Now that Boko Haram has shunned dialogue

     

Written by Musa Dan Musa Tuesday, 19 June 2012

HOPE and optimism that the violent confrontation between Boko Haram and the security forces will be finally resolved peacefully was blown into the air when Boko Haram shut all doors to negotiation some days ago in a press release by its spokesman, Abu Qaqa. Observers could recollect that in the last six months, pressures have been mounted on the government to dialogue with the sect members. Despite the seeming irrationality of such proposition, on many occasions, government officials at the highest levels came out to indicate interest in dialogue.
In an interview with Reuters in the Presidential Villa in January this year, President Goodluck Jonathan himself expressed how frustrating it could be to dialogue with an organisation that has no face and identity. President Jonathan told the Reuters reporter: “We will dialogue, let us know your problems and we will solve your problem, but if they don’t identify themselves, who will we dialogue with?”
Pressure to dialogue, while marching on the blood of thousands of innocent Nigerians sent into early graves in Kano, Maiduguri, Damaturu, Kaduna, Sokoto and Jos by religious extremism must have been urged by a concern to stop the carnage and restore peace. The Northern part of Nigeria is gradually grinding to a halt with men, money, materials, investment, taking hasty exit.
Pressures came on the government from opposition political parties, leaders of opinion from the North, religious leaders and community heads. Unfortunately, for reasons considered as insincerity of government and Islamic principle, the doors to dialogue was shut. The options left to the government to resolve the matter is, therefore, naturally narrowed.
After announcing its lack of interest, Boko Haram struck in churches in Maiduguri and Jos, during services on Sunday; and as usual, they left many people dead and several hundreds injured. The attacks reminded Nigerians and the government that the menace of Boko Haram is still with us. The Sect’s spokesman, Abu Qaqa, had promptly and proudly claimed responsibility for these attacks saying that they were to prove that the Nigerian security forces were wrong and to debunk the claim that Boko Haram “has been weakened by military crackdown.”
Therefore, the sect promised once again to intensify attacks on Christian worshippers and the state apparatus until they achieve the objective of establishing an Islamic state in Nigeria.
The sect repeated its usual description of Christians and the Nigerian government as enemies of Islam that must be crushed through violence. To show that they meant the business of instituting Islamic state in Nigeria, the sect, in one of its press releases in Maiduguri some few weeks ago, appealed to Moslems to persevere because Boko Haram will soon take over government and institute a government for Moslems where peace and justice will reign.
The high point of the recent insurgency was the rejection of the mediation role being played by a renowned Islamic scholar, Sheikh Dahiru Usman Bauchi. Bauchi had disclosed to the media on June 6, 2012, that there was an ongoing dialogue between the Federal Government and Boko Haram through his intervention. He described the process that was used to establish a contact with the sect. Unfortunately, Sheik Bauchi was unaware that the sect is set in its ways. It promptly launched another assassination attack that snuffed life out of Abubakar Saleh Ningi, a retired Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG). Two days later, Sheik Bauchi, with all his efforts, was disowned by Boko Haram with a very stern warning that he must stay away from the so-called peace process.
Ugly antecedents to the issue of dialogue with Boko Haram as seen in the case above are not uncommon. It started with the peace initiative midwifed by former President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, whose visit to the base of Boko Haram in Maiduguri to negotiate peace in September 2011 led to hot controversy and subsequent murder of his host, Babakura Fugu. Newspaper report also indicated that the murder created some divisions within the organisation as the leadership was unhappy that another tragedy had befallen the Fugu family. Fugu was the brother-in-law of Yusuf Mohammed, the late spiritual leader of Boko Haram, who was extra-judicially killed in police custody in 2009. He was also the patriarch of the Fugu family after the head of the family was also killed in police custody in controversial circumstance.
The second attempt at mediation started in March 2012, and was led by Sheik Datti Ahmed. Ahmed, the president of the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria, was as a matter of fact appointed by Boko Haram as their mediator, knowing that he would not betray the confidence reposed in him to speak for the group. Not quite long after the mediation started, Ahmed pulled out of the process, sighting insincerely on the part of the government for leaking sensitive discussions on the matter to the press.
Since all doors to negotiation have been closed after three failures, many observers had advised that the declaration of war by the sect on Christians and the state had better be taken seriously by all the stakeholders.
And this calls for unity of purpose, minds and forces that can defeat terror, and not political grandstanding by opposition political parties in the name of jostling for power.
As noted above, the rejection of dialogue had limited the options available for use by the government in containing the terror. And this calls for the review the policy of carrot and sticks by the government. Indeed, because the sect had eliminated dialogue as a means for settlement of the war, the government would have no choice but to reciprocate in equal measure, and even more. This is the situation of things as today.
Again the misconception that tends to see Boko Haram as the creation of the Jonathan government has to be cleared. President Jonathan inherited the crisis that has been building up over the years from the past governments and for as long as anyone can remember, a schism had always existed between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria. The schism is intertwined with ethnic animosity and civil disturbances during, and after elections. Again, the nature of the 2011 election that was bitterly contested, and the upsurge of terrorist activities at the global level must have given impetus to the phenomenon in Nigeria. Unfortunately, and very often, antagonists of the Jonathan administration, riding on the sentiments of a lingering security challenge, have lost this sense of history. This attitude has robbed the government of the needed ingredient of local support that would be required to fight terrorism.
Musa, a policy analyst, wrote in from Lokoja.