How many times do the protagonists of amnesty for “Boko Haram” within and outside government have to be wrong before they and their media allies accept the futility of this approach? The first time the proposal of amnesty for religious extremists – who believe it is their divine duty to abolish Western schools and their religious entitlement to kidnap, rape and marry off “infidel” women while they fight to overthrow the secular state and constitution and replace them with rule under an Islamic Caliphate – came up, I wrote in ‘The Politics of Boko Haram’ on 10/4/13 that “Amnesty will be meaningless to the core, religious Boko Haram and the spinoff Ansarul, for in their minds, they do the work of God…” When the ruse ended and government declared emergency rule in the North East, I wrote in ‘Amnesty and Emergency’ (22/5/13): “I had thought that it was fairly obvious that, given the religious and political aspects of the motivation of the fundamentalist terrorists, and the weakness that the Nigerian state had projected in response thus far, an offer of amnesty to the religious militants was likely to be regarded as a sign of imminent victory!” At that time about 4,200 innocent Nigerians had been killed by Boko Haram and I was shocked that “the cream of the Nigerian elite – eminent traditional rulers, state governors, leading politicians, respected newspaper columnists, reverend fathers and political bishops and sundry members of the Nigerian establishment sub-structure – celebrated this magical proposed amnesty, the great harbinger of peace and reconciliation, that was going to end a terrorist onslaught that had consumed 4,200 innocent Nigerian citizens, many of whom were actually security agents employed by the state to defend public order and safety and innocent Christians just practicing their faith! This Nigerian elite was ready to trade off its own police and military officers who had been killed by Boko Haram in search of an elusive and expedient peace, these victims being dispensable in the eyes of a dysfunctional state and an equally dysfunctional elite.” As I wrote in that article, “the sponsors and advocates of this silly idea had not even made any contact with the terrorists they sought to bestow forgiveness on!” and “Boko Haram had expressed neither remorse nor repentance over the murders they had committed!” but “in fact justified those killings as a divine obligation and great accomplishments!” Anyway, the charade collapsed and again one thought we had heard the last of the absurd, illogical and wicked proposal. More recently in ‘The global jihad’ (3/9/14), I tried after careful research, to explore the ideological and theological foundations of radical Islamic terrorism so that those who entertain the hope that Boko Haram and its sponsors may somehow be appeased may dismiss that notion – “I have learnt, for instance, that radical Islamists believe that under an Islamic principle of abrogation, earlier verses that declare Islam to be a religion of peace; that abhor compulsion in religion or that exalt the ‘people of the book’ (Jews and Christians) have been abrogated by latter ones that urge terror, death and subjugation upon ‘infidels’; they also follow supposed traditions regarding behaviour when in a metaphoric Mecca (said to be a reference to the religion’s early days in Mecca when it was not yet in a dominant political and military position) versus when in ‘Medina’ (by which time the faith was in a position to exert full hegemony over the population); extremists also adopt an alleged division of the world into ‘Dar al-Islam’ (House of Peace) and ‘Dar al-Harb’ (House of War) comprising unbelievers against whom war and conquest are legitimate, even mandatory! I gather that dialogue with people who subscribe to such extremist ideology is complicated by their practice of ‘Taqiyya’, a doctrine which supposedly permits dissimulation, lying, deceiving and betraying unbelievers, implying that any assurances offered by such extremists are unreliable.” On October 17, 2014 when chief of defence staff, Air Marshall Alex Badeh, announced a “ceasefire” with Boko Haram just at a point when the military appeared on course to finally obliterate the group, I wondered whether government had done better homework or perhaps Boko Haram was sufficiently weakened to finally accept a deal to end violence. The pattern that has however emerged appears to be that any time Boko Haram is on the back foot, a call for amnesty, truce or ceasefire emerges that buys the group time to raise new finance, procure new logistics and re-launch a fresh offensive. In the current episode, the champions appear to be the president’s own principal private secretary, Hassan Tukur; foreign minister, Aminu Wali; and perhaps national security adviser, Sambo Dasuki. It remains unclear what defence minister, General Aliyu Gusau’s opinion on anything is! The evidence, however, is that Boko Haram has captured about 92 new girls and boys in two tranches of 32 and 60; killed at least 40 people; and launched fresh attacks post-“ceasefire” across the region and specifically in Mubi, Adamawa State! To date Boko Haram has killed over 20,000 Nigerians! The military had warned that it expects more vicious attacks, signalling that though obliged to obey instructions from political authorities, it believes government is being taken for a ride! Archbishop Magnus Atilade of South West Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) criticised government for prematurely announcing a naïve ceasefire. It does seem that concerning the tricks and dissimulation of Boko Haram’s sponsors, the naivety of the Jonathan presidency is without repentance. Correction: Last week’s column, ‘Gowon and Nigeria’, erroneously implied that Cuban leader Fidel Castro is dead. Though ill and retired, Castro remains alive. Opeyemi Agbaje
Posted on: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 13:29:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015