By John Uwaya
There has been an understandable cacophony of voices both for and against the planned amnesty for members of the Boko Haram sect. While those in support draw parallels between Boko Haram and the Niger Delta militancy, those opposed to the intention see no similarities between the two movements. According to those who oppose any amnesty, the Niger Delta militants kidnapped and interrupted petroleum crude production only to drive home their demand for better socio-economic privileges while the Boko Haram sect has majored on bloodletting with an irreconcilable demand as a ruse. In other words, the Niger Delta militancy is adjudged constructive compared to the Boko Haram insurgency which has been largely destructive with heavy tolls in human lives and infrastructure. For that reason, many naturally believe members of the sect should be prosecuted for war crimes against humanity. But to their chagrin, the unrepentant mass murderers are being considered for amnesty while Rev. Emeka Ezeugo King – another religious fanatic who roasted just one Nigerian to death has lost his appeal to be spared the gallows.
Meanwhile, perhaps a consideration of the meaning of amnesty would shed light on its appropriateness as a solution to the problem the Nigerian government is trying to solve. From Wikipedia, amnesty is:
A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted… It includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense. An amnesty may be extended when the authority decides that bringing citizens into compliance with a law is more important than punishing them for past offenses. Amnesty after a war helps end a conflict. While laws against treason, sedition, etc. are retained to discourage future traitors during future conflicts, it makes sense to forgive past offenders, after the enemy no longer exists which had attracted their support but a significant number remains in flight from authorities. Advantages of using amnesty may include avoiding expensive prosecutions (especially when massive numbers of violators are involved); prompting violators to come forward who might otherwise have eluded authorities; and promoting reconciliation between offenders and society.
From the foregoing, it appears the only ground on which amnesty could be contemplated is the sheer number of awaiting trial terrorists which would definitely pose a herculean task for our snail-speed judiciary. Besides, all other criteria are non-existent because Boko Haram has not only denied any wrongdoing but is proving with more massacres that bloodletting is her undeniable nature. By being defiant, the sect hopes to be seen and treated like a sovereign state equal to Nigeria. Therefore, one can safely conclude that instead of amnesty, the sect rather expects a peace treaty – the rightful arrangement between equal sovereign states fighting a conventional war. With that members of the sect will not have to trade in their weapons for any state pardon; rather, security forces would pull out for them to rearm, train and redeploy on a larger scale. As absurd as that expectation may seem, they might have it all because elders of the state worst hit by the insurgency are now chorusing the same tune with the insurgents on withdrawal of security forces as a prelude to peace.
But by deriding the amnesty proposition in both words and deeds, the insurgents have already given themselves away for what they are – non-state actors or transnational criminals who having no stake in this country, are naturally disposed to propagating anarchism. For example, what does a Chadian terrorist arrested in Lagos sometime in March 2013 have at stake in Nigeria? In fact, the global focus of religious insurgencies means their members’ allegiance is only to central commands usually outside the shores of individual terrorists. That is why amnesty for religious insurgents is yet to hold water in any country of the world. Yes; not even in countries with 100% Muslim populations.
And that is why Mallam Shehu Sani, one of the very few Nigerians to have spoken mouth to mouth with Boko Haram and came out unharmed on three separate occasions, could only assert: “If you look at the way Islamic insurgents work in Nigeria, it is the same way they work in Pakistan, Yemen and the Maghreb…”, without being categorical about any of those countries where amnesty worked. Still, he believes that amnesty can work here if certain Nigerians are invited to take seats on the panel. However, his assertion has finally cleared any doubt about Boko Haram being a terrorist organization with international links.
Before now, the sect enjoyed benefit of that doubt although as early as 14th June 2010, Abu Musab Abd al-Wadoud – then head of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) publicly pledged to help Boko Haram with training and weaponry for strategic depth in continental Africa; a pledge that would be redeemed within a matter of months with Boko Haram swiftly graduating by late 2010 from a sect wielding clubs, machetes and small arms to one deploying IEDs among other sophisticated weaponry in combat. Meanwhile, it must be admitted that sponsorship of armed insurgencies or rebel groups against a sovereign state by another for political reasons is as old as civilization itself. The practice only gained notoriety during the Cold War as both the United States and the Soviet Union used proxy militant groups to defend their ideologies around the globe.
It is that statecraft that saw the United States not only funding a militant group but using jihadist fervor to focus efforts at curbing Soviet expansionist tendencies exemplified by their invasion of Afghanistan. But that decision would eventually give birth to al Qaeda who misconstrued USSR’s retreat from Afghanistan and the subsequent collapse of that empire as a divine nod to embark on a global jihad. Towards that end, al Qaeda commenced basic military training for tens of thousands of men in camps scattered across Afghanistan with a select number of cadets receiving advanced training in terrorist tradecraft. But wars of attrition by rival religious groups for control of the country were soon to force al Qaeda relocation and sojourning in Sudan from 1992 till 1996 when the group again headed back to Afghanistan because President Omar al-Bashir – even as a benefactor, was getting too inquisitive and terrorists detest any interference. And as providence would have it, Afghanistan had become relatively peaceful and offering good cover for al Qaeda to plan and attract infamy with the catastrophic 9/11 terrorists attacks.
