Terrorist Messages versus PMB’s Responses: The Challenge of Unanswered Questions and Quo Vadis

INTERNATIoNAL

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

T

errorist attacks convey messages beyond the infliction of injuries which are actually meant to convey other political messages for compliance by government or imposition of their intention on the government and the general population. Terrorism is hardly a resultant of any respect for rule of law or human rights. In fact, it is because there is rule of law and that the whole world is talking about the need to respect the dignity of man and his fundamental human rights that terrorists act violently contrarily to the law. For example, it is because diplomats are internationally well protected by various diplomatic conventions that they are the first victims of terrorist attacks, especially of letter and parcel bombs. Consequently, when human rights organisations are complaining of jungle justice or are unluckily caught by the people and are also publicly mistreated, many questions cannot but be raised.

This reactive jungle justice to professional terrorists should not be confused with situations when an individual is alleged to have made a blasphemous statement against Islam, in which case jungle justice by Muslims is at best very barbaric. In this case, the rule of law should apply. Court processes exist to adjudicate grievances without resorting to the use of jungle justice. This is because no one should take the laws into his or her hands.

What is important to note in this case is the response of Government to the messages of terrorists. In this regard, what are the responses of the government to such requests? At best, the responses have either been that of rejection, negotiation with the terrorists or that of limited or controlled confrontation. Neither the negotiation nor the confrontation has been strong enough to send any message of fear that can dissuade the terrorists from rescinding their threats. 

Grosso modo, an act of rejection or military confrontation is necessarily another form of negotiation which is not always peaceful. It can be very warlike. Thus the nexus between a message of request by terrorists and the reactive negotiation and confrontation by a government has generally been difficult and most misunderstood, especially when the responding government is not enlightening the public on the truth about the situation. Terrorism in Nigeria is generally most misunderstood. Some observers call it armed banditry. The Government of Nigeria does not want to call it terrorism initially and has been dealing with it with kid gloves.

Most unfortunately, Nigeria is faced with another civil war with the implication of national disintegration or Islamisation. This second civil war is already in the making. but everyone is pretending as if there is nothing like that. Everyone behaves as if life is normal and is only a reflection of macroeconomic challenges. But far from it, the foundations of national unity and indivisibility are weakened on daily basis.

Terrorism and PMB’s Responses: 

Terrorism is an uncivilized, unlawful, brutal and violent technique of negotiating politico-economic objectives. The manifestation of terrorism is multidimensional: armed banditry, armed kidnapping, armed illegal acquisition of titled land by Fulani herdsmen, armed imposition of Fulani agenda, armed Islamisation efforts and armed robberies. If PMB is asked if there is any Fulanisation or Islamisation agenda, he will joyfully respond that there is none, while on the contrary, his public statements belie his actions and situational reality on the ground. The truth is that terror-related deaths are declining worldwide but on the increase in Nigeria. Nigeria has become the ninth country of terror-related deaths after Afghanistan. And true enough, more than 22 thousand people have died in the war between the Boko Haram and the Nigerian military force. There is also no disputing the fact that the insurgents have more sophisticated weapons than the sovereign state of Nigeria. In fact, the economic cost of terrorism in Nigeria has been put at 2.4% of the GDP (vide Doris Dokua Sasu. “Terrorism in Nigeria: Statistics and Facts,” Statista, 28 June, 2022).

In this regard, we observe that PMB cannot be held singly responsible because the foundations for nepotism, inter-ethnic animosity and terrorism in Nigeria can be traced to the time of Independence. These issues therefore predate his military and civil administration of Nigeria. Col Tony Nyiam reminded us in 2002 that ‘one by one,  every aspect of our life is being affected by violent crimes; nowhere is safe. There are clear linkages between the robberies and the context in which the crimes have been committed. Nigerian policy makers must realise that armed robbery is as much their fault as that of the robbers. Armed robbers are a product of the wrought the economic injustice perpetrated by the Nigeria’s ruling class’ (see his Nigerian National Question and Answer (Lagos: Pumark Nigerian Ltd, 2002, p.177). In other words, in the beginning of this 21st century, Nigeria was plagued with violent armed robberies and corruption. The robberies were never curtailed and Colonel Nyiam had to blame the political elite for the problem. In the second decade of the century, insecurity shifted from armed robberies to terrorist attacks on public institutions, especially the military. Kidnapping became the order of the day. So has institutional corruption.

