The Federal
Government’s management of the Indigenous People of Biafra’s (IPOB’s) political
challenge has remarkably reshaped the colour and points of discussion of the
complex nature of Nigeria’s diversity in recent weeks. And how the denouement
will affect the delicate balance of forces and fault lines in the volatile
polity is still hazy as leaders at all levels are rebuilding bridges to defuse
matters arising.
Curiously,
in an obvious response to the palpable threat, which authorities have claimed
IPOB militants posed to security in the south-eastern states of the federation,
the Federal Government has proscribed the organisation.
The
proscription, first pronounced by the governors of the five south-eastern
states, said they acted to protect the overall interest of the people of that
zone. Perhaps in reaction to questions about the legality of that proclamation,
the President promptly signed a proscription order. The said order now has the
imprimatur of a court. Attorney-General of the Federation secured the order in
a Federal High Court in Abuja, the nation’s capital. Indeed there was some
tardiness in the entire affair. Pictures of military brutality on social media
to unarmed young men, written and oral reports from people in the zone whipped
up sentiment against the ‘occupying’ soldiers.
Sadly too,
there have been discordant tunes from different arms of government. The first
fiasco was recorded by the military high command when it was reported that it
had declared IPOB a terrorist organisation. Of course, the military hierarchy
does not have the power to proscribe an organisation in a democratic state.
Which was why the President of the Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki bluntly dubbed the
declaration a nullity because it did not follow a due process. The military
high command has since cleared the air by saying that it did not declare IPOB a
terrorist organisation, because there are laid down legal procedures for such a
declaration to be made. This smacks of avoidable mediocrity too in high places.
Throughout the period of high tension, the National Assembly remained on
vacation even as the security challenge assumed a national security dimension.
What kind of National Assembly is this even in a time of a national emergency?
In dealing
with the IPOB menace we must not only ask what made the rise of Nnamdi Kanu
possible. We should also ask when it started. What were the elders doing when
the whole nightmare started as the proverbial handshake? What was the Federal
Government doing when the agitation started gathering momentum? If it is true
that some ‘disgruntled corrupt politicians’ are egging the group to violence as
alleged, why have they not been arrested and prosecuted? That too is evidence
of failure of intelligence.
As the
nation is smarting from the IPOB ambush, the military high command has
curiously announced that it would deploy soldiers to the south-south and
south-west zones to curb excesses of militancy in the areas. There are fears
that the strategy of the presidency may hurt democracy, in this regard. For
example, using the heavy force of Nigeria Army to threaten and arrest unarmed
persons is questionable. It is our view that the regular police ought to have
been deployed to deal with the menace that the IPOB has become. Besides, if the
IPOB promoter, Nnamdi Kanu has broken the terms of his bail, he ought to have
been re-arrested by a court order. The irreverent Kanu was not in hiding. A
coded operation by the Department of State Security (DSS) if he refused to
honour a court summons would have helped to avoid the apparent invasion of the
South East by the military. It is on record that in the aftermath of the
declaration of the republic of Biafra in 1967, then Head of State declared a
‘Police Action’ against brothers to rein in the recalcitrant Col. Odumegwu
Ojukwu. It was when the initial action failed that the military moved in to
deal with the armed rebellion.
Therefore,
this newspaper supports a view that Kanu may have been lionised through
mismanagement of this security challenge. He would have been an unlikely hero
if the nation’s security and legal forces and stakeholders had not been
indolent and slipshod in their actions and reactions. By incarcerating Kanu and
failing to release him after several court orders, the Federal Government had
inadvertently raised his profile. He became a symbol of the struggle, which the
largely nascent youth-followership did not fully understand. To show the level
of demagoguery which now follows Kanu, he claims to ‘bless people’ in the image
of a messiah.
Besides, the
judiciary failed the nation when the relevant courts tarried in revoking the
bail, which terms Kanu had allegedly violated. Since his release, he has been
larger than life. It has been pointed out when the law rules, no citizen is
above the law of the land. “Be ye ever so high, the law is above you” Lord
Alfred Thompson Denning once noted.
It is
therefore unsettling that the IPOB proscription order seems to be going in the
same direction of increasing the profile of Kanu. Kanu the vituperative, rude,
divisive and culturally insensitive citizen is gaining international
recognition as the Information and Culture Minister, Lai Mohammed has noted. It
must be pointed out too that elders in the southeast who remained silent in the
face of obvious extremist actions of Kanu failed their people and the country.
Where were the leaders and great politicians in the zone when Kanu openly
desecrated the cultural and religious symbols of the Igbo people in their
ancestral home at Nri?
Kanu’s
tactics are reprehensible. By claiming that IPOB has its own security
organisation, its army and other paraphernalia of an independent state, has
challenged Nigeria’s sovereignty. No nation’s leader can take such a situation
lightly. Also, by attempting to form a parallel state in the southeast, issuing
orders to and threatening elected officials, he has challenged the very essence
of our nationhood and tenets of democracy.
Yet, Kanu is
a metaphor for the intense dissatisfaction with the current political
arrangement and structure of the country. So, instead of using a sledgehammer
there should be some dialogue. Experience has shown that such movements once
started never fizzle out. Echoes of the Nigeria-Biafran War, which ended in
1970, have re-surfaced some 50 years after. And here is the thing, in a working
democracy, no powers should foreclose an open discussion on the structure of
the country. This is where the current administration must have a re-think and
open different channels of communication with the people. There must be
engagement with the people. This will be in line with the African method of
consensual conflict resolution. In the midst of the prevailing chaos, the
presidency, for example, did not deem it necessary to call a meeting of the
Council of State where past and current leaders would chart a proper course for
the nation. It is not too late to do this.
The truth is
that we cannot run away from strategic discussions and plans that will ensure a
proper federal structure to enhance governance capable of reducing over
dependence on the centre.
This
newspaper believes strongly that we do not have to split this country before we
can restructure it to run as a federation where each of the federating units
can run efficiently with the endowments in their domains. That is why there
should be latitude for proper and frank discussion of terms of association to
guarantee a win-win situation for all stakeholders.
0 Comments