Around that time, it must be confessed, many local religious organizations who would later key into al Qaeda’s global vision were already on ground in many countries and because of their jihadist slant, they enjoyed official support from governments of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria and Pakistan who all not only saw Jihadism as a foreign policy tool but a trump card against political rivals. Ironically, Pakistan that was ahead of the pack is now experiencing the worst form of national security problems as rival religious insurgencies battle daily for supremacy. But in all those territories, the stage for mutual destruction actually got set gradually with matters eventually coming to a head-on after 2003 when the al Qaeda arm in Saudi Arabia declared war on the government – a revered theocratic monarchy.
Naturally, that attack on the Saudi government curtailed both private and official support spontaneously. The fate was not different for other jihadist groups who started attacking their host countries that included Indonesia, Morocco, Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, etc. in response to al Qaeda’s global jihad call. Apart from loss of funding, the impact of their attacks was a wake-up call to their hosts who not only changed official perceptions about the groups but brought their military might against them with foreign backing. But here in Nigeria we are pretending to know better and more righteous with talk of amnesty when we should learn from the mistakes of others at little or no cost.
Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that our politicians’ initial reaction to the advent of the prevailing religious insurgency is the same elsewhere. The response is very much similar to the Arab world’s earlier inadvertent invitation to religious insurgency as according to a report in the Vanguard newspaper of January 24, 2012, Boko Haram is only retaliating against northern governors who renege on payment of agreed monthly taxes and for allowing security forces to arrest their members. Also, the insistence of the sect on stricter implementation of Sharia Law in not just twelve states but nationally is giving them away as the brain behind the initial promulgation at the onset of this millennium.
President Obasanjo’s joke that time about political sharia indicates that the politicians of the states involved took the decision as a political gamble for peace. Yet, peace has remained elusive; the sect has not fulfilled its own part of the bargain for peace to reign. This should again remind all that according to Mallam Sani, many are: “very ignorant about the ideology and level of extremism in the thoughts of these insurgents”. So, can the insurgents really be trusted? If the promulgation of Sharia Law in twelve states did not appease them, it is doubtful if amnesty would; especially one offered on a platter of gold – unsolicited. Had the states now worst hit by the Boko Haram insurgency agreed with the rest of Nigeria to uphold the secularity of the country, perhaps we would have nipped the present insurgency in the bud.
Ironically, the same mistake is now being made again because instead of the Boko Haram insurgency being seen for what it is – non-state actors or transnational criminals that are out to severe the cords that bind us together, religious sentiments are regrettably clouding our sense of judgment. Allusion to freedom of religion on decisions which though sectional have far-reaching adverse national consequences is becoming a tendency. That fear is real because Mallam Sani might not be alone in insisting that except Boko Haram’s preferences are reflected in the composition of the amnesty committee, peace would remain elusive. For instance, he agrees that women should not have been in a committee set-up to decide the future of transnational criminals in a sovereign and secular state as Nigeria. And as any amnesty will invariably have legal, educational and financial dimensions, does it mean the insurgents would rather prefer bureaucracy with inherent corruption instead of direct dealing with Chief Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, Prof. Ruqayyah Ahmed Rufai and Dr. Ngnozi Okonjo-Iweala – all, accomplished women whom many of them should have been proud to have as their mothers?
Otherwise, what does Mallam Sani mean by: “Islamic insurgents don’t relate with women. It is incline in their ideology that they cannot interact with women… Islamic insurgents don’t have any policy of speaking to women, as that thought is even a taboo”. How can we accept that when all of us are offsprings of women? Is the former head of state whom the insurgents earlier nominated to lead their negotiations not actually surrounded by only females as children apart from his wife, and perhaps, sisters and a mother? So, what difference would it make opting to fraternize with a man while abhorring the women in his life? What a contradiction and a warped way of reasoning!
Again, the sect’s abhorrence of women run counter to Mallam Lamido Sanusi’s lamentation about the neglect of girl child education in much of northern Nigeria. As much as the tier of government actually culpable for neglecting girl child education in the north is debatable, the trend must not be allowed to continue. Otherwise, the Sanusis of this world would continue to accuse the central government of spending so much on security at the expense of girl child education. But is the problem really that of funding? If the elites of that part of the country hit the road today to enlighten their youths about the same Boko that has given them so much prominence and wealth, many individual Nigerians and institutions could offer free scholarships if more school enrolments result than government can fund.
