How President Jonathan Got His Groove Back
President
Goodluck Jonathan pleasantly surprised many Nigerians last week when he
declared a state of emergency in three North-Eastern states, namely,
Borno, Yobe and Adamawa.
That
announcement was surprising for some reasons: One, Jonathan had
refrained from taking that same action for over two years. This had
attracted strong criticism to him from his supporters and opponents, who
saw it as sign of weakness. Two, a few days before, the Presidency had
denied a news story published by a sister publication, Saturday PUNCH,
that there was a plan to declare a state of emergency in any part of
Nigeria. Three, a few weeks before, the President had inaugurated the
Presidential Committee on Dialogue and Peaceful Resolution on Security
Challenges in the North. Four, many people had never seen Jonathan
speak
with such force and in such a voice before. Five, for the first time,
Jonathan called members of the Boko Haram sect “terrorists”.
Even before the National Assembly had given the required approval, soldiers had moved into the three states. A Reuters report quoted a Maiduguri, Borno resident as saying that he had never seen such a number of soldiers in his life before.
Immediately
after that the President’s broadcast on Tuesday, May 13, 2013, both the
social media and the traditional media platforms were awash with
comments in praise of Jonathan’s action, with many people saying that it
was long overdue.
Predictably, a
few groups like the opposition Action Congress of Nigeria and the
Northern Elders Forum condemned it. While the ACN said it was “lacking
in original thinking,” the NEF said it was a declaration of war on the
North and a derailment of the amnesty programme.
But
one aspect of the declaration of the state of emergency that many
members of society did not initially agree with – even though that
position was based on ignorance of the provision of the Constitution –
was that the President did not dismiss the governors of the affected
states as well as their respective Houses of Assembly as was the case in
the past. Lawyers like Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) promptly published
comments that confirmed that the President was right in not sacking the
governors and Houses of Assembly, as no part of the Constitution gave
such a provision. That further boosted the image of Jonathan as a
respecter of the Constitution to which he swore to protect.
Before
now, many saw President Jonathan as timorous and irresolute. Most
Nigerians had expected that a state of emergency should have been
declared in some states since 2011 when the Boko Haram insurgency went
out of hand. Even though more than 3,000 people are reported to have
been killed over the Boko Haram insurgency, the President had looked on
as if he expected the appeals and cries of the people to touch the Boko
Haram sect.
Rather, when Jonathan
decided to declare a state of emergency on December 31, 2011, following
the Christmas Day bombing of St Theresa’s Church, Madalla, Niger State a
week earlier, he did so in some 16 local governments of some states in
the North: Borno, Yobe, Niger and Plateau. That was seen as a
half-hearted declaration. Nigerians did not notice any decrease in the
bloodletting after that declaration. On the contrary, that partial
measure seemed to have emboldened Boko Haram to increase the scope and
intensity of its attacks.
The
insurgency cast the Nigerian state as helpless, spineless and dazed. The
nation watched as Boko Haram wreaked havoc almost on a daily basis at
one location after another in the North, hoisting its flag in its
conquered territories and threatening more attacks. Military barracks,
police stations, prisons, churches, mosques, markets, schools, media
houses, motor parks, the United Nations’ building and others were not
spared. It was a clear declaration of war on Nigeria.
The
frequent response Nigerians got after each bloody attack from an
evidently bamboozled security architecture was: “We are on top of the
situation.” Many Nigerians turned the expression into a joke.
When
the Federal Government was pressurised and blackmailed into accepting
to offer the sect amnesty early this year, the fears of most Nigerians
seemed to be confirmed that the government had no answer to the
insurgents’ threat. But Boko Haram put the Federal Government to more
ridicule by saying that it should be the one to offer Nigeria amnesty,
and not the other way round.
As if
to register its anger at the “effrontery” of the Federal Government to
ever think of an offer of amnesty, the Boko Haram sect bombed Bama in
Borno State and sacked a police station with dozens killed. Its leader
Abubakar Shekau boasted in a video clip that the sect was responsible
for the earlier attack on Baga, a border town in Borno State, where the
response of the soldiers had elicited an outcry for being like killing
an ant with a sledgehammer. On the same Tuesday night that the President
announced the state of emergency, Boko Haram visited the home of the
Borno State’s secretary of the Christian Association of Nigeria and shot
him dead in spite of all the pleas of his family members. Two days
after the declaration of the state of emergency, the sect attacked
Daura, the hometown of Maj.-Gen. Muhammadu Buhari in Katsina State,
burning a police station and four banks and killing some people.
So,
Boko Haram has not shown any sign that it wants amnesty. If the sect
wanted amnesty, it would have suspended all hostilities and waited to
see the seriousness or otherwise of government.
It
is even doubtful if the original Boko Haram, led by Shekau, will ever
accept amnesty. Before one can choose to commit suicide for any cause,
one must be propelled by a force higher than money or a desire for
“settlement”. My mind tells me that the political Boko Haram will accept
amnesty, because it is fighting against perceived injustice, but the
original, religious Boko Haram will not accept amnesty because it
perceives its cause as “divine”.
In
retrospect, it was good that the government acceded to the demand to
grant amnesty to Boko Haram, which helped to prove that the sect does
not want any amnesty. If the Federal Government had continued to insist
on no amnesty, many would have said that its recalcitrance was the cause
of the continued unrest in some parts of Northern Nigeria.
I
believe that the amnesty programme, as controversial as it is, should
go on, while the military continues its war against the Boko Haram
elements that continue to wage war against Nigeria. Only the government
of a Banana Republic will fold its arms while a group kills its citizens
in droves and burns its cities with glee. If Boko Haram is interested
in amnesty and peace, it should be the party asking for a ceasefire, not
the government. Even if government will negotiate with Boko Haram, it
should not be from the point of weakness, but of strength.
But
government must not concentrate all its efforts in the three states
where a state of emergency was declared. Boko Haram’s first-ever attack
in Katsina State last week shows that if the three states of Borno, Yobe
and Adamawa become too hot, members of the sect will naturally relocate
to other Northern states and continue their campaign of terror.
Beyond
the approval that followed the declaration of state of emergency in the
three states and the prompt action of the soldiers, one prays that
President Jonathan will not shoot himself in the foot in a matter of
days with a comment or action that will attract an avalanche of
criticism.