More fundamental is the issue of nepotism, injustice and unfairness in the Public Service. At the House of Representatives Debates on 16 August 1960, the expansion of the policemen was hotly discussed. Mr. Chukwu representing Awgu South, moved a motion that ‘this House calls on the Government to institute an independent commission of inquiry into the Nigeria Police Force in order to investigate the allegations of maladministration, corrupt methods of promotion and the slow pace of Nigerianisation of the Force.’

In the words of Mr. Chukwu, ‘the method of promotion in the Police Force is corrupt and it is actually based on discrimination, tribalism and nepotism… Members of the Police Force from certain tribes of Nigeria have been denied the rights and privileges of promotion. In consequence, it is only members of the Force from mainly one or two tribes who occupy the key posts in the Police Force.’ Perhaps more interestingly, Mr. Chukwu had it that ‘only the good boys of the bosses, that is, some members of the Police Force who are actually in the good books of their senior officers are considered for promotion and if any policeman wants to aspire to the next higher rank, he must have to work towards achieving the recommendation of his immediate boss.’ If the issue of nepotism and the notion of good boys being considered for elevation existed then, why is that of PMB different today? The foundation of Nigeria as a sovereign state is never based on patriotism or pursuit of nation-building.

In fact, during the same debates, Mr. R.B.B. Okafor, representing Owerri West, who seconded Mr. Chukwu’s motion, noted amidst controversies that ‘we have all adopted the policy of One Nigeria, except the Opposition. At least the Government agrees there is one Nigeria. No matter where you come from, promotion should be on merit, so that this question of tribe should be done away with.’ Why has it not been done away with? If it is only the Government of Nigeria that agreed that ‘there is one Nigeria,’ implying the people of Nigeria are not agreed on living as one Nigeria, does this not show why the 1999 Constitution was fraudulently presented as ‘We the People’ adopting the Constitution.

Most disturbingly, Senator Chief O.A. Fagbenro-Beyioku moved a motion entitled, ‘Discriminatory Practices in the Federal Territory,’ asking the House to deplore ‘all forms of discriminatory practices either in the National Policy of the country or in the Public Service Administration of the land, which are capable of creating tribal disaffection among several millions of the peoples of the Federation, thereby endangering the solidarity of the nation.’

Senator Chief T.A. Doherty explained the motion pointedly and directly: ‘this motion by Senator Chief Fagbenro-Beyioku is a very important and serious one. We all know what the situation is in the country today and we have only been going round the fence rather than getting to grips with the problem. Even the mover of the motion is guilty of the same thing. Discrimination means tribalism in plain language; we should not beat about the bush, the Northerners are in control of the Federal Government today, and the Easterners are playing second fiddle. That is the position in our country today.’

Most unbelievably, but true, Senator Doherty made it clear that ‘in the Federal Public Service, when the Federal Government took office, the first thing they did was to remove the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and to put a Northerner there. Northerners know where they are going, and we are not going to sit down unconcerned whilst our rights and liberty are being invaded. Additionally, Senator Doherty said ‘we do not say that Northerners should not come into the Federal Public Service, but we insist that they should come in a proper and honourable way. We should behave like brothers to one another.’ (vide Parliamentary Debates, Official Report Senate, 25th-30th November and 1st December 1961, p. 61 et s).

The foregoing foundational statements clearly explicate the challenges with which the PMB administration is currently faced. Northern control is not a new phenomenon. If this matter was raised in 1961 and has been a major source of mutual suspicions, PMB is only, unlike his predecessors, now openly implementing a Northern agenda without any due regard for whatever anyone is saying. But also unlike before when the dominated people were simply acquiescing to the situation, people are also now moving from quiet resistance to reciprocal use of violence. This is where and why there is problem.

