Prof Ben Nwabueze
The criminal acts of violence and terrorism perpetrated by the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists since 2009 have seriously endangered the life and property of Nigerians as well as the safety of the state. As if this is not tragic enough, the issue of amnesty for the insurgents/terrorists then suddenly erupted upon us to compound the already grave situation. The amnesty issue is like the Sword of Damocles held at the neck of Nigeria and threatening to sever the head from the body; or, changing the expression, it is like a keg of gunpowder dangling over the country and threatening to explode and splinter it into its different parts. Without exaggeration, this seems a realistic enough depiction of the situation in which the country finds itself presently; the situation is also tellingly depicted in cartoons in the Daily Independent newspaper of April 8, 14 and 23, 2013.
Fortunately, President Goodluck Jonathan has saved us from this danger of the Amnesty Sword of Damocles held at our throat, by the emergency rule he declared in the three North East States of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa on 14th May, 2013. As he announced in a nation-wide broadcast on that day, “we will bring them [i.e. the insurgents/terrorists] to justice.” That seems to bring to an end the destabilising issue of amnesty for the insurgents/terrorists. It was a masterstroke indeed.
It is necessary that I should, at this point, re-state my personal position in this issue of amnesty for the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists. I hold firmly the view that amnesty should not be granted to them under any circumstances, for reasons explained later below.
How The Call For Amnesty For Boko Haram Was Turned Into A Clamour And President Jonathan Sucked Into Its Vortex
Two remarkable developments had taken place with respect to the issue of amnesty for the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists. The first is that the call for amnesty was turned into a clamour, by which is meant a vociferous, insistent and over-bearing demand. (The word “clamour” came from President Goodluck Jonathan while announcing the terms of reference for the in-house panel he set up on April 4, 2013.) The second development is that President Goodluck Jonathan got sucked into the vortex of the clamour.
These two developments are not only remarkable but are also very significant. They are significant because of the questions to which they give rise, viz whether they were spontaneous events occurring on their own or whether they were tendentious events pre-meditated and pre-arranged beforehand and intended to hoodwink the President. The indications seem to suggest that they were a well-concerted plot, a trap, which the President was expected to fall into. And he did, as expected.
It is intriguing how the call for amnesty for the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists was turned into a clamour – how it came to be backed by all or nearly all well-known Northern Muslim elders/leaders. The clamour was sparked by His Eminence Sa’ad Abubakar III, Sultan of Sokoto and Supreme Head of the Moslem Faith in Nigeria, who, after the meeting in Kaduna of the Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI), of which he is the President-General, called on President Goodluck Jonathan to grant amnesty to Boko Haram. Coming after the JNI Council meeting, the Sultan must be taken to have spoken for all Moslems in Nigeria. He followed this up by leading a delegation of the Northern Traditional Rulers Council to the President at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, where the same call was made again. And so began the clamour.
On April 3, 2013 the Northern Elders Forum (NEF), led by its leader, Alhaji Maitama Sule, also went on a delegation to the President at Abuja and made the same call. The bandwagon had been set in motion, and every Northern Moslem elder/leader was impelled to jump into it – former Heads of State Generals Muhammadu Buhari and Abdulsalami Abubakar, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, former and incumbent State Governors, including Alhaji Balarabe Musa to whom amnesty should come at a second stage in a process that should begin with dialogue, and the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF).
President Goodluck Jonathan must have been put in a very difficult position rejecting a clamour sparked by the Sultan of Sokoto and backed by all the elders/leaders mentioned above. And he was indeed sucked into its vortex. What he was reported to have said at the Town Hall meeting in Damaturu, the Yobe State capital, during his official visit to the State was not a total rejection of the call for an amnesty, contrary to reports in the newspapers about his intransigent stance against the amnesty call. This is what he said: “You cannot declare amnesty for ghosts. Boko Haram still operates like ghosts. So, you can’t talk about amnesty for Boko Haram now until you can see the people you are discussing with.” The words in italics debunk the view about his total rejection of the amnesty call. Expatiating on the Damaturu speech, government spokesmen later explained that the President never closed the door against the grant of amnesty to Boko Haram.
Following the visit to him by a delegation of the Northern Elders Forum (NEF) on April 3, 2013, and true to the avowal that he had not closed the door against granting amnesty to Boko Haram, the President on the following day set up an in-house panel with the following terms of reference: (i) “to consider the feasibility or otherwise of granting pardon to the Boko Haram adherents; (ii) collate clamours arising from different interest groups who want the apex government to administer clemency on members of the religious sect; and (iii) recommend modalities for the granting of pardon should such step become the logical one to take.” Clemency and pardon do not of course mean the same thing.
