Boko Haram, amnesty and expensive joke from the creeks (I)

Aliyu Musa

The recent amnesty proposal for members of Jama’atu Ahlus Sunnah Lid-dawati wal Jihad, otherwise referred to as Boko Haram, was clearly a failure waiting to happen. And its outright rejection by the group may not be the worst thing to happen to the whole plan. It could be more serious than that.

In a previous commentary I warned that unless the right thing was done any such plan would not work. To refresh our memory, I stated:

“The matter is too complicated for some simple political statements. It would, therefore, require a comprehensive framework that would take into account the root causes and proffer real solutions; consider the plights of the victims and adequately make provisions for them, especially those who have lost family members and/or properties (as well as businesses) in attacks directly or indirectly linked to the crisis; and make a full recommendation of what to do with those implicated.

“As dialogue would pave the way for reconciliation and a major test here is whether those indicted or imprisoned, some of whom the sect is insisting they be released, would be told to go home and sin no more. If that happens, the reactions of their victims’ loved ones should also be considered. A foundation for healing and genuine reconciliation needs to be planned well in advance. There is no alternative to peace and real peace only comes with authentic sacrifices on both sides” (see Blueprint Newspaper of Feb. 1, 2013 http://blueprintng.com/2013/02/boko-haram-ceasefire-if-wishes-were-horses/).

The suggestions above are as valid today as they were then. As a student of conflict resolution I dare say that no real solution can come out of an offer that is hastily planned and implemented without seriously considering its immediate and long-term implications.

When the late President Umaru Yar’adua offered amnesty to the restive groups in the creeks it was doubtlessly a temporary solution, perhaps to allow oil companies’ activities in the Niger Delta. No serious plan was made to address the problems that actually led to the restiveness, like environment pollution and the absence of development in the host communities etc. Thus, individual thugs were handsomely paid to keep the peace. It possibly did not occur to the government that the real trouble was only procrastinated, as it has turned out today.

Amnesty offer should not be the first thing. It should be next to dialogue. But dialogue has its own risk. A side that is routing its rival would be unwilling to negotiate unless it will happen in its own terms. And in such a situation it ensures most of its original demands are met. It might concede a few of those if pressured and/or if it foresees a bigger danger ahead.

At the moment the Boko Haram does not feel so pressured to want to accept an amnesty from a government it repeatedly said it does not trust. Nor does it feel so threatened to want to beg for a safety valve in the form of a dialogue.

Conversely, it considers itself the stronger party and one to dictate what happens next. This much its leader Sheikh Abubakar Shekau has claimed time and again. In rejecting the latest offer he said they have done no wrong to be offered a reprieve. Rather it is they who should grant the government an amnesty.

So, what it means in plain language is that the government is in a weaker position to dictate the terms of settling the conflict. The writing has always been on the wall, clear enough for anyone to see, but the government failed or pretended not to read it.

The bigger trouble is that we never learn from history and keep going round and round the same problem. That is why anyone can pick up arms and terrorise the society and expect compensation in return. Perhaps this also explains why some thugs in the creeks are threatening to unleash terror on the Muslim population from next month. The incentive is money, which many of them were paid but they have possibly squandered and now badly in need of it.

The trick – a very naïve one though – is to threaten another bouts of violence, exert further pressure on a weakling president and, soon enough, money will flow.

Postscript:

This piece was first published on Friday April 19, 2013.