First, they had no spokesperson and their demands were unknown. Then, they were ghosts and the government was not going to put itself through the indignity of negotiating through psychic mediums, spiritualists and marabouts. Now, it seems somebody’s called the Ghostbusters, told them that their services will never be needed and an amnesty committee has been constituted to make recommendations concerning Boko Haram.
This follows hot on the heels of what many might consider a pre-emptive strike, with the Federal Government said to have awarded yet another dodgy security contract, this time in the South-Western region of the country, to yet another leader of a local militia. The contract is said to be worth N2.4bn a month and it is unclear what the duration is. Southern Nigeria is now crawling with guerrilla warlords who have been rewarded for their mutinous behaviour with “juicy” government work. Let’s ignore the fact that we have several security agencies and reasonably-sized armed forces. Let me not say that government is outsourcing the performance of what the constitution describes as its “primary purpose”, when my ogamost oga at the top is clearly saying something else.
THISDAY reports that the president “bowed to pressure” to shift ground on amnesty for Boko Haram. This pressure came from many elder statesmen and even a branch of the Nigerian Bar Association. The logic behind the pressure is that amnesty worked in the Niger Delta (although this post empirically questions the correlation between the amnesty programme and increased output in the Niger Delta), therefore amnesty will quell every uprising Nigeria will ever have. Alright, so I have laced it with a healthy dose of cynicism but this clearly is untenable not only from a policy position but also from that of logic.
Granted, there is the solitary similarity between Boko Haram and the Movement for the Emancipation of The Niger Delta (MEND) – they are both militant groups with tribal/sectional origins. But that must be where the similarity ends. MEND was ostensibly fighting for the diversion of a greater portion of the region’s mineral wealth to its own people and remediation of all the damage to their farming land and fishing waters. When the government commenced its amnesty programme there, it first of all admitted that it had wronged the people of the Niger Delta. There was some logic to the government saying, in that instance, “your fight is an honourable one; we have wronged you; lay down your arms, come back into decent society and not only will we not punish your insurgency, we will restore all that the cankerworm has eaten.” Or words to that effect, anyway.
On the other hand is Boko Haram, whose cause no one has been able to successfully articulate AND rationalise. “Rationalise”, for me, is the key part of that sentence. Were they formed for an aim that rational society should accommodate? Can any of their demands be met rationally? Is there anything rational in all that they have said or done since they stepped into the international spotlight? If the answer to all these is a resounding ‘NO’, what then is the rationale for granting them amnesty? What has led the government to believe it can reason with them? Above all, what part of their behaviour or rhetoric suggests that amnesty would even be a useful tool? Lest we forget, the predominant MO for MEND was to kidnap oil workers and sabotage oil infrastructure. Boko Haram are suicide bombers.
Now, I fully understand that Borno and Kano have been ravaged by the sect and the people just want peace. But is peace at any price really peace? Boko Haram wants less of an interaction with western civilisation and the implementation of Sharia law nationwide. How do you begin such negotiations? Ok, we’ll ban western education in Borno and Kano States but you have to leave the rest of the country alone? You get to have Sharia in a maximum of 10 northern states and that’s it? And if they renege and pick up their arms again tomorrow, do we show more flexibility on where ‘Boko’ will be ‘Haram’ and how far Sharia will be allowed to spread? Only recently, a splinter group, Ansaru, has been reported to be even more deadly than the original Boko Haram. Should they be offered amnesty too? Is amnesty for Boko Haram justice?
The message from the government is also quite clear. Arm yourselves, disrupt activity within the nation with as much violence as you can muster. We will reward you from the abundance of our treasury. You will be rich beyond your wildest dreams. Unlike your peers who are busy acquiring an education or struggling to build a career. They would be dead to us, if not for the taxes we need them to pay.
- Amnesty for Boko Haram: Need for better understanding (vanguardngr.com)
- Don’t grant Boko Haram amnesty – Prophet Onaolapo (vanguardngr.com)
- Reps Minority Whip backs amnesty for Boko Haram (vanguardngr.com)
- Nigeria Boko Haram amnesty dismissed (bbc.co.uk)
- Amnesty for Boko Haram Sect Is Already on Offer (ollorwiosaroblog.wordpress.com)
- Nigeria sets up panel to study amnesty for Islamists: source (nation.co.ke)
- Okupe To Buhari – Persuade Boko-Haram To Accept Dialogue (stharry.wordpress.com)
7 thoughts on “THE LOGIC OF AMNESTY”
I used to be staunchly against the idea of amnesty and even dialogue for BH, wrote many articles against. But over time, I have come to see things differently:
1. Force alone won’t win this. If it was going to, we would have won since. Instead, we’ve the JTF killing both combatants and innocents, and the BH keep doing their thing.
2. Not all BH fighters would take the amnesty deal. Ppl such as Shekau will fight to the death. But many will and it would help in reducing who we’ve to fight.
3. You may not have noticed but within BH, there are splits. While Ansaru is a split to one extreme, there are splits that just want their houses and mosques rebuilt for them. That, I believe, we can do.
4. We need a mix of strategies in this fight against terrorism. Amnesty should be one strategy.
5. Amnesty for BH won’t be the same as for ND militants. It won’t involve monthly salaries & overseas training for instance.
6. That precedent we’re scared of setting with amnesty for BH, we’ve already set with amnesty for ND militants.
Just my own thoughts
You raise several valid points. Force alone may indeed not be enough but superior intelligence might make the force more surgical, more effective.
Who are the leaders of the more moderate splinters? How does the government circumvent Shekau in these negotiations?
Finally, what sort of amnesty do you have in mind? Just a blanket pardon with a promise that their homes and mosques will be rebuilt?
The leaders of these moderate splinters, I do not know. But government can negotiate directly with them and ignore Shekau, considering the fact it is very unlikely he would take the deal.
And if what they want is along the lines of their mosques and homes rebuilt for a blanket pardon, I will go for it.
Let’s be honest: even if they were to be tried, the trial would take donkey years, then when they have been forgotten about, the case dies. How many convictions on terrorism have we secured in Nigeria so far?
Pingback: Truth-o-meter: The maiden edition | YNaija2015
Pingback: Must reads | YNaija2015
Pingback: Today’s Must Reads: Amaechi needs to shut up,to hell with the National Theatre + more | YNaija2015
The Amnesty thingy is just a ruse to siphon cold hard cash. It really isn’t more intelligent than that.
Sadly after billions of the ever declining naira have been expended and new militants gain profile, with insecurity still national highlight, the blame gain will begin….all over…and over….and over…..