IPOB members
Popular
Nigerian writer and columnist, 'Fisayo Soyombo addresses the recent
labeling of the Indigenous People of Biafra as a terrorist organization
by the Federal Government.
These are interesting times. We’re entering an interesting, new
journalism era when newspaper editors will cast simple headlines but the
public will nevertheless be confused. “Troops kill 14 terrorists in
Plateau,” a headline could read. And readers would wonder: What kind of
terrorists? Were they Biafra terrorists or Boko Haram terrorists? It
could soon happen that we find our ourselves using the word ‘terrorism’
with the same ordinariness with which we do ‘armed robbery’. For that,
we have ‘almighty’ President Muhammadu Buhari to thank.
Buhari’s crush-or-kill disposition to agitation was what the
Defence Headquarters banked on when it hastily designated the Indigenous
People of Biafra (IPOB) a terrorist group, before proceeding on a
confusing and embarrassing volte-face, forcing Tukur Buratai, the Chief
of Army Staff, to claim that the Army’s “pronouncement” was misinterpreted.
“You have to get it very clear,” Buratai said in that bizarre about-face. “First
of all, what the Defence Headquarters did was to make pronouncements.
It wasn’t a declaration per se. But this has given room for the right
step to be taken.”
It also gave out the administration as one whose well-documented
disregard for the law is not accidental. The initial uproar about the
DHQ’s declaration was that it was illegal but the illegality has now
been corrected with the proscription of IPOB by an Abuja Federal High
Court. Therefore, the contentiousness of that declaration is no longer
about legality but now about propriety. Are IPOB members indeed
terrorists?
The 14 acts of terrorism:
Section 2 of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 as amended is very
clear in its definitions of what constitutes terrorism: “act of
terrorism” means an act which is deliberately done with malice,
aforethought and which:
(a) may seriously harm or damage a country or an international organization;
(b) is intended or can reasonably be regarded as having been intended to—
(i) unduly compel a government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act;
(ii) seriously intimidate a population;
(iii) seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political,
constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an
international organization; or
(iv) otherwise influence such government or international organization by intimidation or coercion; and
(c) involves or causes, as the case may be—
(i) an attack upon a person's life which may cause serious bodily harm or death;
(ii) kidnapping of a person;
(iii) destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport
system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a
fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or
private property, likely to endanger human life or result in major
economic loss;
(iv) the seizure of an aircraft, ship or other means of public or
goods transport and diversion or the use of such means of transportation
for any of the purposes in paragraph (b)(iv) of this subsection; *
(v) the manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or
use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical
weapons, as well as research into, and development of biological and
chemical weapons without lawful authority;
(vi) the release of dangerous substance or causing of fire, explosions or floods, the effect of which is to endanger human life;
(vii) interference with or disruption of the supply of water,
power or any other fundamental natural resource, the effect of which is
to endanger human life;
(d) an act or omission in or outside Nigeria which constitutes an
office within the scope of a counter-terrorism protocols and conventions
duly ratified by Nigeria.
(3) An act which disrupts a service but is committed in pursuance
of a protest. However, demonstration or stoppage of work is not a
terrorist act within the meaning of this definition provided that the
act Is not intended to result in any harm referred to in subsection (2)
(b)(i), (ii) or (iv) of this section.
Of these 14 infractions that constitute terrorism, IPOB, as a
group, violated only three: C(iii), C(iv) and 3. Importantly, all
violations did not come until the army released pythons to the
south-east. Of these 14, Nnamdi Kanu breached at least 10. Had the
court, on FG’s prompting, declared Kanu a terrorist, it would have been
hard to fault the move, judging by the scale of hate preached by the
IPOB leader, his call for the boycott of next month’s Anambra
governorship election, and the way he continuously incited his followers
to shed blood for the actualisation of Biafra. But any declaration of
IPOB itself as a group of terrorists is an overkill, especially when
this government has turned a blind eye to more dangerous groups.
The real terrorists:
How on earth can IPOB members be terrorists when notorious killers,
the herdsmen, have no such designation? We are talking about a group
that was named in 2015 by the Global Terrorism Index as the fourth
deadliest terror group in the world. Only Boko Haram, ISIS, and
al-Shabab were deemed deadlier than this nomadic group of militants. In
2013, they killed around 80 people in total, but by 2014 the group had
killed 1,229 and 847 in 2015.
“The little-known group, formed of individuals from the
semi-nomadic, pastoral ethnic group Fula people existing across several
West African nations… operates in Nigeria and parts of the Central
African Republic,” The Independent wrote at the time. “As much as 92
percent of their attacks target private citizens, reflecting the group’s
primary concern over the ownership of farmland. Each attack claims an
average of 11 lives, with the largest known in April 2014 killing as
many as 200 people after a group of the militants targeted community
leaders and residents during a meeting in central province Zamfara.”
This group is, in fact, guiltier of terrorism than Nnamdi Kanu.
But, sadly, all Buhari thinks of them is that they are a “criminal
gang”, as evinced by Garba Shehu, one of his spokesmen, who said last
week: “There is a difference between a criminal activity and a terrorist
activity. Yes, some Fulani herdsmen are a criminal gang and they are
being dealt with according to the law. But IPOB, like Boko Haram, has a
territory they have carved out to themselves.”
If IPOB members are terrorists, what do we say of militants in the
delta, particularly the Niger Delta Avengers, who actually did terrorize
Nigeria by freely bombing oil installations, consequently plummeting
oil production capacity, which in turn lowered the country’s crude oil
earnings. The Avengers made Buhari’s opening months in office hell,
costing Nigeria $7 billion (N2.1 trillion) between January and October
2016, according to the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).
Although they ticked at least 10 of the 14 offense boxes listed in the
Terrorism act, the Avengers were not designated as terrorists. After
realizing the futility of military crackdown on the bombers, he resorted
to peace talks between representatives of the government and the
militants, followed by the payment of outstanding monthly stipends to
militants. Since then, the Avengers have left vengeance to God!
From the Avengers, Buhari must have learned that force will always
be trumped by dialogue; the surprise is why he won’t handle IPOB in a
similar manner. By overseeing the proscription of IPOB and its
declaration as a terrorist group, Buhari has managed to trivialize
terrorism — a truly serious offense — to the realms of thuggery and
armed robbery. Tomorrow, should the rest of us hit the streets in
protest of an unfavorable policy, we could easily be marked down as
terrorists. In case anyone is in doubt, the amended Terrorism Act
prescribes up to death as punishment for terrorists. The makers of that
law must be holding their heads in their hands, knowing this wasn’t the
original plan.
***
Written by 'Fisayo Soyombo
0 comments:
Post a Comment