The in-house panel was, on April 17, 2013, replaced by a committee consisting of 26 members, only three of whom are non-Moslems from outside the North. The terms of reference of the Committee, as set out by the President at the committee’s inauguration on April 24, 2013, are “to establish a link and open up dialogue with members of the fanatical Islamic group; develop the framework through which disarmament will take place, and work out a sustainable option that will lead to the granting of amnesty.”
The setting up of the committee (and the in-house panel before it), with the terms of reference set out above, clearly shows that the President has been sucked into the vortex of the clamour, but it is the composition of the committee that bears out, at least impliedly, the caption in a write-up in the Sunday Independent newspaper issue of April 14, 2013 that the President has “capitulated” to the Northern Moslem Elders/Leaders. It is simply incredible that an issue, such as amnesty for the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists, which is so explosive and affects the vital interests of the entire country, should be entrusted to a committee consisting almost entirely of Moslems from the northern part of Nigeria, as if the issue is one for Moslems and for the North alone. The recommendations of the committee are of course pre-determined in favour of granting amnesty to Boko Haram. It is difficult to discern any rational and convincing rationale for the composition of the committee.
As the Chairman, Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN), Lagos Mainland Province, said in a report carried in the Daily Independent newspaper issue of May 14, 2013, “The committee is not embracing enough, as it is dominated by Muslims and Northerners probably because of the wrong impression that insurgency is a Northern affair.” Before even the committee was set up, the Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, Cardinal John Onaiyekan, had, on April 3, 2013 suggested that “government would be well advised to involve the right kind of people, across board”, and that “it should certainly include religious leaders” : see report in The Nation newspaper issue of Wednesday April 3, 2013.
Dialogue, Not Amnesty, Is The Appropriate Approach
The clamour for amnesty for the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists has given rise, unfortunately, to a tendency on the part of many people to link dialogue and amnesty together as inseparable objects, even to the point of positing amnesty as a necessary condition for dialogue. Quite remarkably, the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) is among those that have exhibited this tendency. In a statement carried in the Daily Independent newspaper issue of May 14, 2013, it (ACF) said: “Without any form of mechanism in place by government that guarantees the security of the insurgents, nobody can reasonably expect them to show their faces.”
ACF’s argument is clearly not tenable. Amnesty is not the way, certainly not the only way, to assure the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists of their safety if they come forward for dialogue, nor is it necessary for that purpose. Assurance by government, without an offer or a grant of amnesty, should be enough guarantee, if there is sincerity on both sides. Whilst there is some plausibility in the argument that some mechanism is needed to guarantee the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists of their safety if they come forward for dialogue, amnesty is not, and should not be, the mechanism needed. Without granting amnesty to them, which has the effect in law of wiping out guilt, government can give an undertaking not to prosecute them, which affects, not guilt, but only the exaction of punishment.
Imperative Need For Peace As The Misguided Rationale For The Amnesty Clamour
Peace, which is now so much talked about as if it had some sacred quality about it, is the rationale proffered for the clamour for amnesty for the Boko Haram insurgents. No one disputes the imperative need for peace since, without enduring peace, there can be no sustainable progress and development, nor can the continued corporate existence of Nigeria be guaranteed. Yet, accepting the imperativeness of peace for the reasons stated above, the price at which it is to be or is being bought is a factor to be taken into serious account. The cost of peace must be carefully calculated to ensure that it justifies the grant of amnesty in all the circumstances of this case. Is it peace at all costs, no matter how outrageous, that we want?
Issues of morality are involved in the question whether it is peace at any cost that we want. Our moral ethos and sensibility is outraged by the grant of amnesty to a terrorist group that has killed thousands of innocent people and injured thousands more, and destroyed properties worth billions of naira, without any legitimate cause, that is to say,without any legitimate grievance predicated on a wrong or injustice perpetrated against the legitimate interests of themselves and their communities. The words in italics are so italicised to emphasise the fundamental fact that differentiates the criminal violence and terrorism of the Boko Haram insurgents from that of the Niger Delta militants. No nation, worthy of being so called, should condone, by covering it with the cloak of amnesty, such criminal acts of violence and terrorism not provoked or justified by legitimate grievances arising from injustice and wrong perpetrated against them and their communities by the government. Poverty, with the illiteracy and ignorance that are among its chief causes, is the common lot of most Nigerians, although more pronounced in the northern parts of the country than in the southern parts, is not, and cannot be, a legitimate cause for Boko Haram’s criminal and terroristic acts of wanton killings and destruction.
