An act of terrorism and its many pertinent questions

If the statements made by the president in the hours preceding the attacks are anything to go by then it is disconcerting that our government knew about the attack, even knew the people that were going to execute it, but did not act swiftly to hold those suspects in custody and interrogate them before they […]

If the statements made by the president in the hours preceding the attacks are anything to go by then it is disconcerting that our government knew about the attack, even knew the people that were going to execute it, but did not act swiftly to hold those suspects in custody and interrogate them before they could execute the attacks. Also, such outright claims of knowledge of the culprits’ actions and identity would naturally translate into swift arrests of the masterminds behind the attacks. In other words, the investigations should have been easily concluded and final arrests made. Yet we are constantly clobbered by those remarks; “these things take time”, and insinuations that some “elements” who have no links to Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) were responsible.
Immediately after the attacks on the world trade centre in New York, the world’s vehement repudiation of the Bush government was instigated by the realisation that the government had prior knowledge of the attacks and took virtually no steps to foil them. CIA reports of forewarnings about the attacks and the admissions that this information was forwarded to the presidency without any serious steps taken to forestall them became the basis for the consistent criticisms that obliterated what little relevance that government had. 

While we cannot categorically state that the information received by the president detailed those particular attacks or identified those directly involved in that particular attack or even identified the exact location where such attacks would be carried out, we have been informed by a president, confident of the authenticity of the reports received, that he knows those involved and that the government is well informed about the culprits. However authentic the information the president has, it is quite unprincipled for a serving leader to exonerate a group that has remained insistent in its claim of responsibility for the attacks.
The solidarity visit by ex-militant leaders to the presidential villa in a show of support for the president and a bid to deny any involvement of the militant group, MEND, in the attacks, was puerile as much as it was a blatant display of administrative mediocrity. It is impossible to imagine a government that runs a fledgling democratic system condoning solidarity visits which end up playing out as praise singing parleys and prayer sessions condemning the enemies of the president, ditto Mobutu, Banda, Bongo regimes. It is also impossible to understand how solidarity visits by ex-militants stand as proof that active militants could not have carried out such attacks except the government intends Nigerians to believe that there are no more militants in the creeks.
It is also shocking beyond words to watch the executive president of this country shaking hands with, and acknowledging the praises of known accomplices in the deaths of so many innocent Nigerian lives and those of our military personnel who died in the course of protecting the integrity of this nation.
Implications of this action are far reaching, and if those who stand around the president as special advisers and cronies possess the slightest modicum of professionalism, they would realise that such blanket exoneration could greatly hamper investigations by the security services. Any leader who recognises the importance of their utterances as influential to directions of government operations must understand the importance of careful use of words in managing the affairs of state. This has clearly not been recognised.
Beyond this observation and its consequent exposition of administrative puerility, Nigerians have not been informed about the sources of the letters that preceded the bombings neither have they sought clarification on why these claims of responsibility have only been denied by ex-militants and not by the remaining active militants in the creeks or by the voice behind the pseudonym, Jomo Gbomo, whom many Nigerians recognise as a voice that has been representative of the Niger Delta militants over the years. 
It is shocking that, while some Nigerians try to portray this distasteful visit by ex-militants to the president as affirmation of government claims of total peace in the Niger Delta and proof that no Niger Delta militant could have been responsible for the attacks, they clearly refuse to juxtapose the Nigerian situation with what is prevalent everywhere else in the world where militancy is not destroyed by merely removing the figureheads or acting in collaboration with members of a group.
We are aware by now, ditto Iraq, that militancy and acts of terrorism feed on creating palpable fear and sustains itself through constant reshuffling of its leadership formations. It is also evident that the command structures of such outfits are not always regimented and vows and rebuttal of allegiances to recognised command structures are common. This would prove to be more in line with activities of the militant groups in the Niger Delta but the vehemence with which Okah’s allegations have been refuted and his position as a top representative of MEND denied is a shameful example of how easily Nigerians are condemned to a perpetual state of amnesia. Before the amnesty agreement was reached Nigerians recognised Henry Okah as the main gunrunner and leader of MEND when he was arrested in Angola and extradited to Nigeria to face terrorism charges.
The outcry and threats by the militant group in its demand for the release of Okah posed such great threat to the security of all Nigerians that the federal government, after insisting that it would prosecute Okah for treason, backed down under the Yar Adua/ Jonathan administration with a proposal that he (Okah) accept the amnesty deal for all charges against him to be dropped. Okah’s refusal to accept the proposal may have been the inspiration behind same refusal by other elements within the militant group to accept the government amnesty deal. Today, Okah remains a most recognisable face of the Niger Delta struggles; his continued stance on the demands for equitable distribution of oil wealth within the region has remained his most identifiable.
In a strange turnaround the words of self implicated ex-militants, whose acceptance of the amnesty deal is proof of their culpability in acts of terrorism, have suddenly become more honored than those of a man who was not convicted of any crime and has long been recognised as the legitimate voice of MEND.
If the president was convinced that MEND was not responsible for the attack then what was the reason behind the arrest of Henry Okah by South African authorities, who must have acted on tip offs by Nigerian authorities?  We may, sadly, never know since all these facts have been covered by a sycophantic and sentimental murk that has smudged our sense of practicality and probity. Where a government should investigate all possible leads to a crime, we rather have a government that is suspiciously vigorous in calling on all citizens to ignore claims of responsibility and allegations of complicity by serving functionaries in a crime. 
Ejero Barrett is a public affairs analysts who lives in Warri