Rejoicing and commiserating with Dapchi parents

Aliyu Musa

With the parents of the 105 Dapchi schoolgirls, who were released this week from the Boko Haram dungeon after one month in captivity, do I rejoice. And to the parents of the five or four girls whose return will never be because, as some of the girls recounted upon their return, they have lost their lives, I offer my sincere condolences. Regarding the case of Leah Sharibu, the lone Dapchi schoolgirl still held, I am deeply saddened and pray she comes back to her parents very soon, hale and hearty.

The Boko Haram insurgency has affected many of us, some directly and many others indirectly. I have personally paid a price. One of my younger siblings, Auwalu, was shot and killed by the group in Damaturu in September 2012. It was a time when many people needlessly lost their lives either because the insurgents attacked and killed them or soldiers tackling the insurgency either directly killed or indirectly caused their death.

On the day Auwalu was killed, according an eyewitness account, he was in a stall in the Damaturu main market and attending to a man who was apparently on the insurgents’ hit list. The insurgents had trailed the man and when eventually they cornered him they made sure whoever was with him did not survive. As soon as Auwalu and the man were shot everyone fled the market because it was the safest thing to do, otherwise soldiers would arrive and take away everyone and eventually brand them Boko Haram members or sympathisers. And because it happened just before sunset no one came back to the scene of the shooting until the next day.

His corpse was found many yards away from where he was shot, suggesting that he tried to get some help but gave up the ghost after losing plenty of blood at some point in the night. If people had not fled he, probably, would have got some help and, since it was destined he would die anyway, he still would have died but, maybe, not in the kind of agonising way it happened. So, I have been personally affected by the insurgency, like many people, although mine may not be as torturing as the experience of the Dapchi or Chibok or any parents whose child was taken away and put in captivity.

However, I have always argued that the manner in which situations like this are handled do not help the fight against the insurgency. In a previous write-up titled ‘Between Chibok and unworthy victims’ (October 24, 2016) I pointed out that the high-profile status campaigners have assigned the poor girls is responsible for the stakes the insurgents often raise before releasing them. And because the present and immediate past regimes wanted to use the girls’ matter to raise their approval ratings, they were more than willing to allow such campaigners to pressure them into negotiating the release of the girls at any price.

But more worrying was (and still is) the nonchalant attitude of the authorities to the plights of other captives, many of whom are young schoolgirls like the Chibok or Dapchi victims. What makes the other victims different is that no one has been actively campaigning for their release and that is why the government would not consider it a priority to get them back to their families.

When Lear Sharibu’s release was botched at the last minute, according to one of the girls, she was asked to go back into where two other women (captives) are held. The women are, most likely, Nigerians and as much victims as the girls. But even now it is very unlikely that their release would be negotiated and this is because they are, unlike the girls, unworthy victims whose return would bring no political capital.

Any observer of the Boko Haram insurgency would have noticed how it metamorphosed, over the years, into a lucrative venture accruing millions of dollars with which weapons and drugs are procured and more foot soldiers are recruited to sustain the insurgency. Starting with the handsome reward of £3 million that sealed the deal that handed back a French family of seven its freedom in 2013, the various factions of the group have since realised that they could circumvent the blockade imposed on their foreign and other sources of funds. And kidnap for ransom has been an excellent alternative.

In an analysis two years ago I stated: “In one of my previous analyses of the sect’s change of modus operandi I argued that due to the urgency to sustain the insurgency at all cost the sect resorted to three types of abductions: high profile abductions to demand ransom from victims’ families; abduction of young women, especially, to serve as insurgents’ brides and domestic servants; and abduction of young men that are conscripted to swell the ranks of the sect’s foot soldiers.

“All three categories of abductees are citizens of Nigeria whose situations deserve equal treatment. The ‘200+’ Chibok girls are in a category and should not have eclipsed others!”

But, clearly, government policies show that some of the abductees are more important than others.

Despite allegedly paying millions of dollars to characters supposedly acting on behalf of the insurgents in order to secure the release of the Chibok girls, the Goodluck Jonathan regime was not successful. But the Muhammadu Buhari regime has, so far, got back 103 of the girls in two batches of 21 and 82. And in return, as some reports have claimed, the government parted with €3 million and swapped five captured insurgents.

Again, despite the huge outrage the abduction of the Dapchi schoolgirls brought on the Buhari regime, the anger has since subsided following the release of the girls. That the girls are back, except Leah and the four or five dead, is major cause for celebration. But the price at which their release was negotiated is what should worry every Nigerian.

Although, at the minute, the government says it paid nothing and made no concessions to the insurgents, it is very unlikely that any of the factions, whether Shekau or al-Barnawi’s, as desperate as they are for money and any lifeline, would part with something it considers a prize trophy for nothing. The girls were taken away for a reason. And, unless, that point has been clearly articulated and achieved, it would be totally out of character for the insurgents to simply let them go. Otherwise, they would not have taken them away in the first place.

So, while we welcome the girls back and hope for the return of Leah and the other abductees either on the priority list of the government and campaigners or not, we should remember to brace up for a more intense and longer insurgency. This has always been the case: each time similar deals were reached in the past the insurgents came back fully reinvigorated to fight. And the prices were always costly. Hopefully, it might be different on this occasion.

This article also appears in the Blueprint newspaper of Saturday, March 24, 2018.