Nigeria’s Recidivist Insecurity and PMB’s Remissness: Libya and China Beyond the Tales by Moonlight

INTERNATIoNAL

Bola A. Akinterinwa

Nigerians witness daily breaking news of insecurity, which is deepening in different ramifications. President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) strongly believes that he and his government are doing the best possible in the collective interest. But most concerned Nigerians do not share PMB’s perspective for reasons of psychology of human differences.

Former military Head of State and elected President of Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Okikiola Obasanjo, noted on Monday, 13th December 2021 that ‘President Buhari has done his best. That is what he can do. If we are expecting anything more than what he has done or what he is doing, that means we’re whipping a dead horse and there is no need.’ In reaction to Chief Obasanjo’s observation, the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, said that ‘while there is nothing wrong in the citizens expressing their concerns over the insecurity in the country, we wish to say that the use of incendiary and insulting words, especially by leaders of all hues, can only overheat the polity and heighten tension.’

More important, Alhaji Mohammed added that ‘while the government provides leadership, all Nigerians have a role to play in securing our nation. Security is not the sole responsibility of the security forces alone. We must not only support our security agencies, (but) we must also say something anytime we see something that hampers our safety and security, as encapsulated in the mantra: “if you see something, say something.” In this regard if Lai Mohammad believes that seeing something is also saying something, in which way has what Chief Obasanjo seen and said constitute an insult?

We believe strongly that it is precisely Alhaji Mohammed who has been recklessly insulting Nigerians of all hues. He takes the whole people of Nigeria for granted by seeking to teach them how to think, how to see or observe, and how to evaluate. One typical example is his description of the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry Report on Restitution for Victims of SARS Related Abuses and Other Matters as ‘tales by moonlight.’ With the seriousness of purpose, objectivity of investigation, and honesty of reconciliatory efforts, a Minister of Information and Culture can have the effrontery to liken such a report as another chiffon de papier. It is the taking of public opinion on a lighter mood and neglecting this type of tales by moon light that are fueling national insecurity in Nigeria.Muammar Gaddafi’s observation is a case in point. The reported Chinese intention to establish a military base on the coast of Equatorial Guinea is another dilemma.

Gaddafi’s Tales by Moon Light

To an extent, the information minister is correct that all Nigerians should support the security agencies and that if one sees something, one should say something. However, the problem with Alhaji Mohammed’s observation is the emptiness of it. He complained about leaders making incendiary statement and insulting PMB. Since Alhaji Mohammed was reacting to Chief Obasanjo’s perceived incendiary statement, it is logically deducible that he believes Chief Obasanjo was insulting PMB.

Considering that both Chief Obasanjo and PMB are both military-turned politicians and were both Heads of State through coups d’état and elected presidents of Nigeria, it is useful to note that Chief Obasanjo is senior to PMB in the military and as a militician. It is a truism in military tradition that a junior officer cannot court-martial his senior. By implication, Chief Obasanjo can insult PMB if need be, but PMB cannot insult his senior, even if we still admit that respect begets respect. Chief Obasanjo is advising, warning about the likely dangers ahead. Instead of taking an objective look at the advice, at the warnings, at the implications, the information minister is pontificating on tales by moon light to no avail. In other words, he sees the complaints as a child’s play. It is this type of perception of foreign observations, often considered as a child’s play, that has been largely responsible for the deepening of national insecurity in Nigeria.

At the level of the Libyan tale by moon light, so to say, Muammar Gaddafi said in 2010 that Nigeria should be split along religious lines, that is, Muslim North and Christian South (vide Reuters/Filippo Monteforte/pool/files). The Government of Nigeria was angered to the extent of recalling its Principal Representative, Ambassador Isah Mohammed, for urgent consultations. Gaddafi’s suggestions were made considering the violent clashes between the Muslim and Christian groups in Jos. In the words of Gaddafi, the Jos crisis was a ‘deep conflict of religious nature’ and therefore called for the splitting of Nigeria in the belief that it ‘would stop bloodshed and burning of places of worship.’

The National Assembly passed a motion which requested the Government to ask the African Union to carry out an independent investigationinto whether Libya was supplying infiltrators to destabilizeNigeria. There is no information to educate us on the outcome of the investigation. What is on record is that Nigeria’s Foreign Minister said that ‘the insensitive and oftentimes irresponsible utterances of Colonel Gaddafi, his theatrics and grandstanding at every auspicious occasion have become too numerous to recount. These have diminished his status and credibility as a leader to be taken seriously.’

This is another mania of saying that Muammar Gaddafi is a tale by moon light himself. The mere consideration that he is not serious a leader implies not taking his words seriously. The issue is not accepting Gaddafi’s suggestion of splitting Nigeria but to seek a better understanding why religion remains a do-or-die matter in Nigeria. Is it because of farmland needs in the Middle Belt or because of jihadist agenda? Many notable Nigerians have accused PMB of nursing an Islamisation and a Fulanisation agenda. Whether the allegations are right. whether they are wrong remains a different kettle of fish entirely. What is undeniable, however, is the attitudinal disposition of PMB which apparently lends credence to the accusations. Consistent with Government’s attitude of tales by moonlight, no one bothers about whether there is Fulanisation or Islamisation agenda, while national insecurity is deepening.

