Lessons from Boko Haram

Individuals and groups are free to exercise their freedom of expression. They must do so peacefully and strictly within the bounds of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. No individual or group has the right to disturb public peace and order. Nor should it threaten the safety of the public or create fear or an atmosphere of insecurity. The right of any group [of Nigerians] to agitate for their perceived rights cannot be allowed to infringe on the rights of other Nigerians to remain an integral component of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This government was elected on a mandate. We [the state governors] swore to an oath to defend the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Therefore, government will not fold its arms and allow members of the Indigenous People of Biafra or any other group to turn [south-east states] into a hotbed of unlawful protests against the unity and peaceful co-existence of the various peoples and ethnic groups within the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

In exercise of government's constitutional responsibility to preserve the safety, security and corporate integrity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, it is hereby ordered that all forms of street protests, demonstrations, rallies or unlawful gatherings associated with the agitations for the secession of any group from the Federal Republic of Nigeria are banned. Any person or group who violates this ban or acts in any manner prejudicial to the interest of peace and security would be arrested and prosecuted.”

These, in effect, were the very thoughtful words of Governor Wike of Rivers State as he tried to deal with the state of affairs in his domain last week. It would have been admirable if governors in other disturbed states in the Federation took the same bold stand. Then, perhaps, the agitators for a Biafran nation would be permanently silenced. But the question, and it is a very crucial question, is: can such measures by the government silence the quest by the Igbo for a Biafra within the borders of Nigeria?

Those who have continued to fight, even from outside Nigeria, for the actualization of a Biafran nation often bandy the idea that the Scottish –British relationship could be made similar in the Nigerian situation. They believe that a Biafran nation that will put all Igbo under one umbrella is possible within a wider Nigerian nation. Biafra could have its own flag, just as Scotland has. Biafra could have its own currency, just as Scotland has. Biafra could have its own parliament just as Scotland has. And Biafra would remain in a union with Nigeria just as Scotland and Britain are the dominant forces that make up Great Britain.

Unfortunately, the historical cases of Nigeria and Britain are at variance. They are opposites. The idea of a union between England and Scotland was aired in February 1689 during the deliberations of the Convention Parliament in Edinburgh. Unlike the Nigerian case, where there are over 250 language groups, both nations shared the same landmass, language and attachment to the Protestant religion. In other words, they had cultural affiliations. They also had a need for a military union which would enable them secure the Revolution against ex-King James. Scotland and England needed to amalgamate because the people felt it would make them stronger economically and militarily.

A proposal for the union of Scotland and England was made in the House of the Lords in 1695. In Scotland, the case for the union found much favour among the political elite during the 1690s because of the poor state of the economy. In 1699, there were discussions between politicians in London and Edinburgh and the English side acknowledged that a union might be in both nations' interest. The Scots hoped that the union would offer their traders vital access to English colonial markets. By early 1700 these talks had hardened into a legislative proposal backed by the King. At Westminster a bill for negotiating the union was passed by the Lords. It was to get the backing of the Commons much later. England and Scotland were then "United into One Kingdom". The Act of Union of 1707 merged England and Scotland into a single state of Great Britain and created a single Parliament at Westminster. The rest is history.

So, while in the case of Britain two or more already established nations found the need socially, economically and militarily to bridge their gap and come together as one country, in the case of Nigeria, a country which can boast of more than 250 ethnic languages already amalgamated into one huge nation by Great Britain, the clamour is for decentralization or an outright break up into smaller sizes. The reason always given for this tendency is marginalization.

Closer to home is the Boko Haram experience and their determination to bring the country on its knees. When the insurgency first raised its ugly head in 2002, many Nigerians thought it was simply a pocket rebellion by a group of insurgents who can be suppressed at will whenever government was ready to do so. But when the insurgency became despicably cruel to Nigerian citizens, raiding villages daily, sacking people from their ancestral homes, killing and maiming children, women and old men at will, carting off and raping young Nigerian girls the vast Sambisa Forest, government swung into action.

Their leader, Mohammed Yusuf was arrested and, like Biafra’s Nnamdi Kanu, incarcerated in prison. Yusuf was said to have told the law enforcement agents while he was in detention that they could kill him, the messenger, but they would not be able to kill the message.

Either by design or accident, government allowed Yusuf to die in detention. That was a very grave mistake. The death of Yusuf became a rallying point for the rebellion of members of his cult. His shed blood became their song, their focus and their strength. It has sustained Boko Haram as they maintain their determination to bring the Nigerian government on its knees.

This is why the APC government must ensure that nothing wrong happens to Nnamdi Kanu while he remains in detention or even after he returns to his adopted country, England. If anything should happen to him, he would become another rallying point for an Eastern Boko Haram. With one Boko Haram in the North and another in the East, it is doubtful if Nigeria would be comfortable and confident in its march towards true democracy. As I said earlier, the federal government should explore avenues to discuss with the top officials of the Pro-Biafra groups. Every available means should be utilised to ensure that a peaceful resolution brings closure to this issue. This time bomb must not be allowed to explode.

Disclaimer: "The views expressed on this site are those of the contributors or columnists, and do not necessarily reflect TheNigerianVoice’s position. TheNigerianVoice will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements in the contributions or columns here."

Articles by Emeka Asinugo