FOR some Nigerians and others who are concerned about Nigeria, worries abound that the ongoing faceoff between the Buhari administration and separatist agitators could have dire consequences for the unity of Nigeria. The crux of the matter is that in a diverse, multi-ethnic and multi-religious entity like Nigeria, government has a duty to ensure equity, fairness and justice in the treatment of all stakeholders in the polity.
It is about the most fundamental way of ensuring stability and staving off agitations, which generally exploit the perceptions and realities of different rules for different groups of national stakeholders. In a situation where the government, either by omission or commission, projects the idea that it is pursuing the narrow agenda of a specific ethnic or regional group, the result will be a groundswell of agitations, which may snowball into full-blown separatist campaigns by those who feel marginalised.
This reality is currently playing out with the ongoing crackdown on separatist agitators in the South East and South West. For instance, the forceful repatriation of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, from Kenya and the onslaught against Yoruba Nation agitator, Sunday Igboho, have ignited geo-ethnic tension within the polity.
Apart from straining social harmony and accentuating deep animosities, prominent voices in the South have drawn attention to the fact that the government has not deployed similar energy and lethal force to quell the various security threats in the North. For the North, a region currently swarming with an assortment of criminals challenging the sovereignty of the state, the expectation is that the government would be more decisive in taking the fight to the outlaws.
The seeming lack of sufficient pressure from the security forces to rein in criminal herders and bandits, contrasts sharply with the deployment of force in the bid to pick up Igboho. That raid on the residence of the Yoruba Nation agitator left two people dead, while 12 others were arrested.
As if the deployment of such force is reserved for only one part of the country, images and footage of self-appointed negotiators meeting with bandits and terrorists in their camps to “persuade” them to stop their nefarious acts, flood the internet to shape perceptions of a security architecture seemingly rigged against some groups in the country.
These developments have evoked serious sentiments, and raised questions about the same old issues of justice, equity and fairness in the Nigerian federation.There can, therefore, be no mistaking the fact that the separatist agitations that have convulsed Nigeria are a result of resentments over perceptions and realities of uneven treatment of stakeholders and groups within the polity. Not everyone in the South East agrees with Nnamdi Kanu and IPOB. There are also many who vehemently condemn his violent, hateful and acerbic rhetoric and incitement of his young followers to violence against the Nigerian State.
Ironically, even those who fundamentally disagree with the IPOB leader are frowning at government’s approach, following his recent arrest and incarceration. Again, not producing him in court on July 26, when his trial was supposed to have continued fueled more suspicion, a development likely to win more sympathisers for the IPOB leader and making the crisis even more intractable.
The tactics deployed by Igboho, the Yoruba Nation agitator, have mainly revolved around rallies, where agitators have been making clear their demands for an independent Oduduwa Nation. It was only after the raid on his residence that the Department of State Services (DSS) alleged that arms and ammunitions were recovered from his residence, a charge which the agitator has denied.
Given the timing of the raid, a few days to the Yoruba Nation rally in Lagos on July 3, some have suggested that the Secret Service was merely trying to engage in a last ditch standoff, which would deter the agitator from going ahead with the event. It proved to be a costly and condemnable use of force, with two people dead and property destroyed. Such excessive use of force to effect an arrest was avoidable, as it has further escalated tension, while fueling the myth that the government was after Igboho for his stance against the heinous activities of murderous herdsmen.
On the allegation of arms stockpiling, it is Igboho’s word against that of the DSS. Given that the DSS has declared him wanted, it is only an application of due process of law that can unravel the facts and determine the veracity of the claims.
With Igboho’s escape to Benin Republic after the crackdown and his subsequent arrest, what is also discernible is that prominent traditional and opinion leaders in the South West have been exerting pressure to ensure Igboho is given fair treatment. What this shows is that despite what may be clear disagreements with his objective and approach, many of the leaders in the South West are mobilising to ensure Igboho is not in the hands of the Nigerian State.
This form of solidarity enjoyed by these separatists figures point to the fact that the existential issues, which the agitators have claimed to be drawing attention to, resonate with the people. As such, to make the agitations go away, those issues have to be addressed squarely. Social justice, fairness and equity, it must be noted, are key requirements for a pathway to peace in our troubled union.
However, the bigger national question to focus on, is the wider implication of these skirmishes on the peace, stability and orderly governance of Nigeria. The energy the government is deploying to tighten the noose around the necks of secessionists agitators, using the coercive instrument of state power is misplaced. It is critical for the federal government to come to terms with the root causes of the agitations.
Taking figures like Kanu and Igboho out of circulation, without addressing the fundamental political and governance issues fueling the discontent across the land, is akin to postponing the doomsday. For all their antics, strategies and irredentist motivations, these iconoclasts attacking the unity of Nigeria are feeding off the disaffection, discontent and overall dissatisfaction with certain sordid realities within the Nigerian polity. It is the duty of the government to harness soft power assets to address the deep-seated root causes fueling the calls for the dismemberment of the country.
Government’s resort to naked and arbitrary show of force would not solve the political and governance issues fueling the agitations. Instead, the use of brute force to beat down the agitators will win more sympathisers for their causes.
Government crackdown on agitations would be used as narrative material to fuel suspicions that there are sinister plans to promote the hegemony and domination of others by particular sections of the country. The insecurity precipitated by the activities of armed herdsmen in local communities in the South West caused resentment. The failure of the authorities to decisively address crimes like kidnapping, rape and the destruction of farms
by cattle herders, pushed people to put their hopes in figures like Igboho, who
promised to help them put a stop to the menace.
The situation is similar in the South East, where the cry has been about the marginalisation of people of Igbo ethnic nationality in critical appointments, especially in the security agencies. Nnamdi Kanu harnessed these frustrations and disseminated them in angry, derisive and impassioned broadcasts, which captured the minds of young people. They became so ardent in following him that they could easily be incited to cause mayhem in the region. In the Niger Delta too, there have been threats from armed non-state actors who have also been expressing their discontent about similar realities.
Collectively, citizens are struggling to pass a message about the issues affecting them on the ground. They indicate clearly that all is not well with Nigeria as an entity. This has become a familiar scenario in the country since after independence and it is getting worse by the day. The time has come for government to rise to the occasion and halt the dangerous slide into anarchy by addressing the causative factors. It is the responsibility of the government to take lasting and sustainable steps to address the root causes of the disaffection in the land.
Government has a responsibility to deal with criminality of any form; however, agitations fueled by discontent are not in themselves criminal, if done within the democratic ethos. Unleashing lethal force to quell genuine agitations would not help the situation; neither would it make the challenges go away.
For those protesting against unjust and unfair treatment in the polity, what is needed is a sincere, just, fair and inclusive process, which would tackle the root causes of these resentments. Failure to do this will breed a groundswell of agitations that will continue to distract the government and convulse the polity.
More defiant figures will emerge in the process to vent those frustrations which
is not what we want.
Comments are closed.