Rejoinder: IMN and Justice Garba inquiry

News that the Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba Commission of Inquiry on the December 2015 Shi’ite/Nigerian Army clash in Zaria has ended public hearings raises hope that we shall soon get to know why and how that terrible tragedy occurred and also how to prevent a recurrence. One particular positive aspect of the Commission’s proceedings is […]

News that the Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba Commission of Inquiry on the December 2015 Shi’ite/Nigerian Army clash in Zaria has ended public hearings raises hope that we shall soon get to know why and how that terrible tragedy occurred and also how to prevent a recurrence. One particular positive aspect of the Commission’s proceedings is the multiple opportunities it extended to the  Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN) to participate in the proceedings. The Commission even waded into the detention of the movement’s leader Ibrahim El-Zakzaky by facilitating access to him for his lawyers when such access was touted as a condition for them to participate. That the IMN rejected all entreaties and failed to come before the Inquiry was therefore contrary to the best effort of the Commission to give it audience.
This observation is raised in response to the publication by one Abdulmumini Giwa captioned “Re: Shocking Revelations Of Army/Shi’ites Clash” which appeared on page 44 of the Daily Trust edition of April 29, 2016. Ordinarily, a group like the IMN which has been in existence for so long as a minority member of the Islamic community in Nigeria but has nevertheless attained a profile that cannot be ignored should be actively interested in promoting such profile and even more so in defending itself against the unavoidable controversies, misinformation and criticism which minority groups routinely encounter.
Such advocacy and clarification is best conducted through engagement with the general public as well as known rivals and antagonists at every opportunity to be heard in keeping with the principle of fostering mutual understanding for sustainable co-existence. For the IMN, this responsibility ought to have assumed more urgency particularly in the face of rising tensions and widening scope of conflicts with the “outside world”. It should have been a top priority especially in the aftermath of the latest unprecedented killings of members and attacks on facilities.
It is therefore difficult to understand the apparent zeal with which Abdulmumini Giwa went about  building a case against the IMN taking advantage of the Lawal Garba Inquiry to tell its own story in order to protect and defend the group’s obviously endangered reputation and existence in its hour of need. Due emphasis should be made on the repeated admonition by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba on the singular sanctity of upholding and availing the right to fair hearing to all concerned parties as a basic foundation for the pursuit of facts in the administration of justice, each time he gave more time to get the IMN to appear before the Commission. Whatever the weight of the IMN’s objections as compiled by Abdulmumini Giwa, it cannot obviate the importance and impact of IMN stating its own side of the story at a public hearing before a judicial commission of inquiry instituted to unravel the Zaria Tragedy and proffer deterrent measures. A public hearing is the surest  way of obtaining the facts direct from concerned parties for public record that is validated by the audience in attendance and from which the Inquiry’s final report will be derived. The twin issues of fair hearing to all parties  and public hearing of all testimony constitute a formidable armour against any infringement of justice or manipulation of evidence as feared by the IMN.
The issue of the authority establishing the Commission and the related possibility of “remote control” should also not be stretched beyond reasonable reservation. The bottom line is that governments are best suited to setting up an inquiry of yjis nature. From the logistics to the legality on which the Inquiry will depend to perform its duties effectively as well as the implementation of decisions, there is just no functional alternative. For example, which other authority could have ensured the appearance of military top brass at the ongoing inquiry? Interestingly, it was the Lawal Garba Inquiry that  first unveiled the shocking number of casualties(347)and the bizarre midnight mass burial at Mando, Kaduna which were shrouded in mystery and purported to be covered up.
The Commission’s proceedings were also seen to be guided by terms of reference which charge it “to determine the immediate causes of the clashes, examine the historical circumstances and contributory factors of the clashes,” “ascertain the number of persons killed, wounded or missing during the clashes“ and  “identify the actions of persons, institutions, federal and state actors, and determine whether such actions were necessary, appropriate and sufficient in the circumstances in which they occurred”. It had visited all the relevant theatres of conflict and related locations including the Hussainiya, the Dambo premises and the remains of the IMN leader’s residence in Gyellesu all in Zaria as well as the site of the mass graves in Mando, Kaduna and heard from relevant officers of the Nigerian Army, Police, DSS and other agencies .
In view of these candid comments from a regular observer of the Commission’s proceedings, the public may have a clearer picture of the unfortunate implications of the IMN’s abstention from the Inquiry which far outweigh Abdulmumini Giwa’s  attempt to justify it.  At the end of the day, posterity will lament the group’s decision not utilize the golden opportunity to let the world know the whole truth about the December 2015, Zaria Tragedy.
Mudi wrote in from Hayin Banki, Kaduna.