History could be made at anytime and by anyone
irrespective of status or background. But it’s only brought to the public
sphere when made by a remarkable figure. Notwithstanding, it’s noteworthy that
a historic event could be commendable or condemnable.
On
Friday, 23rd March 2018, the Nigeria’s sitting President, Muhammadu
Buhari made an obvious history. In the period in review, the number one citizen
disclosed his plan to grant amnesty to members of the dreaded Boko Haram sect
who were ready to drop their arms and embrace peace. By that avowal, he has
become the first political leader across the globe to consider granting amnesty
to a terrorist confraternity.
President
Buhari, who revealed the plan at the Presidential Villa, Abuja while receiving
the abducted Dapchi schoolgirls released on Wednesday 21st March
2018, stated that his administration had thought it wise to extend pardon to
the members of the Boko Haram who were truly willing to repent of their evil
deeds.
Our inability to aptly define the Boko
Haram’s activity is unequivocally the reason we could react wrongly. Years back
when the sect was noted as an insurgent group, I personally decried the
description. In consequence to the outcry, I categorically did a piece
informing that the said sect was rather a terrorist group.
Perhaps our actual plight is inability
to contrast between insurgency and terrorism. The former is the act of carrying
out a just cause, though might involve the use of firearms or any form of
weapon; whilst, the latter is simply the activity of brutally fighting against a
certain government or the citizenry without any justifiable purpose.
The rudimentary difference between insurgency
and terrorism is that the former is often necessitated by a just motive whereas
the latter isn’t. Something that is ‘just’ is rational and fair. Hence, if you
are into a fierce physical battle that isn’t justifiable, it is simply
terrorism; it suffices to say that you are a terrorist, because you are
unleashing terror unto the people’s existence for no just reason.
For instance, the Niger-Delta militancy
could best be described as insurgency. The militants are insurgents owing to
the fact that they are fighting because they felt maltreated or marginalized by
the government. You would notice that each time they stage any combat, they
only concentrate on properties or establishments owned by the Nigerian state, rather
than directly unleashing violence on the people as it is done by the Boko
Haram.
In
a nutshell, terrorism and insurgency are two parallel lines that possess no
meeting point. The persons involved in either cause have no similar ideology
with those carrying out the other. So, making effort to equate the Boko Haram’s
activity with that of militancy is uncalled for. War should on no account be
equated with rebellion. Read my lips.
Since inception, the Boko Haram have murdered
millions of Nigerians, maimed thousands as well as displaced countless of
dwellers. On their part, the militants have mainly succeeded in vandalizing our
common patrimony; nevertheless, this equally negatively affects the lives of
the citizenry but it is on record that no direct mayhem is usually cast on
them. Although no sane and rational being is expected to advocate for the
prevalence of militancy, it’s worthy of note that the prime purpose of the cause
is arguably just.
Besides,
we are not unaware that the Boko Haram is a faceless group. No one knows the
real identities of the individuals involved in the cause, or where actually
they are coming from. Thus far, whatever identity they have been crowned with
remains a mere speculation. In other words, no one could authoritatively state
what or who they represent.
Hence, thinking of granting amnesty to
the Boko Haram members isn’t unlike treading without caution, which is
apparently unwholesome for the country at large. Amnesty, according to BBC
English Dictionary, is a “period of time during which people can confess to a
crime or give up weapons without being punished”. One may ask; which real
terrorist would be willing to confess to crimes committed by him/her, or truly
accept defeat?
Someone
might claim to have repented of his or her sins but in the real sense, is up to
something more deadly. This is the reason the Presidency must have an urgent
rethink as regards the proposed move. We can’t consider having a talk over
repentance with a group whose actual identity is yet to be revealed. Unless
there’s something we aren’t being told.
It’s, however, mind-boggling to realize that
this is coming from a government that vowed, on its assumption to
duty, that all forms of terrorism would be tactically crushed headlong. It
becomes more disturbing and saddening when acknowledged that it came just a few
weeks after the army boasted that the Boko Haram had been completely defeated.
How do we reconcile these?
With all due respect, as Mr. President
thinks in this weird direction, I deem it fit as an activist to disabuse him of
the impression that the Boko Haram is an insurgent sect, and not terrorist.
Think about it!
Comrade Fred Nwaozor
Executive Director, Docfred Resource Hub (DRH) - Owerri
__________________________________
Twitter: @mediambassador
No comments:
Post a Comment