Although the Federal Government has retraced its steps by supposedly following the legal route in proscribing Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), New Independence Group (NIG) considers the entire episode as yet another unnecessary and futile course of action. It is apposite to say “Never Again” to the violation and invasion of the civil space by Nigerian military under such a specious guise as the government just did.
The proscription – whether as purportedly done by South East governors, preceded by naming of IPOB as a terrorist organisation by the military, or through the court, via an application by office of the Attorney-General of the Federation – is both high-handed and unhelpful. This fact is borne out by wide experiences, both at home and across the globe.
Nation-building is a process, not an event. This is why even in mono-cultural societies, the state and the citizens are in constant engagement in the discussion of basic issues, resulting in constitutional amendments and referendums. To be clear, the rhetoric adopted by IPOB in passing across its concerns about the ship of state might have been unacceptably toxic, but the underlying principles and motivation are not only noble but also impossible to subdue by force of arms, as the Federal Government has done, so far.
The military, apparently relieving its days of jackboot rule, on September 15, purported to have named IPOB a terrorist organisation, after President Muhammadu Buhari had given it the nod to invade parts of the South East for what was inelegantly code-named “Python Dance 11”. The following day, Governors of the South East also purported to have proscribed the group, while joining calls for the restructuring of the country – indicating that they support the underlying factor for the separatist advocacy of IPOB. The Terrorism Act is unambiguous about the process and personnel for the labelling of a group terrorist and to proscribe its activities.
Section 2(1)(c) of the Act states:
“Where two or more persons associate for the purpose of, or where an organization engages in, —“setting up or pursuing acts of terrorism, the judge in Chamber and may on an application made by the Attorney General, National Security Adviser or Inspector General of Police on the approval of the President; declare any entity to be a proscribed organization and the notice should be published in official gazette.” The Act does not in any way clothe the Army, or Governors, with the power they both so casually purported to have exercised. The power is exclusively granted the court after due application by Attorney General, National Security Adviser or Inspector General of Police. Also, a notice to that effect must be published in official gazette. It cannot be seized under any other guise in a country guided by rule of law which is not beholden to the whims of power holders.
We at NIG note that the Attorney General has since taken the legal path. We also, however, add that even with this, the government is taking a wrong course in resolving the IPOB separatist agitation, which is no more than an off-shoot of the vexed issue of the Nigeria National Question begging for resolution, but which the present administration has deemed to 'decree' beyond negotiation. Where dialogue is required, the Nigerian State will be pressing a self-destruct button if it continues to bank on wrestling down and subduing agitators, including IPOB. That approach has never worked, and no indicator in social engineering suggests it is a viable in the present circumstance.
Thus, rather than kill genuine agitations, such a high-handed approach can only drive agitators underground and birth untoward consequences. While they hibernate, members of subdued separatist groups are eventually given renewed life with new and more energetic protagonists under a more prepared leadership – intellectually and materially. And this may include more combat-readiness to confront old foes.
The British confronted its Irish Republican Army, Apartheid had its Umkhonto we Sizwe (The Spear of the Nation) under the command of Nelson Mandela, who, also was once dubbed the arch-terrorist of a terror organization, as African National Congress (ANC) was once stigmatized by prelates of the South African Apartheid cathedral. The Irgun of Israel, as promoted by Menachem Begin, was there to fight for a return to Israeli homeland. It needs emphasizing that all of these violent groups evolved from frustration to get justice through the traditional means of crisis resolution.
The Sinn Fein, under Gerald (Gerry) Adams, and the Irish Republican Party were frustrated by the British, just as colonial Britain’s duplicity in its mandate in the Palestinian territory with seeming backing for David Ben-Gurion's Hagannah gave rise to Irgun. Mandela’s The Spear of the Nation took to arms when it became apparent that under Apartheid, the demand of black South Africans for justice would not be heard.
On September 18, 2014, the Scots voted to stay in the United Kingdom in a referendum after spirited efforts were made to allay their fears of losing their identity in the Union. Spain is currently making a spirited effort to woo Catalans who seem irrevocably committed to separation, while Iraqi Kurds have just voted to have a separate state. In none of these instances have the nations militarily subdued agitators, or declared them criminals, or that their unions are non-negotiable.
Back home, there are many examples of ineffective instances of banning and proscriptions approach in crisis management in Nigeria. National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) have been banned and unbanned, several times over, but so long as the issues they were agitating for were not addressed, students’ unrest and labour crises in our universities have continued. Environmental activist and writer Ken Saro-Wiwa was maliciously hanged, but the Niger Delta stinking sore only festered. It moved from Saro-Wiwa’s non-violent advocacy to full-blown armed struggle that was momentarily calmed when the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua explored the peace option.
It becomes worrisome to us when the government, instead of engaging the fundamental issues involved in the IPOB agitation, will rather choose to underplay the message when it declared, rather glibly, through its spokesperson, Minister of Information, Mr Lai Mohammed, that IPOB agitation is no more than a response by those he chose to call corrupt politicians who are still hurting over the loss of influence, occasioned by the coming to power of the present President Buhari government in May, 2015. For us, at NIG, we find this rather unsettling, to the extent that lurking behind this unsubstantiated claim is an unqualified license to overzealous security operatives, eager to please the present government, to target the liberty and business concerns of politically-exposed individuals, especially those in the opposition camp.
Even if the assumption behind this ominous claim is allowed a consideration, its possibility must break down, as its veracity can hardly stand the test of historical appreciation of the struggle in the South-East geo-political zone of Nigeria. If failed corrupt politicians, masking behind a separatist agenda, are behind IPOB current quest for a Biafran homeland for Igbos in Nigeria, we may wish to know the identity of those who are behind the Ralph Nwazuruike-led Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) whose campaign for the same objective as IPOB, long preceded the coming to power of this government with its anti-corruption crusading against mainly political participants in the last government functioning at present, as opposition political party and figures.
It is our position in NIG that there is the need to toe the path of civil engagement by the Federal Government of Nigeria, as being counseled by a coterie of eminent Nigerians, which include statesmen whose positions on national issues cannot be that dismissed as being motivated by partisan politicking. Notably, calls on government to seek the dialogue option have also come from foreign governments, which include that of the United Kingdom and United States of America, two 'allied' countries that have declined to stand with the Nigerian government classification of IPOB as a terrorist organization.
Signed:
Akinyemi Onigbinde,
Convener
