Why Northern politicians were embittered by my Phantom Crescent -Malam Shehu Sani

Well, it is quite unfortunate that the play I wrote which I named the Phantom Crescent has generated so much controversy. And one thing I always learn from people who criticise books is that they hardly read that book. Probably, they pick portion of it and suddenly turn a cat into a tiger. I wrote […]

Well, it is quite unfortunate that the play I wrote which I named the Phantom Crescent has generated so much controversy. And one thing I always learn from people who criticise books is that they hardly read that book. Probably, they pick portion of it and suddenly turn a cat into a tiger. I wrote the play to sensitize, educate and enlighten the citizenry on how they can defend and protect their fundamental human rights, in case of any attempt by people who want to hide under any ethnic or religious garb to subvert or undermine their rights as enshrined in the constitution of the country. But some saw it as an opportunity to give a dog a bad name in order to hang it. So, what they simply did, was to exaggerate the whole idea of that book and to twist it to suit their own motives, intentions and goals they wanted to achieve.

The book is not meant to be sold, but simply a play I wrote to sensitize the public about their undeniable constitutional rights. It was evidently clear that from 1999 to date, there were individuals that have found it as a past time or a means of preserving their relevance in the society by using religion to further their interest.

Yes, religion can be used in socio-economic and religious transformation of a country. It can also be used to undermine and destroy the society. We have seen how religion has helped the people of Iran to advance socially, politically and technologically. We have also seen, how religious monks, even in Burma, had stood by the side of the people in the defence of the ideals of democracy though they were suppressed. We have seen how nations, like Indonesia, were able to carry their faith and the ambition of building their country; how they were able to tally the two.

But, in our own part of the country, religion has been used by the political elites to always further their own end. The clerics are biased. When preaching to the rich and the powerful, they legitimize their ill-gotten wealth, they legitimize their stature; they encourage them to give alms and keep their loots and also promise them paradise.

 When they are preaching to the poor, they emphasize on loyalty to the authority. They threaten the poor with hell fire. They encourage fatalism, submission and surrender.  They illegitimize any form of resistance against oppression and injustice. They illegitimize any form of protest. They neutralise any attempt by the poor to stand of in defence of their rights. Even from the point of religious propagation, you can see how religion has been used to protect private property and the bourgeoisie in our society; and, how it has also been used to ensure the perpetuation of master-servant relationship, slavery and domination.

That book is simply to send a clear message that there should be a clear cut difference, and people should understand that between politicians who sought for public office and who have four and eight tenure and a spiritual leader.  A politician is there to serve the interest of the people and he can be questioned; he can be held accountable; he can be criticised and people have the right to protest against him. And they must not allow that type of person to wear the garb of religion to defraud them, to neutralise them or to go against them.

So, that play has both a message to the elite and also an inspiration to the common man. People who swore by the constitution of the country and who madepromises when elected, must not use religion to shield themselves from the oath which they have taken and the promises which they have also made. And, I have also made it very clear in the play, that people must not be deceived. Governors, who are Christians in the North are in the habit of not building roads, not providing basic water services, building hospitals; they are in the habit of sponsoring hundreds of persons to pilgrimage to Israel.

And, on the other hand, governors on the side of Muslims have portrayed themselves as semi-deities and spiritual leaders. And questioning their authorities, policies and programmes is being perceived as questioning the religious injunctions and orders which they portray themselves to represent. And these are all issues which some of us felt are wrong. And it has become so cancerous that any attempt by any individual to raise objections to issues like these could be categorised as being blasphemous. We have seen in the last six- seven years how an opposition politician in Zamfara State, was categorised as threatening the Sharia simply because he questioned the policies and programmes of the governor. We have seen cases whereby a labour union of a state that was simply agitating for the increase of salaries of their own workers was categorised as being blasphemous.

