FG Not Sincere About Dialogue With Boko Haram

Senator Shehu Sani

Senator Shehu Sani

Comrade Shehu Sani, author, human rights activist and President, Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria spoke with FEMI ADI on the proposed talks between members of  the Boko Haram sect and the federal government 

After the military campaign failed to put activities of the dreaded Boko Haram sect in check, the Federal Government has finally agreed to dialogue with the group. However, there is no sign yet that members of the sect are ready to dialogue. What do you think is responsible for this uncompromising stance?

Comrade Shehu Sani

What people should understand is that Nigeria is not the only country facing the problem of terrorism or what people call insurgency. Many countries, especially in Africa, are today facing the same problem. It is a global challenge. Since the September 11 2001 bombing of the United States, it’s quite clear that armed insurgency predicated on the pursuit of a certain agenda has become a global phenomenon. You have countries like United Kingdom, Spain, Australia that have been attacked and continuously face threats of attack. Nigeria and other countries in sub-Sahara Africa have been grappling with this challenge. Now, when a nation is facing this kind of urban guerilla insurgency, and especially an Islamist one, there are two options you can explore. It is either you use force to crush the group and bring it to an end or you opt for a political solution, which is dialogue. Well, as far as I know, it is not easy for a state to crush an urban guerilla movement that lives and hides among the people. The use of force is most likely to cause the death of so many innocent persons. One, the insurgents can see the police and the army, but the army and police can hardly see the insurgents. So, you  are more or less fighting an invisible force. Yes, there are countries that have actually crushed this type of insurgency. Algeria after the 1992 annulment of an election, was able to bring the activities of the Islamic Salvation Front to an end through the continuous use of force. And we have also seen how the Russian State was able crush the armed rebellious group in Chechnya. But what we should also understand is that even countries like United States with a very sophisticated military and a country like Israel have continued to fight this kind of insurgency and there is no possibility of it coming to an end. We have seen how it has become impossible for countries like Yemen, Pakistan and India to crush this kind of insurgency. We have seen that it has become impossible for countries like Philippines to contain the Abu Sayaf movement. Despite the use of drones in the north-western areas of Pakistan, it remains impossible to crush the terrorists there. People attending wedding and birthday ceremonies are sometimes killed in their hundreds. The use of force in an underdeveloped setting would have been the best option if it would have produced results. In the past three years, what we have seen is that more innocent citizens have been killed by the state than the insurgents. It is for this reason that some of us felt that the security apparatus of the state is not prepared, equipped and ready to bring this violence to an end.

When people say there should be dialogue, it is simply not about harbouring terrorism or simply backing the insurgents or supporting a kid gloves approach to the insurgency. This is a clear, informed position borne out of the reality on ground. That is why the view of Nigerians who live in the North about the insurgency is quite different from the views of those who live in the South. The Nigerian who resides in Maiduguri, Kaduna, Kano and Yobe knows that the state is incapable of protecting him. He would not support continuous use of force not because he wants the insurgents to be alive, but because he knows that continuous use of force is most likely to get at him. But if you live very far away from the action spot, maybe Lagos or Port-Harcourt, and watch the events on television or read it up in newspapers, you might say ‘just crush the sect’. There is a natural difference between those who see bombs and feel bombs and those who read about bombs. Some persons I believe view and see these bombings as Hollywood movies, but it’s something that we live with everyday. Each time our children go to school, we fear that they might be killed by the bombs or caught in the crossfire between soldiers and insurgents or by the joint task force that is everywhere. I believe dialogue which we have suggested earlier would bring the problem to an end. The step by federal government calling for dialogue and discussing their grievances and seeing which of those grievances can be addressed is right. Nigerians are tired of these bombings and killings. You go to the mosque you are not safe, you go to the church you are not safe. In your house, room, office, no place is safe.

If you go to most northern cities, you will observe that the most heavily guarded places are the police stations and military formations. There is no soldier or policeman on my street, so people there are at the mercy of violent people. The issue of dialogue is a good option but it can’t be done without a sincerity of purpose from both sides. We have a lot of people benefiting from this carnage; there are security contractors and defence entrepreneurs. Security votes are spent in the name of ensuring security by the states and federal government. And even in the 2012 budget, about 25 per cent of  the resources that ought to have gone to health, education and infrastructure has been diverted to security. This is the problem. So much money has been spent, yet the insurgents have not been defeated. You don’t expect a government that is not sincere to achieve peace. I believe this could be one of the reasons it has been difficult all this while to achieve a ceasefire.

