Boko Haram And State Of Emergency By Ugochukwu Raymond

goodluck-jonathanIn what has been described by some as a bold and pragmatic move, President Goodluck Jonathan – on Tuesday night – declared a state of emergency in three crisis-torn states of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa, all in Nothern Nigeria. The call by some Nigerians for such a strident measure had become more intense, especially, in the wake of the escalating orgies of mindless butchery of innocent lives, including those of security forces by the riotous terror group, Boko Haram. Just as President Jonathan pointed out in his speech, the brazenness with which Boko Haram has evangelized its gospel of terror has stretched beyond tolerable bounds and has plunged the sovereignty of the country in grave jeopardy.

Beyond the appearance of pragmatism and firmness as portrayed by the President’s declaration, it is imperative that I raise certain issues which, hopefully, will assist us in our judgement and rationalization of the prevailing situation. To this end, I raise a fundamental question: what is special about this state of emergency as was declared by President Jonathan?

To an uncritical mind, the speech of Mr President on the declaration of a state of emergency in three Northern states might sound as a novel, untested initiative that could possibly resolve the nagging security crisis in the North. What most Nigerians might have possibly forgotten is that on Saturday, December 31, 2011, President Jonathan rendered a speech declaring a state of emergency in 15 Local Government Areas in four states of Nothern Nigeria where there are endemic activities of terror groups, namely: Borno, Niger, Yobe and Plateau.

The President had remarked in his 2011 speech that “while the search for lasting solution is on-going, it has become imperative to take some decisive measures necessary to restore normalcy in the country especially within the affected communities. Consequently, I have in the exercise of the powers conferred on me by the provisions of section 305(1) of the constitution declared a state of emergency in the following parts of the federation…”

One year and five months after this declarative speech by Mr. President, what has been the level of respite from the stranglehold of Boko Haram? To what extent has such declaration translated into greater sense of security for ordinary Nigerians and even security personnel in the Northern region of the country? On the contrary, Boko Haram had – within that period – gone to hell in a hand basket while Nigerians are transfixed by the sheer wizardry with which the terror group had carried out its heinous carnage. Against this backdrop, does this latest pronouncement of a state of emergency in three Northern states offer any prospect of a new and reassuring remedy for the maddening violence and instability in the North, beyond the notion that such a speech represents a monotonous rehearsal of the one made in 2011? I doubt so.

One striking oddity of the President’s state-of-emergency declaration is the retention of the political architecture as presently constituted in those affected states. Flowing from this, the governors of these states and other political office holders are to be duly accommodated under the new dispensation. Indeed, such a hybrid policy of dislodgement by accommodation creates certain contradictions which inevitably portrays the emergency declaration by President Jonathan as half-hearted and one that is driven by tokenism and cosmetic appeal.

On the face value, the necessity for the sustenance of democratic institutions in those Boko Haram-infested states might appear to be a plausible and seductive argument. However, such considerations cannot be divorced from the sad reality of a war situation which prevails in most parts of the Northern region. At such, it is doubtful if we can really talk of democracy or even sustain the pretence of its existence in a state of war. More so, when the supposedly democratic leaders and governing class of these states – including the governors, lawmakers, religious and traditional leaders and out-of-power elite are fingered as notorious apologists and sympathizers of Boko Haram, it becomes problematic – if not defeatist – to fight terrorism under their entrenched leadership. In the final analysis, the latest declaration of emergency in the troubled Northern states will only translate to one thing: deployment of military personnel on the streets of the affected states; a state of affair that is already prevalent!

The climate of insecurity, and especially the Boko Haram crisis, has grown so real and so pernicious that its resolution requires nothing short of a whole-hearted approach. The looming anarchy in the land requires that Nigerians rally round its leadership to confront and surmount the forces of darkness threatening ominously to drive the country into extinction. The tendency to trivialize (and politicize) issues of national security – as recently displayed by ACN in which it insinuated that a state of emergency would give PDP an undue political advantage – should be seen as an ill-wind that blows nobody any good.

Above all, government must demonstrate decisiveness in the fight against terror by ensuring that sponsors of Boko Haram – including high-profile individuals in government circles – are duly unmasked and prosecuted for their perfidy. Countless number of terror suspects routinely arrested by security officials must be seen to have been prosecuted and punished according to the laws of the land for their crimes. A situation where daredevil murderers are being courted for compensation by the Nigerian state through a phony “amnesty” is not only bizarre but will only fertilize the culture of violence and embolden the terrorists to become even more sinister and daring in their onslaught against the Nigerian state and its people. And this is precisely what has happened.