Matters miscellaneous

And in our case, that failure in the war to end the Boko Haram scourge may be due to incompetence, corruption or culpability; but whatever the case, it is inexcusable, and it is a concern—indeed, an anxiety—that is presumably shared even by the Senate. It was out of this anxiety that it called for the […]

And in our case, that failure in the war to end the Boko Haram scourge may be due to incompetence, corruption or culpability; but whatever the case, it is inexcusable, and it is a concern—indeed, an anxiety—that is presumably shared even by the Senate. It was out of this anxiety that it called for the declaration of war against Boko Haram. Which made you wonder what it was that they declared earlier on?
And the makings of an agenda began to show itself. The Senate president noted that the threat posed by the Boko Haram war would affect the 2015 general election. “There is no question of election, it is not even on the table now. We are in a state of war. All of us cannot carry guns to fight but we all have roles to play in bringing the situation to an end,” he said.
But if fighting this ‘war’ was of such moment and of sufficient emergency to the government, it wouldn’t have handled it with such lackadaisical abandon as elicited two mutinies within a year. At least, troops would have been properly kitted and rationed, air cover for ground troops on assault charges wouldn’t have been delayed, and more accurate bombardiers ought to have been deployed.
According to the Senate, Boko Haram has now gone beyond mere insurgency to a full-scale war against the Nigerian State; and for this reason therefore only a declaration of total war by the President would offer a sustainable solution to the menace of the group. But both the solution and the premise on which it is based are false. Boko Haram didn’t have to go beyond anything to constitute the challenge they now think can only be met by total war. From the beginning Boko Haram declared its non recognition of, and intention to establish an Islamic state, to replace the Nigerian State. If this is not a challenge to Nigeria’s legitimacy, perhaps the Senate can tell the nation what is.
Earlier, an Australian hostage negotiator had dropped a bombshell. In writing about Dr. Stephen Davis’, implicating former Chief of Army staff General Azubuike Ihejirika and Alhaji Ali Modu Sherrif, former Borno State Governor as sponsors of Boko Haram last week for instance, Trust columnist Jideofor Adibe got it right when he said he found “it preposterous that a Christian could be the sponsor of a sect with an avowed agenda of establishing an Islamic Caliphate.” But it was only right by half. He might as well have doubted the genuineness of the much-touted Boko Haram as much as he doubted Ihejirika’s involvement. But meanwhile right now, we all know that security agencies are or ought to be holding dozens of Christians caught bombing or setting fire to churches, incidents which had happened would have been blamed on Boko Haram—and as it were, the accusation would have been right, but not in the way planned or expected.
And just as Adibe found it difficult to accept Modu Sheriff’s culpability in the sponsorship of Boko Haram “as we know it today,” as he delicately put it, there were many who would accept the culpability of some people in power if motive, on the strength of which he exonerated Ihejirika, was the determinant of culpability. But a greater part of this obfuscation of the issues surrounding Boko Haram must also be borne by the media: one, apparently for taking sides in the absence of facts, a fact that by itself closes the mind of practitioners to many other things that ought otherwise to have been crystal clear; two, for unilateral and “multilateral” self-censorship and refusing to ask the right and relevant questions; and, three, for not deploying resources for investigative reporting and fact-finding tips.
After Davis’ revelations, there is certainly need for a proper investigation that once and for all will also address the veracity and tenability of the suspicion, long-held by a majority in the Muslim community, but with the reported alleged involvement of General Ihejirika its probability is only now being considered by others, that it may after all be the touted ethnic, anti-Northern and anti-Nigeria project directed by those who have taken the president hostage, and supported by foreign powers who have made common cause with them. And whatever happened, a Boko Haram, whether the one we know today or the one we didn’t know yesterday, would always claim responsibility for any outrage committed in its name; and quod erat demonstrandum.
