize or hinder investigation, why announce to the whole world that government has commenced investigation in the matter? While answering questions on why the government has not deemed it fit to name the alleged terrorism sponsors, Malami says “Naming and shaming of suspects is not embarked upon as a policy by the federal government out of sheer respect of the constitutional rights of Nigerians relating to presumption of innocence”. Oga Malami, what about naming and shaming Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Igboho even though both have not been tried and convicted by a court of law? Is Nigeria now operating two criminal justice systems, one for the privileged few and another for the less privileged majority? I think Malami is just blowing hot and cold at the same time. For example, in one breath, he informs us that the federal government had already succeeded in identifying the funders of terrorism in Nigeria and consequently bringing them to justice to prevent them from blocking the leakages associated with such funding. But in another breath, the same Malami tells us that investigation in the matter is still inconclusive. So, where lies the truth now, in the latter or in the former?

Borrowing the words of the earliest English writer Thomas Paine, these are times that try men’s souls. A country in which many insurgents, herdsmen, political imbeciles, assassins, bandits, political thugs and all sorts of criminals have run amuck and now ceaselessly murdering, maiming, kidnapping their fellow citizens unchecked is tottering on the brink of final collapse. Therefore prudence dictates that our political office holders should carefully weigh their words before uttering them in public if not for anything to avert further escalation of the political tensions across the country. If President Buhari and Federal Attorney-General Malami are not ready to mention the names of the alleged terrorism sponsor they had better keep quiet about it to avoid giving the impression that the government is hiding something from the public or that it is in pari delicto in the crime of terrorism.

It is high time wisdom is brought to bear in governance in Nigeria. We have seen how the wisdom in bringing Nnamdi Kanu to court last Thursday has helped to douse the simmering political tension in the South-East. We need wisdom in tackling Nigeria’s myriads of problems. If utterances must be made they should be well-thought-out.