A Rejoinder To The Lies Of The Nigerian Military (II)
In the first rejoinder, the weakness, hollowness, emptiness and bankruptcy of what I characterized as the “Ambush” or “Assassination” “Theory”, which was expounded by the Nigerian Military to justify its brutal crackdown on the Islamic Movement in Nigeria led by Maulana Sayyid Ibrahim Yaqoub Zakzaky, had been clearly explained.
Accordingly, when the “theory” looks stupid and could only be believed by the shallow, blind-hearted and retarded minds, when it woefully failed to convince the general public particularly the objective and the broad-minded, when it was unsuccessful in generating the desired result of appealing to public sentiments, when it flopped in deceiving, misleading and manipulating the peoples emotion; the Military was, in this circumstance, tremendously compelled to come-up with another “logic” in its desperate attempt at providing a cover to its criminality. The new “logic” is what I referred to as the “Road Block Theory”.
In this “theory”, the spokesman of the Nigerian Army, a certain Colonel Sani Kuka Sheka, accused the Islamic Movement in Nigeria of “Road Blockage”. The Officer, as could be inferred from his press statement, which was broadcast by the BBC Hausa Service, was not only particular about the alleged obstruction of the COAS’s convoy, but a general “Road Blockage” whenever the Movement conducts an activity.
This, as could be deduced from the statement, causes a lot of inconveniences to the people in Zaria, adding, inferably that the rights of members of the Movement to religious and social activities, does not nullify the rights of other citizens to free movement.
That is perfectly valid, the rights of members of the Movement to religious and social activities does not nullify the rights of other citizens to free movement, conversely, the rights of others to free movement does not annul the rights of members of the Movement to their religious and social activities. If this is a perfect logic, why then were members of the Islamic Movement killed in order to uphold the rights of others to free movement? Was this singular action not a complete negation of the rights of members of the Islamic Movement to their religious and social activities? Was killing, the appropriate penalty defined by the Law of the Land, for someone who infringed the rights of others to free movement? What kind of logic was this?
Interestingly, there has never been a time when the Islamic Movement deliberately infringed the rights of other people to free movement in the course of its activities. It is a common knowledge that the Movement has world-class traffic officials, who during programmes particularly at Hussainiyya Baqiyyatullah in Zaria, or in other venues and places, were involved in traffic control in order to ensure and facilitate the free flow of vehicles.
It is instructive to stress the point that in none of the activities of the Movement most especially at the Hussainiyya Baqiyyatullah, were the free movements of vehicles obstructed including Military and Paramilitary vehicles. That the convoy of “His Excellency” the COAS was obstructed by members of the Movement was a scandalous claim and a malicious allegation.
The video clip released and circulated by the Military to that effect was fictitious; it was carefully constructed in order to fool the public, and to prove and exaggerate their innocence. An average Nigerian is too intelligent to believe in such a false propaganda intended to discredit and implicate the Islamic Movement. But assuming the convoy of the COAS was truly obstructed was the killing of one who does that the appropriate penalty?
Is it befitting for someone to be killed for the mere reason of “road blockage” to somebody that is considered to be important? Is that consistent with human reasoning? Is the human life that cheap, in other words, is it an ordinary commodity that could simply be bought from the market to the effect that its sacredness is easily violated? Can someone that was unjustly killed be brought back to existence?
Furthermore, assuming that the penalty of those who blocked the road is for them to be killed, why then was the killing not limited to them alone? Why were those that had not been involved in the road blockage also killed? Why were tens of hundreds of innocent members of the Islamic Movement, including three male children of Maulana Sayyid Zakzaky and many prominent members killed in and around the residence of the Sayyid, which were several kilometers away from the scene of the so-called road blockage?
Why were tens of hundreds others wounded as a result of gunshots including the Sayyid and his Wife? Why was the residence of the Sayyid burnt and subsequently levelled? Why were Hussainiyya Baqiyyatullah, Fudiyya Islamic Centre and Darur-Rahma demolished? Were they also physically involved in the road blockage? What type of justice was that? Could the “Road Block Theory” really and truly explain the motive and essence of such an unlawful and illegitimate unprecedented massacre of members of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria?
It is my humble submission that the excessive brute-force that was used against the Islamic Movement, which ironically, was never employed even on the Boko Haram insurgents, expresses a much deeper and obscured reason(s) for the crackdown beyond the road blockage, which in my considered opinion, was only used as a pretext. An explanation of the true motive of the crackdown, shall, by God grace, form the subject of our next discourse. May the infinite blessings of the Almighty Allah be upon the seekers of the noble truth.
IBRAHIM ABUBAKAR DIFA
Writes from Gombe State Nigeria
He can reach on 08069694108