Minister Pantami: Forgiveness on whose behalf?

The Presidency’s backing of communications minister Dr Isa Pantami, even after his admission of past utterances have received condemnation. The Minister purportedly “apologised” that his utterances were made back in the day when he suffered from  “youthful exuberance”. He claims that these days he is more matured, and knows better. That of course, is debatable. […]

The Presidency’s backing of communications minister Dr Isa Pantami, even after his admission of past utterances have received condemnation. The Minister purportedly “apologised” that his utterances were made back in the day when he suffered from  “youthful exuberance”. He claims that these days he is more matured, and knows better. That of course, is debatable. While he professes to have outlived his past, his detractors believe a leopard cannot change its spots.

There is widespread fear that he is only recanting previous statements in order to use his ministerial position to further an un-recanted agenda. The brouhaha highlights the chasm in perception between the Presidency and ordinary Nigerians. Presidential spokespersons berated Nigerians for being “too harsh and unforgiving” because the minister was a “young man” at the time, and has now expressed remorse. That is not true, he only expressed “regret”. Regret has to do with wishing you hadn’t taken a particular action. .Remorse involves admitting one’s own mistakes and taking responsibility for one’s actions. It creates a sense of guilt and sorrow for inflicting hurt. He has neither expressed remorse nor repented. Repentance is a key requirement for forgiveness. It’s not as simple as saying sorry, when it’s to your advantage to do so.

Opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP) spokespersons derisively comment that since the All Progressives Congress (APC) is fully committed to forgiving youthful exuberance and remorse,  the imprisoned Umar Abdulmutallab who is “remorsefully” serving four life sentences plus 50 years for detonating a bomb on a plane when aged 23, qualifies to be an APC nominated minister on the grounds that; “na small pikin dey worry am dat time!”

Expressing mere “regret” does not negate criminal culpability. In a democracy all citizens have equal rights. If youthful infractions deserve to be forgiven, then government should look benevolently upon all youthful law breakers such as armed robbers, petty thieves, cultists, “yahoo” boys, sexual predators, etc who express regret! The salient point is that under Nigerian law accused persons below the age of 16 are tried in Juvenile Court, all others are legal adults.

The minister was legally an adult when inciting terrorism. It’s paradoxical and condemnable, that a regime which dresses itself in robes of law and order, defends a once pro-terrorist minister.

Regrettably President Buhari has dented his image by failing to  end terrorism, as he promised when campaigning. The electorate was convinced his military experience would enable him make Nigeria a safer, and more peaceful, nation. Alas, this hasn’t been the case. Instead Nigerians are now traumatised by government’s defence of its ineffective and inappropriate policies and actions. There is a glaring duplicity about Minister of Information Lai Mohammed’s constant rants condemning hate speech, while presidential spokespersons urge Pantami’s forgiveness.

Section 4 of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2103 states that people who attend or participate in meetings, or activities, connected with acts of terrorism, have committed a punishable offence. Section 5 of the Act further states: “Any person who knowingly, in any manner, directly or indirectly, solicits or renders support for the commission of an act of terrorism, is liable upon conviction to a sentence of not less than 20 years”. There is no expiry date placed upon prosecution of such crimes. Based upon available records, which he has owned up to, the minister has a case to answer.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that this administration only condemns in totality, hate speech which is against it, or its interests!

Questions are being asked as to how any citizen who vociferously and publicly supported terrorist groups and their leaders managed to scale screenings by Department of Security Services (DSS), and the Senate? The answers are lamentably simple. Firstly, people who are not qualified for high-profile public office, and are later embarrassingly exposed or even forced to resign, routinely pass DSS screening.

Secondly, Senate screening is a “rubber stamp” activity. Pantami’s “screening”  focused on his CV. He spoke for about 10 minutes  was showered with encomiums, and wasn’t asked a single question concerning his past activities or statements. Senator Danjuma Goje notably said he was “very proud” of the Minister Designate, and requested that he be allowed to take a bow and go!

In consideration of the presidency’s irrational plea for forgiveness, it’s important to understand what forgiveness is, and what it is not. Forgiveness is not an obligation. Although religious teachings tout the spiritual benefits of forgiveness,  neither Islam nor Christianity teaches that forgiveness should be offered unconditionally.

Islam is a realistic, practical and humanistic religion which recognises that it’s only human for people to feel hurt when they are wronged. It teaches forgiveness as a virtue not an obligation. There are many examples where forgiveness isn’t obligatory, including verses (Surah Ash-Shuraa 42:40) where those who are wronged are permitted to inflict equal and proportionate punishment.

As far as Christianity is concerned, the word forgiveness is frequently used, but never defined.  Even those fond of quoting the adage that Christians are supposed to “turn the other cheek” when slapped ( Matthew Chapter 5:39) will agree that it was never said the other cheek should be slapped also! To “turn the other cheek,” does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean Christian’s should place themselves or others in mortal danger. It refers to personal retaliation, not criminal offenses or acts of military aggression.  There is no such thing as “unconditional forgiveness”, as nobody forgives their transgressors with permission for them  to repeat the action. In truth forgiveness may make some people feel good, but vengeance makes most people feel even better! There can be no stigma attached to anyone who chooses not to forgive, but prefers to demand rightful punishment. The admonition of “an eye for an eye”, limits the level of vengeance which may be visited upon offenders.

Nigeria is a secular society in which the overwhelming majority of Muslims and Christians live together in peace and harmony.  Religious intolerance must be discouraged by all means. It’s shameful that powerless ordinary citizens of every religious persuasion and ethnic background, who simply want peace and mutual co-existence, helplessly endure the scourge of increasingly frequent, incited religious slaughter. They are under no moral obligation to forgive anyone who incites others to inflict harm as a means of furthering their political or religious agenda. They have every right to be offended by the very thought of such people being elevated into high office, remorseful or otherwise. Psychologists define forgiveness as a process that involves directly facing the hurt within oneself. The decision to forgive is intensely personal, and  it cannot be taken by those who were not harmed, on behalf of those who were.