As regards the planned Chinese military base on the coast of Equatorial Guinea, this will be the second time that Equatorial Guinea will be used to seriously threaten Nigeria’s national security, and particularly Nigeria’s existential survival. The first time was when Apartheid South Africa wanted to establish itself in Equatorial Guinea. The strategic calculation by then was to be able to contain Nigeria’s anti-Apartheid activities. Nigeria fought both South Africa and Equatorial Guinea tooth and nail and South Africa did not make haste slowly in throwing her military presence in the country to the dustbin of history.

On this second experience, The Wall Street Journal has reported, based on classified US intelligence, that Chinais planning to launch its first permanent military facility on the Atlantic Ocean and that the base will be on the coast of Equatorial Guinea. The report also has it that the United States is opposed to the location of a permanent military base near Nigerian waters.

Without doubt, Sino-American relationship is not at its best. It has been largely fraught with mutual suspicions arising from alleged human rights abuses in China and violations, disagreement over the future status of Taiwan, US belief that COVID-19 originated in Wuhan China which the Beijing authorities have vehemently opposed, trade disagreement and emergence of China as another superpower. In the eyes of the Washingtonian government, the most serious security threat to the United States is any permanent military of China on the Atlantic Ocean.

The report of the Journal also recalled the briefing by General Townsend, the Commander of the US Africa Command, to the US Senate in April 2021 that ‘China’s most significant threat would be a militarily useful naval facility on the Atlantic coast of Africa.’ According to General Townsend, the military base would be a place that they can make port calls and get gas and groceries and where they can re-arm with munitions and repair naval vessels. If the United States is so much concerned about the alleged Chinese threats in far away America, should Nigeria not also be concerned? This question has been asked bearing in mind that the coast of Equatorial Guinea is only about 144 kilometres from Calabar, 225 kilometres from Port Harcourt, and 672kilometres from Lagos. Should this concern be considered as another tale by moonlight?

Without jots of doubt, Equatorial Guinea has the sovereign right to invite China to establish any base, temporary or permanent base within the international territorial limits of the country. However, this cannot and must not be detrimental to Nigeria’s national security interest. Nigeria’s relationship with China is generally good. The same is true of Nigeria’s ties with the United States. The issue at stake, however, is not simply about taking side with anyone of them. The fact is that Nigeria’s territory is within the coverage of any missile attack in the event of a sour relationship in the future. Nigeria’s debts to China are on the increase. What happens in the event of financial insolvency? Will the Chinese attach any of Nigeria’s country’s infrastructure? With the nearness of a Chinese permanent military base to Nigeria’s territorial waters, what are the strategic implications and scenarios? Which country is friendlier to Nigeria in terms of development assistance: China or the United States? If Nigeria’s foreign policy interest has been discouragement of foreign military presence in Africa, if Nigeria has been opposed to the establishment of the US Africa Command, what will be the basis of accepting a Chinese permanent military base in Equatorial Guinea? Indeed, the issue goes beyond a tale by moonlight.

According to the Beijing authorities, China’s military strategy ‘will unswervingly follow the path of peaceful development, pursue an independent foreign policy of peace and a national defense policy that is defensive in nature, oppose hegemonism and power politics in all forms, and will never seek hegemony or expansion. China’s armed forces will remain a staunch force in maintaining world peace’ (vide China’s Military Strategy: The State Council Information Office of The People’s Republic of China, May 2015 published by the Foreign Languages Press). To what extent will this strategy consistent with peace making?

Dynamics of PMB’s Remissness

The remissness of PMB in effectively containing insecurity in Nigeria can be explained by several factors. First is the complicity of Muslim followers, especially the Northern Muslims. Kingsley Omonobi, in his report, entitled “Gaddafi wanted to break Nigeria,” in Saturday Vanguard of October 22, 2011, gave instances of the many visits of Muammar Gaddafi to the northern part of Nigeria. Gaddafi had always said that Nigeria would break up unless the country was split into Muslim North and Christian South.

As reported, Gaddafi was massively funding the construction of Mosques and Islamic Centres of worship in Kano and other cities of the North. He was making donations unannounced. And perhaps more interestingly, Omonobi re-quoted a confidant that ‘there were also several visits by several top and influential Northerners, especially those of the Islamic faith to Libya ostensibly on the invitation of the late Libyan leader when he was alive and held sway in Tripoli before the revolution against him started which security agencies were aware of and we closely monitored these persons.’

