Convoluted matter of Shi’ites

One overdoing begets another, was the prevailing wisdom in the cat and mouse game between the Buhari regime and the Islamic Movement in Nigeria [IMN], more popularly known as Shi’ites. The streets of Abuja have not known peace in the last two weeks as the Shi’ites escalated their game, from infrequent part-peaceful, part violent protests […]

One overdoing begets another, was the prevailing wisdom in the cat and mouse game between the Buhari regime and the Islamic Movement in Nigeria [IMN], more popularly known as Shi’ites. The streets of Abuja have not known peace in the last two weeks as the Shi’ites escalated their game, from infrequent part-peaceful, part violent protests to almost daily protests to press for their leader Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky’s release from detention.

Three incidents testify to the serious escalation. One was a viral video, shot in front of the Foreign Ministry building, in which an eloquent Shi’ite spokesman swore that they will kill President Muhammadu Buhari if anything happened to their detained leader. Only Boko Haram, as far I recall, ever made such a direct personal threat against the president. The same day, the Shi’ites attempted to storm the National Assembly complex. And then, the worst escalation happened last Tuesday, with a riot in Abuja’s Central Business District that led to the death of many protesters, of FCT’s Deputy Police Commissioner Usman Umar and of Youth Corper/Channels tv reporter Precious Owolabi.

Late last Friday, the Federal Government greatly upped its own game. Based upon an ex parte application argued by Solicitor General and Permanent Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Justice Dayo Apata under the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, Federal High Court judge Justice Nkeonye Maha ruled that IMN’s activities “in any part of Nigeria amounts to acts of terrorism and illegality.” The judge banned IMN’s existence and activities “in any part of Nigeria under whatsoever form or guise, either in groups or as individuals” once the Federal Government publishes the order in the Official Gazette and two national dailies.

Assistant Commissioner of Police Enyinnaya Adiodu swore to a compelling affidavit before the judge. He accused IMN of illegal activities inimical to the corporate interest of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, including “setting up a paramilitary guard known as Hurras, murder, attacks on security agents, provocative preaching and hate speech while working towards the creation of Islamic State in Nigeria.” The sect, he said, also carried out series of violent and unlawful activities since 1991, leading up to the events of last Tuesday, burning of a NEMA ambulance and the deaths of DCP Usman Umar and youth corper Owolabi. The ACP also said IMN’s activities “heightened tension and insecurity in the country,” earned the country negative rating globally; it did not recognize constituted authorities, it harassed the Sheikh’s neighbours in Zaria’s Gyallesu area, and its members blocked the Chief of Army Staff’s convoy.

The problem with ex parte motions is that the judge did not get to hear other arguments. Two, in particular, are very relevant here. One is that even though zealous IMN members blocked the Army Chief’s path in Zaria and refused all pleas to clear the path, soldiers greatly overreacted by killing anywhere between 400 and 1,000 sect members. In my opinion, they could have shot a few of the youths blocking the highway and the rest would have scampered. However, soldiers do not see things the way I see them. The second, very important information not available to Justice Maha was that the Shi’ites’ desperate protests since 2015 were calling for the release of Sheikh El-Zakzaky, who was detained despite several court orders. Surely that is important?

In the wake of last Friday’s banning order, Shi’ites, the Presidency, lawyers and some other groups made statements which highlighted the convoluted nature of the matter at hand. IMN’s Abdullahi Musa said, for example, that the Shi’ite sect in Nigeria is not a registered organization that can be banned. “We practice religion. It is Islam we practise and nobody will ban us from praying under the law.” This is a strange argument. The fact that IMN existed as a large, very conspicuous organization for many years without bothering to register with the Corporate Affairs Commission [CAC] says something about its intentions. Organized religion must be registered; I suspect all this country’s numerous churches and organized Muslim groups are registered with CAC. How else can they open bank accounts, register property, sue or be sued, or seek police protection for their activities?

IMN’s lawyer Haruna Magashi also said the sect will go to court to oppose the proscription order, and that it is a religious organization that has the right to practise its religion. I think practicing a religion as an individual is one thing but if it must be done through an organization, the law expects that group to be registered, for very good reasons. IMN’s adroit exploit of the courts to press for its constitutional rights also conflicts with some of its activities, such as blocking highways, generally disrespecting authority and its open contempt for the military and the police.

Unfortunately, our policemen are not the best trained, the best equipped, the best motivated or the best commanded in the world. Decades of clashes with IMN members has imprinted in the minds of Nigerian security agents that the Shi’ites are enemies of the state and should be dealt with using maximum force, not minimum one. Last week’s killing of DCP Umar is likely to aggravate that feeling. Otherwise, there is no justification for using firearms on protesters even if they block roads and cause massive traffic jams. Or, hauling wounded men and women into detention cells without medical treatment. Or even, refusing to release a man from detention when a court so ordered, only to “respect” a court order to detain the same person!

Equally convoluted was human rights lawyer Femi Falana’s reaction to the IMN ban, which he described as immoral and illegal. Falana said it infringed on the fundamental right of the Shi’ites to freedom of religion as constitutionally guaranteed. That is to stretch the facts because the ban clearly does not stop the Shi’ites from praying, fasting, paying zakat, going to hajj or holding any beliefs they like, no matter that their theological doctrines are regarded as repugnant by the Sunni Muslim majority.

Falana also said proscribing IMN, which the Kaduna State government earlier did in 2016, will not prevent them from continuing to operate any more than the 2017 ban of IPOB stopped its members from continuing to operate in the South East. This is a strange thing for a lawyer to say. The fact that stealing, fraud, robbery, rape, kidnap and 419 still take place in Nigeria even though they are illegal, does that mean we should decriminalize them since we cannot effectively stop them?

Not only the police, Shi’ites and Falana but the Presidency also made convoluted arguments on the Shi’ite matter. Presidential spokesman Garba Shehu was quoted as saying “El-Zakzaky is in the custody of the Kaduna State government. They are trying him in court for several alleged offenses. Federal Ministry of Justice is not in this. President Buhari has no hand in it. The Constitution of Nigeria does not give the President power to stop investigation and trials. He can pardon upon conviction. This whole thing is in the domain of Kaduna State.” How can that be when the Army that first shot at the Shi’ites, DSS that detained El-Zakzaky for three years without charging him to court, police that struggle to disperse Shi’ite protests and the Solicitor General that sought the ban order, are all federal agents?

I think the only non-convoluted approach to this issue last week was that of the House of Representatives which called for a resolution of the Shi’ite dispute and set up a committee to try to do so. To the extent that our security agencies are already overstretched and the Shi’ites could be driven by desperation to go underground and to take up arms, forceful response by the government may not be the wisest option in this matter. It would be better to engage in very wise dialogue to get El-Zakzaky out, end the street protests and secure a firm commitment from IMN that in future it would operate strictly within the law.