PMB has adopted various strategies to promote Fulanisation and Islamisation under the pretext of fighting terrorism. First is his Rural Grazing Area (RUGA) agenda. Ruga is a Fulani word for human settlement. On 29th June 2019, the Federal Government said it had gazetted lands in all the 36 States of the Federation for the RUGA Settlement and that the programme was optional. The Federal Government tried to blackmail the State Governments who opposed the RUGA policy as those who were unable to pay salaries of their workers. In the eyes of the Federal Government, the RUGA will ‘curb open grazing of animals that continue to pose security threats to farmers and herders… The overall benefit to the nation includes a drastic reduction in herders and farmers’ conflicts, a boost in animal protection complete… Other gains are job creation, access to credit facilities, security for pastoral families and curtailment of cattle rustling. Regardless of these expected gains, the policy was vehemently opposed.

With this opposition, PMB came up again with the argument of cattle grazing routes, saying he had approved the recommendations of a committee set up to review ‘with dispatch’ 368 grazing sites across 25 states in the country, and ‘to determinate the levels of encroachment, a development that has prompted the description of Nigeria as a Cow Republic. PMB wrongly believed that States had encroached on federal government’s grazing routes which only applied to Northern Nigeria and which in any case had also been overtaken by the Land Use Act of 1978 in the spirit of lex posteriori derogat lex anteriori. The Act abolished the three existing land tenure systems and introduced a uniform land administration system across the whole country.

The cardinal objective of the Act is to ensure ‘the effective and sustainable management and control of land in Nigeria, particularly in a manner that gives government sufficient powers over the acquisition, transfer or otherwise assignment of land and land resources.’

Unanswered Questions and Quo Vadis

Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution as amended provides for national unity by force. It provides in its preamble for indissolubility and indivisibility of Nigeria but not for why the country cannot be disunited and dissolved. This provision itself is not only arbitrary even if the Constitution has not been subjected to national controversy. It is necessarily a negation of the international right to belong to or not belong to an association. It is precisely this right of indissolubility and indivisibility of Nigeria that the terrorists appear to be directly targeting but which Government is apparently, but most unfortunately, neglecting. Why should this be so? Public opinion, rightly or wrongly, is that the PMB administration is aiding and abetting the Boko Haram insurrection. In fact, General Theophilus Danjuma once openly accused the Nigerian military of arming and aiding the insurgents against the Nigerian State. Why has this allegation not been openly and convincingly addressed?

Besides, the public often resort to jungle justice whenever an armed bandit or a terrorist is caught in the act, rather than hand over the suspect to the police. Public belief is that the Nigerian policemen, and particularly all the Divisional Police Officers, are already compromised. Why should this be so? Why is Government silent on public allegations and not providing explanations to prevent public misrepresentation of government’s position?

Another unanswered national question is PMB’s policy of nepotism in the political governance of Nigeria. It has been rankling in all aspects of political governance. Public complaints have been quite critical but public complaints have meant nothing to PMB. Why is this so? Has PMB any justification for nepotistic policies, especially in light of the principle of Federal Character? People complain that the 20 topmost positions in the NNPC are occupied by Northerners but PMB has kept mute on this. In the NNPC website, fifteen senior members of staff have been retired from the service. Of the 15 retired staff, only two of them are not southerners and the Yoruba southwest are in the majority. What is responsible for this? How do we explain this type of retirement?

Again, another unanswered question is why PMB is promoting Fulanisation to the detriment of Nigerianisation or nation-building in consonance with his rhetorical argument that Nigeria is indissoluble and indivisible? A video circulated in the social media has recalled what PMB had said and that openly conflicted with his deeds. Questions are raised as to why PMB was the negotiator of the terrorists at the peace talks between Boko Haram insurgents and the Federal Government of Nigeria (The Nation newspaper, 2nd November, 2012). PMB not only told the Federal Government to stop the killing of the Boko Haramists (Point Blank News, 2nd June, 2013, and The Nations newspapers of 2nd June 2013), but also considered the military offensive against the Boko Haram as anti-North (All Africa News, 3rd June 2013).

