Why insecurity persists in Nigeria

On the basis of vicarious liability which in law, refers to the blame a leader bears on behalf of his team, it is rational to blame our numerous security challenges on our over-all leader, President Goodluck Jonathan.  But since the security challenges are getting more severe and spreading as well as biting harder by the […]

On the basis of vicarious liability which in law, refers to the blame a leader bears on behalf of his team, it is rational to blame our numerous security challenges on our over-all leader, President Goodluck Jonathan.  But since the security challenges are getting more severe and spreading as well as biting harder by the day, the direction of the blame game is probably too simplistic and narrow.   A more realistic analysis of the unending nature of our current insecurity, is likely to show that there many other leaders that are blame worthy concerning the subject
Let us start from the home base of today’s problem. The Boko Haram sect that is generally understood to be behind the problem is a northern based Islamic group. This puts our Northern Elders in the best position to find ways of reconciling the sect with the rest of the nation. Instead, the elders have kept distancing themselves from the problem by telling the world that the sect was breaching some of the tenets of Islam. What is the relevance of echoing such a sermon when more people are dying daily especially in the North as a result of the insecurity posed by the sect’s operations?  Some of the leaders are also engaged in rationalizing the situation by reminding us that another aggrieved group-the Niger Delta Militants, were earlier better handled under an amnesty programme. But when the militants were causing insecurity, critics accused leaders of the Niger Delta area of doing nothing to call their people to order. So, if today’s blame game is properly situated, our northern elders cannot escape blame for being unable to call to order those causing insecurity in their part of the country.
In the South, some overzealous Christians were among the first to dissuade government from using dialogue to solve the current anarchy when it was just starting. Their philosophy was that no one negotiates with criminals. Which pays the nation better, negotiating to halt further damage or keeping to a philosophy that sees several citizens becoming daily victims of bomb blasts and abductions? The greatest pain is that the philosophy which the leaders canvass is only designed to show them as loyalists thereby keeping them in the good books of government.  In other words, the pro-establishment stance of different religious leaders is purely for materialistic gains. This is also true of members of traditional institutions particularly those who pay frequent solidarity visits to government. Alas, the solidarity visits have not stopped the daily killings of our people.
This column remains as convinced as it was some two years back when it argued that the religious undertone in our polity is caused by the undue patronage which Christian and Muslim leaders get from government. To stop religion from being a tool of dismemberment, the nation needs to revert to a secular status in accordance with our constitution. This is because the current notion in government circles that secularity means being fair to the so-called two main religious groupings is wrong. To say Christian and Muslim prayers at the beginning and end of every public event lacks secularity. To build churches and mosques in government houses and offices is not part of secularity but merely a sign that the two religions are being made official in breach of the clear demand of Section 10 of our constitution which says that “The Government of the federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion”.
Religion being a personal matter, government ought to abolish all Pilgrims Welfare Commissions and stop sponsoring citizens who occasionally travel to other people’s territory which they call holy land just to pray. Obviously, religious extremists who perpetrate disturbances in the nation will not relent because they are over pampered by government. Of course, to remain in the favour of government they would endorse every government policy while refusing to frown at what goes wrong. This posture has been an alibi for public officials to engage in several somersaults in government policies. For example when government first set up a committee to dialogue with Boko Haram, the Chairman of the Committee, Usman Galtimari reportedly called on the leadership of the sect to embrace dialogue with the assurance that all their rights and privileges would be granted.  But when the committee was eventually inaugurated, government warned it not to negotiate with the sect but “to create a forum whereby every person who has suggestions on a way forward will, without restriction, reach out to the committee with ease”.  
Some sycophants had helped government to argue that it could not negotiate with a faceless sect.  If so, with whom were we refusing to exchange some detained crime suspects with our precious Chibok girls?  Put differently, is the popular perception across the globe that former President Obasanjo has held meetings with some Boko Haram negotiators a fairy tale? Again, was Youth Development Minister Boni Haram dreaming when he called on Boko Haram members to embrace a “non-existent” amnesty package so as to enjoy the “series of integration programmes lined up for those who surrender their arms and embrace peace”?  
Long ago, a former Head of State, Chief Ernest Shonekan opined that the spate of violence being unleashed on the country would abate when government engaged the sect in meaningful dialogue.  He was supported by President Alassane Ouattara, of Cote d’Ivoire who suggested that the activities of Boko Haram should be addressed with utmost caution adding that the only solution to the problem was dialogue. This position appears superior to that of check points which keeps traumatized citizens in several traffic hold-ups in certain locations where there had been bomb blasts. Painfully this can only exacerbate the people’s sense of insecurity.  For God’s sake, when will this trauma end when our main opposition party is playing politics with the delicate subject?