But then, if the Boko Harams among us are not out of the way what hope is there for uniform educational development, especially of the girl child because as the slogan goes, “educate a woman, educate a whole nation.” So, there is no way the reported miserable 7% literacy level for the female gender in that part of the country would not produce adverse cumulative or multiplier effects. Apart from being unfit for any role in a globalized and private enterprise driven economy, unemployable youths will constitute ready pools of recruits into insurgencies and other crimes. A situation further worsened daily by rising numbers of widows and orphans bequeathed to the society by suicidal fathers who enlist to be responsible only in the great beyond when betrothed to seven virgins.
Apparently, the religious terrorists’ vaunted scorn for women and by extension, motherhood is what deprived them good home training which is why they have taken to insurgency as a career. Similarly, the attack on the Emir of Kano and the kidnap of Alhaji Shettima Ali Monguno a nonagenarian and a renowned philanthropist by the same insurgents he had severally and publicly advocated amnesty are eloquent testimonies to religious insurgents’ irreconcilable contempt for time proven societal norms and institutions. While the attack on the Emir has an international parallel in the attempted murder of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef (recently late), the Saudi Deputy Interior Minister just as he was granting amnesty to a pretentious national – Abdullah Hassan Taleh al-Asiri, the spiteful attack on the philanthropist is akin to the terrorist bombing in Boston by two Chechen immigrants who chose to repay the goodwill of their host country with terror.
The foregoing all go to collaborate Mallam Sani’s expose on religious terrorists: “They are also very ignorant about the ideology and level of extremism in the thoughts of these insurgents. …When people talk about insurgents, they really don’t know much about the ways they talk. These are people with ideology and can die or kill in the process.” So, the question is, of what value would amnesty be to a man who believes that suicide opens the door to better opportunities? Obviously these insurgents must submit to complete social re-orientation like the “kwoma” people who though going about stark naked in the eighties on old Gongola State hill tops, yet held the civilized world in disdain. Otherwise, the proponents of amnesty for Boko Haram would be in for a rude shock and embarrassment if and when amnesty is granted on their own terms in desperation for peace.
Meanwhile, as I tried to explain in an earlier write-up entitled: Distorted Federalism and Pervasive Insecurity, the Boko Haram insurgency is part of the retribution for our discarding the ideals bequeathed to us by our founding fathers. The standard of the educational institutions including universities that they each established in the initial three federating regions attest to the esteem they all held education. In particular, the late Saurdana of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello is on record as an avid lover of education who sent youths enmass for higher education abroad apart from establishing ABU and other tertiary institutions. And there lies the irony of the plan to compromise and negotiate with people who forbid education. Can the Boko Haram insurgents know better than the founding fathers of this country to dictate and impose their ideology on all? In all of this, one thing is becoming clear; the more we dim the collective vision of our founding fathers for cheap political ends, the deeper we sink into socio-economic problems.
To conclude, amnesty or no amnesty, the only people that hold the key to ending the Boko Haram menace are the members of the communities where the sect enjoys a free reign. That is the truth because the strength of an insurgency depends on the relationship with a host community. A sympathetic populace serves as a sanctuary for insurgents to blend and hide from security agencies. Otherwise an insurgency runs the risk of betrayal to the government. However, as much as it is important to severe any cordial relationship between a community and an insurgency, it is not easy to attain especially where the populace and the insurgents share common religious, linguistic and cultural ties.
In many cases members of an insurgency are the husbands, brothers and sons of non-combatants who are expectedly hesitant to betray their own for any reason. For instance, Al Qaeda members married into influential local tribes in Afghanistan just like would-be terrorists from other countries married Americans for guaranteed residency or security by their hosts. And it is doubtful if the social relationships between insurgents in Nigeria and their host communities are exceptions to the rule. That is why the Boko Haram insurgency can only be resolved when according to Mallam Sanni, “those people who the insurgents trust and had helped us from the background to be able to achieve what we achieved”, cooperate with the government. And that must be now!
Otherwise, we risk the international community going beyond offering advice to joining the foray and the collateral damages in both human lives and infrastructure could be legion. This is already a sore reality in places like Pakistan, Philippines, Central Asia, Bangladesh, Mali, Mauritania, Yemen, etc. in a global counterterrorism campaign dubbed “draining the swamps”. All, coming closely on the heels of similar military campaigns in Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. That is why no one should think the robots – drones hovering in the skies of Niger Republic – a next door neighbor are for harmless ceremonial displays. And perhaps that is why the northern top-brass initiated the on-going amnesty talks. Therefore, this is not the time to sit on the fence; all hands should be on deck. Amnesty or no amnesty, it is highly doubtful that the rest of the world would wait for Nigeria to become a base from which terrorists launch attacks on other countries in pursuit of a global utopia.
Uwaya lives in Lagos and wrote through johnuwaya17@yahoo.com