Cover, Featured
The proscription of the Shiites group as a terrorist group has been condemned and some Nigerians described it as dictatorial. They urge the government to address the concerns and grievances of all ethnic groups through dialogue as opposed to the use of military force. And until the federal government begins to obey court orders and respect human rights, there will be no end to agitations to the misrule of the government
By Anayo Ezugwu
The decision of the Nigerian government to proscribe any agitating or protesting group in the country as a terrorist group is not sustainable. The government had in the past proscribed the Independent People of Biafra, IPOB, and the Boko Haram sect, but it has failed to yield the desired results. The recent proscription of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, IMN, fondly called Shiites Movement, may not be the solution to the agitations of the group.
Though the group has temporarily suspended its protests in Abuja, following the court order and subsequent proscription by the federal government, it may regroup in no distance time if the government fails to release Ibrahim El-Zakzaky, its leader and his wife. Even the National Human Rights Commission, NHRC, believes that silencing or suppressing the group will not end the issues they are agitating for.
The NHRC, therefore, called for dialogue between the government and Shiite. A statement by Lambert Oparah, director, corporate affairs and external linkages, NHRC, quoted Tony Ojukwu, executive secretary of the commission, as warning that the crisis could degenerate into monumental human rights and humanitarian crises if not handled peacefully. “The executive secretary reiterated the commission’s call on the government and the leaders of the Islamic Movement to consider dialogue as the best option in this conflict.”
Unless the government dialogues with the group or better still releases El-Zakzaky, it will be a wishful thinking for the government to assume that by proscribing Shiites, the agitation will disappear. If the President Muhammadu Buhari-led administration hoped that all it needed to do to douse the tension was to outlaw Shiite, it should remember the experience with IPOB in 2017 and Boko Haram in 2013.
Since the proscription of IPOB on September 18, 2017, the group has not relented in its agitation for an Independent State of Biafra. It has gone from strength to strength mostly with the reappearance of Nnamdi Kanu, its leader.
The group had on May 30, this year observed a sit-at-home in the five southeast states to commemorate the fifty-first anniversary of the Nigerian Civil War. The exercise like in 2017 and 2018 recorded relative success with the group recording more than 80 percent compliance in the region. This year, the observation was recorded beyond the five south east states.
Even cities in south-south states like Delta, Rivers, Bayelsa observed the sit-at-home order. The group has gone ahead to print international passports for Biafra Republic and created states comprising the old eastern region. Today, IPOB has branches across the world and using social media effectively to galvanise support among the younger generation.
Likewise, on June 4, 2013, former President Goodluck Jonathan officially declared Boko Haram a terrorist organisation. On that day, the president approved the gazetting of an order declaring Boko Haram activities as acts of terrorism.
The order, which was gazetted as the Terrorism (Prevention) (Proscription Order) Notice 2013 affected both Boko Haram (Jamaatu Ahlis-Sunna Liddaawati Wal Jihad) and Jamaatu Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan. The order was approved by Jonathan in pursuant to section 2 of the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2011 (As Amended).
When it was proscribed in 2013, Boko Haram was just four years into violent attacks on the country. By then, it had effectively established itself in northeast part of the country. But today the group has teamed up with order terrorist groups on the continent and is one of the most dangerous terrorist organisations in the world.
Despite the fact that Boko Haram had perpetuated a lot of violence to deserve to be prohibited, the group became more deadly after it was proscribed. According to available statistics more than 27,000 people have been killed and two million others displaced by Boko Haram insurgency. Also, the United States of America estimated that Boko Haram and ISWAP have been responsible for over 35,000 deaths since 2011.
With this alarming figure, it is not clear what benefits accrued to the country from the decision to proscribe Boko Haram. It neither weakened nor degraded the insurgents. Rather, the decision appeared to have strengthened the resolve of the group to unleash violence on the country.
This is actually the fear of many concerned Nigerians that if proscription did not stop agitation from IPOB and violence from Boko Haram, it is an illusion to assume that it will stop the agitations by the Shiites.
It is pertinent to note that Boko Haram and Shiites share common ideologies unlike IPOB, which is not a religious group. But the former groups believe in Jihad.
This similarity raises fears that the Shiites could provide a potentially serious security challenge for the country that is already dealing with the threat posed by Boko Haram, Fulani herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers, among others. But the movement itself has denied any plans to take up arms. In the past, Ibrahim Musa, a spokesman for the Shiites, rejected analogies between his movement and Boko Haram.
“The Islamic movement is guided by and led by the principles of Islam, and Islam is a religion of peace. It only calls on people to understand it, it doesn’t force people to follow it,” he said.