Should the group grab this opportunity to dialogue, what issues do you suggest should be brought up between the sect and the federal government?

But when I facilitated the discussion between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and the group in Maiduguri, the former president took their suggestions and promised that government would implement them, but they were thrown aside by the federal government. Therefore, there is bound to be fears in certain quarters that it might turn out to be the same old story. I guess the conditions for peace were thrown aside then because the government believed that  force could be used to crush the group rather than study the suggestions made at the time. They came out with a position that by June this year, Boko Haram would come to an end. From my understanding, President Jonathan expressed his mind based on the jargons fed him by his security advisers.

Related News

The second attempt was the one led by Dr. Datti Ahmed. Datti’s peace talks which collapsed were facilitated by a young man who has consistently pleaded to remain anonymous. He’s one of the most credible fellows that the sect trusts. But he has been ignored by the government, perhaps because he’s not the son of an emir, a top Islamic cleric or son of a politician whose name rings a bell. The talks brokered by Datti crashed because the conditions given by the group for the talks to take place were violated by the federal government. Both parties agreed that the discussions should be confidential and only the outcome should be made public, and that the talks should produce results which would lead to a ceasefire and phased release of members of the sect. It was sabotaged by enemies within the Presidency. The third was killed right from the embryo. It was a peace plan drafted in support of dividing the sect into three categories. Those in detention, the top members, the ground soldiers and their wives and children. If the group would declare a ceasefire then the government should be able to release their wives and children. And then gradually other issues could be addressed. But first, there must be a four- to five-month ceasefire from both sides before all these could be achieved. But this document was never taken seriously and was eventually thrown away because they believed the state might could crush the sect. For me, I don’t think the government is interested in dialogue. Because what is fed to Nigerians is different from what is done behind closed doors. There are elements that have turned this whole thing into business and I doubt if such people want genuine dialogue. But we should understand that many countries in world today, through dialogue brought this kind of insurgency to an end.

The group recently gave conditions that the President must convert to Islam and implement Sharia before anything. Don’t you think these are unrealistic?

First of all, we need to understand that Boko Haram as a group does not and never claimed to represent the interest of all Muslims in northern Nigeria. When it speaks it speaks for itself. What we need to understand too is that the word sect does not apply to Boko Haram alone. There are other Muslim sects in the North. We have the Shia, Izala, Dareca, Tijjaniya and many other sects in Nigeria. Just like the Catholics and Protestants do not agree with each other on issues of interpretation of Christianity, so we have many sects that do not agree with the Boko Haram sect as far Islam is concerned. Saudi Arabia is the leading Sunni nation, while Iran is the leading Shi’ite nation. You can see the rivalry between the two nations and their adherents. The two demands by Boko Haram are absurd and unrealisable. But what we need to understand is that in a violent situation of this kind, it is natural for insurgents to up the stakes by making some demands if you come to a negotiating table, even if you are fighting a war you cannot achieve all your objectives. I don’t think it is achievable that Nigeria should be governed by Sharia or that Nigeria should become an Islamic state or Jonathan must be a Muslim.

What are the demands that you see as realistic?

If they are to agree to negotiate, it is possible for them to achieve the release of their members, it is possible for them to achieve the rebuilding of their worship places, it is possible for to achieve the freedom to propagate. It’s possible to also have compensation paid for their children, wives and other family members that were extra-judicially killed. But we know that not all these demands would be met. Even the negotiation that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa, ANC did not achieve all its aims. We all must agree that the guns need to be silent. We need a ceasefire. There was a time slavery was a challenge to people of Africa. Colonialism was sometime ago a challenge. The Civil War was a challenge, World War was a challenge, military rule was a challenge, civil strife was a challenge. And now we have terrorism as a challenge. We need to understand that there was never a time that people lived without a challenge. So, when we are faced with challenges such as this we should not run away or pretend, but find how it could be solved. At this point, we should stand united to solve this problem rather than run away.

-Published on TheNEWS Africa

Load more