So, we were almost nearly living in a society where you can’t raise questions and hold your leader accountable even in a democracy.  My play was simply meant to create that enlightenment. But, it was given a different interpretation. Subsequently, I was taken to court and the Sharia Court vindicated me, saying that what I was saying was simply an enlightenment campaign. But that was not the judgement those who took me to court wanted.

But you are accused of undermining the Sharia legal system, by prompting and providing financial support to those convicted by the Sharia courts to appeal their judgements. Not too long ago, you were involved in freeing some people whose hands were billed to be amputated by a Sharia Court in Zaria. That development had generated much controversy. How true was it?

Well, I think what people should understand is that we are human rights activists. And human rights activism is compatible with the rights of any individual in any religion. It is our duty to ensure that citizens, when arrested, are being given a fair trial. They are also being given a right to be heard and that due process is followed in their trial and their conviction if there was. And we provide legal aids to those who requested us to provide for them. And, why we do that is not just to free people who have committed offence, but to give them an opportunity of legal representation to hear their own case. If a person picks a gun and shot another person, it is not all murder.  It could also be manslaughter if there is an element of provocation in it.

So, all we have done by our intervention, is simply to provide a legal defence for those who can’t afford it. We did that to Fulani herdsmen who were accused of letting off their herd to eat up the crops of farmers. We have also done it for people whose lands were forcibly acquired by either government or by other developmental agencies. We have also intervened in the cases of the victims of Trovan test in Kano, conducted by Pfizer.

And, for those persons you mentioned in Zaria, our own intervention was borne out of the need to reach a conclusion. These six people were arrested and kept in Zaria prison. They were not tried and they were not freed. They were there for over two years. The government at that very time, don’t want to convict them because they were fearful of what may come out of it. And they don’t want to release them because they were fearful of what the clerics would make out of that situation. They were simply made helpless victims. And, we filed an appeal in a Sharia Court and the Sharia Court freed them. So, it is not that the human rights body went to the prison and brought them out. We went to the normal Sharia Court and they were freed. And many people don’t know that you can get justice in a Sharia Court just like you can get it in a common court. So, it is all the same thing.

 As a human rights activist, how do you assess the country’s decade-long uninterrupted democracy, particularly, in terms of human rights and rule of law?  

The 10 years of our experience under a civil or democratic rule is not to be categorised as un- interrupted. In fact, it could be said to be a decade of series of interruptions of our democratic experience. By saying uninterrupted, it means we have a government which we freely and fairly elected, which conforms to democratic derivatives, principles and standards which also reflect the interests of the people in its policies and programmes and of which people are also prepare to lay down their lives in the defence of it. A government should have a leadership that is credible and people-oriented.

But, we can see that these 10 years was a period of interruptions. It is in the sense that the past eight years was characterised by series of contempt for democratic principles, contempt for the constitution, contempt for respect for fundamental human rights and contempt for the people. It was also characterised by disobedience of court orders, dismissal of trial judges and reinterpretation of the judgement of the Supreme Court. We have also seen series of manipulated impeachments of state governors and the use of the anti-corruption crusade to persecute perceived and imaginary enemies of the last administration.

We have also seen a clear case of violations of separation of powers, we have seen cases of the last administration’s refusal to implement budgets to the latter and spending out of budgetary allocations. We have also seen cases of denial of freedom to Nigerians, whereby the apparatus of the state, was used against the free media. We have also seen how the state security apparatus were used against peaceful coexistence and most importantly, we have seen how elections were conducted as if we are in North Korea or we are in countries that have no respect for democratic institutions. So, we can say that the last 10 years was a period with series of interruptions in that sense.

What we are having now is a government that outwardly is democratic but their origin and conceptions was something that came from a certain cartel who are holding onto political power since 1999. So, the legitimacy of the government since 1999, has always, come into question the way and manner the governments come into place. You can’t be a councillor, a member of State Assembly, a senator, or a governor except you are in the good books of some people, irrespective of your potentialities, capabilities and capacity. What exactly are you talking about then?