If the security agencies were aware of these developments, and aware of Gaddafi’s destabilization agenda since 2003, why did the Government of Nigeria keep quiet? Is it another tale by moonlight? When PMB came to power in 2015, impression was given that there would no longer be tales by moonlight and that the issue of jihadist insurrection would be quickly nipped in the bud. PMB’s many policies have pointed to a change in continuity: changing the technique but still sustaining an Islamic and Fulanisation agenda. This is one of the major factors serving as a catalyst of insecurity in the country, but which is simply taken as a tale by moonlight. When attention is drawn toit, Government talks about hostility and insults. This is most unfortunate.

A second dynamic is Government’s disregard for the 1999 Constitution as amended and for human rights. As explained in Section 19 (d), Nigeria’s foreign policy objective shall include ‘the respect for international law and treaty obligations as well as the seeking of settlement of international disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication.’In this case, why should a foreign policy objective be the respect for international law and treaty obligations?

True enough, all the Member States of the international community are required to comply with the principle of pacta sunt servanda (sanctity of agreements). In other words, respecting international treaties is an obligation. Respecting it cannot be an aim or objective. Even if we admit of the respect of international law as an objective, how do we explain Government’s refusal to accept that international law allows for the principle of self-determination? The Yoruba Southwest and the Igbo Southeast are calling for respect for self-determination, but they are being ruthlessly dealt with.

PMB argues that Nigeria is indissoluble, and that national unity is not negotiable. This argument is very valid if the people themselves want it so. Without the people’s express consent, the argument is myopic and untenable. When the 1999 Constitution as amended is considered controversial, with people suggesting that the Constitution is fraudulent and that, at best, it is a military constitution meant essentially for the military, it cannot but be logical for PMB to seek détente rather than imposing the arguments of non-negotiability of national unity and indissolubility of Nigeria. The fundamental truth in this case is that international law and treaty obligations cannot provide for the right of self-determination on the one hand, and Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution as amended cannot also provide for respect of international law, on the other hand and the elected leader of Nigeria, PMB, will be using very brutal force on those calling for the respect for the right to self-determination. This is a contradiction that can only fuels public anger and insecurity.

A third dynamic is PMB’s don’t care attitude towards public complaints, especially in terms of allegations of PMB’s policies of nepotism and selective corruption targets. PMB engages in nepotism, even contrarily to the principle of Federal Character. He cares less for whatever opinion anyone holds. The problem here is that the Fulani who PMB is trying to protect are unnecessarily seen by the non-Fulani as enemies. They are seen to be preferentially protected to the detriment of the collective interests of others. This is engendering hostility to the extent that the problem has become a South versus North affair. This is most unfortunate.

A fourth dynamic is the political suspicion of a Fulani agenda to dominate the rest of the country. This suspicion, if not fear, dates to the time of independence. There have been complaints of preferential treatment for the Fulani ethnic stock. This is an area that PMB’s remissness is so manifest. This factor largely influences thinking and unnecessary animosity towards our brothers and sisters in the North. PMB ought to have come into the public to debunk such views.

Fifthly, the case of the 1978 Land Use Act is another serious problem, not because of Government’s policies of Rural Grazing Area (RUGA) and others, but basically because of the belief of the herders that they have the right to graze on any land, that every land is terra nullius or land without titles. Herders destroy farm lands, maim and killed the legitimate land owners and are allowed to go away without punishment. Even when complaints are reportedly lodged with the police, there is always no further action based on alleged orders from above. Even if the police is telling lies, public perception is that PMB is making all efforts to advance Fulani interests to the detriment of the interests of all others. There is no way insecurity would not continue to be deepened. Fighting insecurity therefore goes beyond the use of arms and ammunitions. The policy attitude must be reviewed.

Sixthly, why is PMB against restructuring and Community and state policing? Governors are said to be the Chief Security Officer of their State but the Commissioner of Police in the State does not report to the Governor but to the Inspector General of Police (IGP). The IGP does not have the required paraphernal means to oversee all security problems all over the country. Rather than meaningfully investigating the complaints about the mania of democratic governance in Nigeria, PMB wrongly believes that Nigeria can always be governed by manu militari. No true federalism in place. Over-centralisation of policy has been the order of the day. Thus, the reasons for insecurity in Nigeria are deep and man-made. Insecurity in Nigeria is deepening and PMB’s remissness has become a catalytic agent in its deepening. Insecurity is deepening not because efforts are not being made but essentially because when the people of Nigeria tell PMB what the nature of Nigeria’s problem is all about, PMB’s lieutenants see them as tales by moonlight. Public opinion is never taken seriously. Nepotism is not a big deal in the eyes of PMB. Public allegations of Fulanisation or Islamisation agenda does not mean anything for PMB. PMB allows everyone the freedom to say whatever one wants to say but he only does what he believes in. PMB needs to investigate what prompted Muammar Gaddafi to have suggested the splitting of Nigeria into two. He must also investigate the implications of Chinese permanent military base in Equatorial Guinea because Shakespeare has it in Macbeth that ‘the near in blood, the nearer bloody.’ The issues should not be taken with kid gloves or considered as tales by moonlight à la Lai Mohammed.