The outrage against our moral ethos and sensibility occasioned by the grant of amnesty to the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists in the circumstances mentioned above is exacerbated by the fact that the effect of amnesty or pardon, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, is not only to do away with the punishment prescribed for an offence, but, more importantly, to “blot out of existence the guilt, so that in the eyes of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence”: see Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall (71 U.S.) 333, 381(1867). It would be a palpable outrage against our moral ethos and sensibility to erase so completely the guilt of the Boko Haram terrorists/insurgents for the killings, injury and destruction they have committed without any legitimate cause – to wipe out their guilt so completely as if they had never committed the offence. Morality would have been thrown to the winds. And justice too, more so if the families of the victims are to be left without compensation for their loss. We should not do anything so morally outrageous.
In an interview reported in The Nation newspaper of April 3, 2013, the Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, Cardinal John Onaiyekan, a revered cleric, has emphasised the paramountcy of “moral imperatives” which must be met before ever amnesty can, conformably with those “moral imperatives”, be considered for Boko Haram, namely, “genuine repentance and a sincere effort to make amends” on the part of the Boko Haram sect. To consider granting amnesty to the Boko Haram sect without the “moral imperatives” being first met would portray Nigeria in the image of a country with no regard for morality.
But far from showing genuine remorse and repentance for their terrorist acts unprovoked and unjustified by any legitimate cause, Boko Haram has instead exhibited gross defiance, as when, in rejecting the government’s contemplated amnesty offer, it (through its “purported head”, one Shekau) said that it “had not committed any wrong to deserve amnesty”, and that “on the contrary, it is we that should grant you pardon.” He further said : “We will continue to fight in the name of Allah until we establish Sharia. We will continue to fight the government and its symbols.” They have, despite the contemplated amnesty offer, continued to kill more and more innocent people and to destroy more and more properties with impunity and bravado.
Peace, as the rationale proffered for the amnesty being contemplated for the Boko Haram – i.e. for insurgents/terrorists guilty of the heinous crimes against humanity committed without any shadow of legitimate cause – confronts two further issues nearly as problematic as the issue of morality raised above. First, will the grant of amnesty to Boko Haram in fact secure peace for Nigeria from the sect? Second, will it secure peace for the country from other ethnic militant or “militia” groups?
In connection with the first issue, a preliminary point may be made, in parenthesis, that the prospect that amnesty might be granted to them has not secured peace for the country from Boko Haram, since it was after the setting up of the Boko Haram Amnesty Committee that the terrorist attacks at Baga and Bama in Borno State occurred, leaving hundreds of people killed and injured, including, most significantly, scores of policemen and prison officials killed and injured in attacks on police stations and prison yards. But it might be said that the attacks in Baga and Bama provide no reliable basis for reaching a conclusion on the issue, since amnesty has not in fact been granted or even promised.
Regarding the first issue, it seems to me a forlorn hope to think that deep – seated commitment, such as characterises the Boko Haram Islamic sect, to an ideology whose objectives are not political or economic, but are rooted in a fanatical desire and determination to impose on a community, a particular religion with its peculiar creed, its system of government and law, its culture and way of life, as well as its perceptions and view of the world, can be dislodged or jettisoned by the palliative of granting amnesty to its adherents. It is an illusion for anyone ever to think so.
Sheikh Gumi, a renown Muslim cleric and the only notable Northern Moslem personality known to stand outside the Sultan of Sokoto’s bandwagon of those clamouring for amnesty for the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists, exhibits an uncommon insight when he said in a statement carried in the Daily Independent newspaper issue of 3 April, 2013 that Boko Haram’s ideology is rooted in “a creed that must be crushed” and that “were Prophet Mohammed alive today, he would personally have led the way in exterminating the sect.” Boko Haram’s ideology, rooted, as it is, on the creed of the Islamic religion can only be dislodged by exterminating it from the mentality of its adherents, not by the palliative of an amnesty which, as earlier stated, is simply an illusion, in which we should not indulge. For, sooner or later, after enjoying the benefit of the amnesty for a period of time, the Boko Haram adherents would return to the sect’s ideological commitment to the creed of the religion of Islam and to their fanatical resolve to impose it on the entire region of Northern Nigeria. The period before the return would be simply a lull during which they would have re-armed themselves.