Perhaps more significantly, not only did Nigerian soldiers complain in 2020 that PMB was setting killers of Nigerian soldiers free, when 1,400 Boko Haram suspects were released (The Cable; www.the cable.ng). The South African mercenaries have also accused the Government of stopping them from fighting Boko Haram (The Guardian, 26 November 2018). If soldiers are complaining of releasing the enemy, especially also releasing 603 repentant terrorists into the society and if 356 soldiers have to tender their resignation from the army because of loss of faith in government’s controversial readiness to fight the war against the Boko haram (The Punch, 12 July 2020), why are Nigerians not asking PMB questions about the non-preparedness to fight Boko Haram? 

Have the foregoing references not justified the observations of Dr. Malaifa and General Danjuma that the Nigerian military are truly aiding and abetting the insurgents? Have they not also justified General Olusegun Obasanjo’s observation that PMB has a Fulanisation agenda? Is PMB not truly aiding the illegal and forceful acquisition of titled land by the Fulani herdsmen? Is it not true that PMB has an Islamisation and a Fulanisation Agenda? Is PMB the president of Nigeria or the president of the Fulani? Does he truly believe in the indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria or he is simply using the argument as a gimmick? 

How do we interpret the postulation of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya that Nigeria cannot have peace unless Nigeria is first partitioned into Muslim North and Christian South? What are the environmental conditionings of Gaddafi’s statement? Why the statement? Why is it that the Boko Haram agents in the government and Public Service not identified and dealt with? Is the sustained boko haramism not meant to split Nigeria or to enable Fulanisation? Many are the unanswered questions.

Without doubt, whenever there is a fresh attack, PMB quickly condemns the attacks and often told the Service Chiefs to review their strategies, step up their game, fight harder and show greater commitment in their war against the insurgents. But true also, whenever such calls on the Service Chiefs to deal squarely with the terrorists are made, the terrorists immediately always responded violently to suggest their indestructibility. The attack on the advance team of PMB in his home state was the second direct message to PMB. The first time was when he visited his home and terrorist attacks took place in his home State, Katsina.

In sum and if truth be told, PMB has been more of a burden than a blessing to Nigeria. He claims to be fighting for an indivisible and indissoluble Nigeria, while he is de facto fighting for a Fulanised Nigeria and an Islam-dominated Nigeria. Most unfortunately, there is Nigeria but there are no Nigerians that believe in Nigeria as at today, not even the Fulani that PMB is purporting to protect. PMB policies have made the good Fulani ethnic group to be unnecessarily hated. The Fulani can plan to dominate. This is not really a problem in international relations. If politics of domination is well managed, not to reflect inequity, unfairness and injustice, people easily accept to play along. There is always domination in any given stratum of society but it must not be with arrogance for it to be acquiesced to. It is the arrogance with which PMB has been sponsoring his Fulanisation and Islamisation plan that is the root cause of the increasing animosity vis-à-vis the Fulani ethnic stock in Nigeria. And without any whiff of doubt, the regular importation of Fulani herdsmen to the southern forest in preparation for a possible mother of all civil wars in Africa will neither give room for a victor nor a vanquished. ‘Nigeria’ as a name may unfortunately be thrown into the garbage of history.

Therefore, the best way forward is for PMB to learn how to see when the rain is not gone, not only when it has gone in the mania of Johnny Nash. This is necessary to avoid leading behind a bad legacy of Nigeria having the highest level of institutional corruption, highest level of terrorism-related deaths in West Africa, of being the world capital of the deadliest terrorists (Boko Haram), etc. And true enough, under PMB, Nigeria has been mostly disunited and agitations for self-determination so heightened. Under PMB, the Fulani have been mostly presented as hegemons and unnecessarily hated. For Nigeria to have peace without having to prepare for war, Fulanisation and Islamisation of Nigeria must remain at the level of a dream. To go beyond that may set Nigeria totally ablaze. Additionally, from the pattern of terrorist attacks The Presidency may be the next target of terrorist attack. PMB must therefore be more cautious in his public pronouncements and anti-boko haramists, if he truly wants to fight them as Boko Haram still has its agents in government.