And what Boko Haram underwent was not a radicalisation as such; it was a substitution—a replacement by infiltration. And as it is, anybody with an anti-Northern agenda could be its sponsor. It was in this sense that former Adamawa State Governor Murtala Nyako accused the Federal Government of its sponsorship. It was a charge that found echo in the calculation of many people in the North. And even the more charitable among them hold the government responsible, if only for refusing to do something decisive to end it.
And suddenly, a plane from Nigeria was caught with an undeclared $9.3 million on board in South Africa. And just as suddenly, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, who, until the Obasanjo famous letter to the president, had been most vocal in his support for President Goodluck Jonathan and most vociferous in his condemnation of the president’s perceived enemies, was back in the news.
Meanwhile, we must thank royal fathers of the Northern Traditional Rulers’ Council for finally coming out and together on the Boko Haram issue and putting the blame where it squarely belongs—on the government, whether for starting it or for failing to stop it. After the irreplaceable loss of thousands of lives, the displacement of almost a million people and the loss of property of incalculable value, and the ease with which cadres of Boko Haram operate sacking towns and villages, and, now, with its occupation of large swathes of land in the north-eastern part of the country, many had resigned themselves to the fate of a conquered people with no one to look out for them. Therefore, for them, in a way, this is a meeting that is coming almost four years too late but it is always better late than never.
However, many will find the language of the resolution of the royal fathers too soft, in a way that does not quite reflect the level of anger in the people of their domains. And to a large extent, the promptness and effectiveness of government response will depend on the level of the genuine concern and outrage that government sees in them. So, if it is true that they are billed for a dinner with the president right after their meeting, they will have inadvertently shot themselves in the foot; because it will almost certainly vitiate the outrage that is supposed to have brought them together in the first place; and the president will feel as if it is business as usual.
As royal fathers get ready to ask the president some presumably tough question on the issue of Boko Haram, a plane full of money was  caught in South Africa, and they aid it is on legitimate business; but this is not the way legitimate business is conducted. There is nothing legitimate about attempting to smuggle $9.3 million out of the country without proper declaration as required by the law, just as there is nothing legitimate in trying to smuggle—launder?—this money into South Africa. There is nothing legitimate in doing this with not with Nigerian public officers but with two unnamed Nigerians and an Israeli citizen. In the confusion to extricate the government or cover up whatever nefarious activity was involved, they denied that there was any Nigerian on board the plane, which in fact made it only more problematic, especially now that the government wishes to own up to it. It is welcome.
The money which was undeclared and above the legal limit permitted by South African law, was in found in possession of Eyal Mesika, the Israeli agent. Obviously, this is not the way governments and their security agencies purchase their weapons or helicopters. Such a purchase is often the result of bilateral agreements between the nations concerned; and even when approach is made directly to weapons manufacturers by foreign governments, approval needed to be given by the relevant government department.
Two years ago, a British-based man was arraigned in the UK over the illegal shipping of 80,000 rifles and pistols and 32 million rounds of ammunition to Nigeria. The shipment included 40,000 AK47 assault rifles, 30,000 rifles and 10,000 9mm pistols. According to a report by the BBC at the time, the man, whose name is Gary Hyde, shipped these huge arm cache without receiving permission from the relevant government department in the UK.
But if they said this particular one was legitimate, why did they have to hurriedly call a meeting of the president and the service chiefs that lasted over four hours. Tricky situations require tricky remedies and that needs time to plan. In the past, it was Andrew Azazi but he didn’t have to go out of the country because he had custody of the nation’s armoury. At that time he gave the arms to Niger Delta militants. And now to whom are they going to give? Dr Stephen Davis has mentioned Ihejirika; the plane now belongs to Ayo Oritsejafor; the money is handled by Eyal Mesika, an Israeli, and they are buying arms. But it is still all quiet on the Eastern Front. Just imagine what would have happened if the jet had belonged to the Sultan. Matters miscellaneous are matters mysterious because they are one and the same thing.