All this is linked to the issue of establishing firmly the religious character of the Nigerian state, as provided in section 10 of the Constitution 1999. The issue is much too fundamental and transcendental not to be allowed to continue to be swept under the carpet for more than 12 years now; it must be fought out now and settled once for all.
But whilst amnesty for Boko Haram should be ruled out completely at all times as an illusion, the door should not be closed to dialogue for whatever benefits it may bring, albeit only a period of lull. Even so, dialogue should not be embarked upon, unless and until the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists have been subdued and the government has established its superior power over them. On this point, I am in agreement with Senator Anthony Adefuye. As he says in an interview reported in the Daily Independent newspaper issue of 9 April, 2013 : “Nations must be strong [enough to be able] to defend in such a way that the terrorists, insurgents or militants will accept you as a superior power”. Government should therefore only dialogue with the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists from a position of strength, of a superior power.
It seems that the emergency rule declared on 14 May, 2013 by President Goodluck Jonathan in the three States of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa in North East Nigeria is predicated on a realisation, albeit belated, of the truth or validity of the point made above, and is intended to enable the government to subdue the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists and establish its superior power over them. In a nation-wide broadcast announcing the declaration of emergency rule in the three States, the President said :
“The activities of the terrorists and criminals…….require decisive response from government……[by the] taking of extraordinary measures…..to put an end to the impunity of insurgents and terrorists….All those who are directly or indirectly encouraging any form of rebellion against the Nigerian state, and their collaborators; those insurgents and terrorists……..whoever they may be, wherever they may go, we will hunt them down, we will fish them out, and we will bring them to justice. No matter what it takes, we will win the war against terror.”
An end is thus put to all the toying about with the idea of amnesty for the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists; they must be brought to justice. However, as the President stated in his broadcast, the effort to subdue the insurgency/terrorism and establish the government’s superior power over the Boko Haram sect is without prejudice to “efforts at persuasion and dialogue [which] would continue.”
It is clear from what is said above that I support the emergency rule declared in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa States by President Goodluck Jonathan, but my support for it is on the supposition that the law of the Constitution regulating and limiting the power to declare emergency rule is duly complied with, especially, respect for, and non-interference with, the instruments for constitutional government established by the Constitution.
As to whether amnesty for Boko Haram, if ever it is granted, will secure peace for Nigeria from the other ethnic militant or “militia” groups, the issue has triggered what has aptly been described as a “scramble” for amnesty among the latter groups; the scramble, on its part, has the potentiality to trigger criminal acts of violence and terrorism if their demand for amnesty is refused. The other ethnic militant or militia groups, the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASOB), the O’dua Peoples Congress (OPC) and others, are gearing up for violence in the event that amnesty is granted to Boko Haram, and not granted to themselves. MASOB, as reported in the Daily Independent newspaper issue of 27 March, 2013, has declared June 8, 2013, from 6 a.m. – 4 pm, “a sit-at-home” day during which “all private, general motor parks, major and minor markets, shops, schools, air/sea ports, public/business, banks shall be closed” to protest the killing of Igbos in the northern parts of Nigeria, promising to “match violence for violence if the mindless provocation continues.”
We are thus heading towards a snowballing situation, which may be averted by decisive measures being taken by government to subdue Boko Haram, as by the emergency rule declared in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa States by the President on 14 May, 2013 which, it is hoped, would have the desired effect. President Goodluck Jonathan deserves commendation for taking that decisive measure.
We may end by noting the suggestion, seemingly absurd, as it may seem, by Senator Adefuye in the press interview referred to above, and which was intended to ridicule the whole idea of amnesty for the Boko Haram insurgents/terrorists. He said:
“Let us declare amnesty for all our young people whom we have not given jobs since they graduated, whom we have frustrated in everything they have embarked upon, let us grant them amnesty and give them equal opportunities to train and re-orientate their minds so we can have peace……..Once I know if I make trouble, I will be granted amnesty, then it will continue perpetually.”
Peace at any price, no matter how destructive of our moral ethos and sensibility as a Nation, becomes indeed a misguided and hallucinated panacea.
- This Best Outside Opinion was written by Prof. Ben Nwabueze
Send Voicemail
No comments:
Post a Comment