But, Boko Haram also began as a non-violent group that turned deadly after its leader, Mohammed Yusuf, and more than 700 people were killed in a clash with Nigerian forces at Maiduguri’s Central Mosque in 2009. However, in reality, there are major differences between Shiites, IPOB and Boko Haram.
To classify them as the same as the government has done is a mistake. Shiites and IPOB might have caused civil disobedience, but not violent. In contrast, security agencies had consistently used excessive force against them.
Be that as it may, the proscription of separatist groups in the country has now come to a stage where dialogue alone will not be enough to solve a problem, which has assumed international dimension. While the decision of President Jonathan to outlaw Boko Haram received the support of the international community, Nigerians and the international community do not share the Nigerian government’s views on Shiites and IPOB.
Cardinal John Onayeikan, Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, described the proscription of the Shi’ites movement by the Federal Government as an error. What this meant, Onaiyekan said, is that other religious beliefs in the country are under threat as the government could simply obtain a court order and proscribe them.
He said this while speaking to journalists in Abuja on the programmes for the celebration of his 50th priestly ordination and the launch of a book in his honour titled, ‘Thy will be done: A portrait of John Cardinal Onaiyekan.’ The cleric said Nigerians must press the government to respect the rights of religious groups to exist and operate in the country.
“That right should be given not only to the Catholics, the Sunnis, the Anglicans and other groups, but also to the Shi’ites. My hope is that having made that blunt mistake, the government will reverse itself because the impression the Shi’ites proscription gives about Nigeria around the world is terrible.
“It portrays us as a country where government can wake up one day, get a court order from nowhere that particular religious group is proscribed. If we allow that to go, it means Catholics and my own religion too can be prescribed any day by any government, which manages to get any judge to issue an ex-parte or non-ex-parte order,” he said.
In his reaction Femi Falana, SAN and human rights lawyer, described the proscription as immoral and illegal. He said the proscription of the Shiites for protesting against the disobedience of court orders by the federal government is immoral and illegal in every material particular. He made reference to how he secured an appeal court ruling in favour of President Buhari and his party when they were still in the opposition and were being intimidated by the state for protesting.
“In 2003, General Buhari and other members of the defunct All Nigeria Peoples Party held a rally in Kano to protest the rigging of the 2003 General Election by the Olusegun Obasanjo regime. The rally was violently attacked by the police on the ground that the ANPP leaders did not obtain police permit.
“On the instructions of General Buhari and other ANPP leaders, I challenged the disruption of the rally and the legal validity of police permit for rallies and political meetings at the federal high court. The case was won by the ANPP. Apart from condemning the violent disruption of the rally by the police, the court declared that police permit for rallies was illegal and unconstitutional.
“The appeal filed against the judgment by the police was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. In fact, the Justices of the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the right of Nigerians to protest against the policies of the government is part of the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the proscription of the IMN for the demonstrations of the Shiites against the disobedience of court orders by the Buhari regime is immoral and illegal in every material particular,” he said.
Likewise, Mike Ozekhome, SAN and human rights lawyer, described the declaration of the Shiite movement as a terrorist group as unconstitutional on the grounds that a religious group could not be banned. He said proscription was a violation of the rights of the members of the group guaranteed under Sections 38, 40 and 41 of the Constitution.
“The Constitution is ruthlessly being shredded by an intolerant and overbearing civilian dictatorship. The Shiite group is a religious group, like the president’s Sunni group. It is not an association that could be banned. Section 10 of the Nigerian Constitution makes Nigeria a secular state,” he said.
But the Muslim Rights Concern, MURIC, backed the government on the proscription of the Shiites. The group described the action as a move to strengthen peace and harmony in Nigeria. MURIC added that the proscription of Shiites would prevent Nigeria from battling with another security threat like Boko Haram.
Prof. Ishaq Akintola, director, MURIC, in a statement, urged the Iranian government not to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign country, Nigeria. “MURIC considers the proscription of IMN as a decisive and necessary action. Nigerians, who sincerely want to see peace and stability must, therefore, give the Nigerian government a free hand on this. Boko Haram would not have festered so badly had former President Goodluck Jonathan taken action when he should.
“It is also our considered opinion that members of the civil society and individuals defending the Shiites are not looking at the larger picture. The Federal Government has more comprehensive information. Civil society must ponder over Shiites ideology, which rejects the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and all constituted authority within the country, including traditional rulers,” he said.
Irrespective of the divided opinions over this issue, the federal government must begin to address separatism agitations in Nigeria. The government needs to address the concerns and grievances of all ethnic groups through dialogue as opposed to the use of military force. Unless government takes some form of action to understand the concerns of these groups and obey court orders in national interest, it risks perpetual agitations from separatist groups across the country.
– Aug. 2, 2019 @ 19:39 GMT |
Tags: Why proscriptions will not end group agitations in Nigeria
