Responding to Boko Haram’s atrocities

IF, as stated in Section 14 of the 1999 Constitution ‘the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government…,’ then, with specific regard to the Boko Haram atrocities lately, the All Progressives Congress (APC) government headed by President Muhammadu Buhari has a lot of catching up to do to fulfil this constitutional obligation to the electorate.

The point must be quickly made that in fairness, it is a government in power for less than two months and no one should expect that a national wound that has festered for several years can be healed overnight.

Nevertheless, given that the incoming government was fully aware of the seriousness of the situation and indeed expressed its firm determination to confront and defeat Boko Haram, it is not unreasonable to expect that, in the least, both the killing and the field would first be contained. It is regretful that so far, this is not so.

Since the change of government on May 29, the insanely murderous Boko Haram terrorist group has killed by different means, an estimated 640 people.   From its usual theatre of destruction in the three north-eastern states of Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe states, the extremist religious group has done two things different from the past: it widened its areas of killing and changed tactics from one of pitched confrontation with security forces and the control of a swathe of the Nigerian territory, to the use of harmless-looking   suicide bombers against soft targets.

In the first week of July alone, at least 241 ordinary persons going about their ordinary, honest-to-God businesses in mosques, churches, and restaurants have been killed by Boko Haram-sponsored gunmen and suicide bombers, including women.

And these frightening incidents took place in as wide an area as the Borno State towns of Monguno and Kukawa through Kano and Kaduna, Zaria townships to Jos in Plateau State.  Quite clearly, the   Boko Haram group has become more daring. This is not acceptable for the reason that it is contrary to the yearning of Nigerians for a change that the APC promised.

It is admitted that the APC manifesto did not state in clear and specific terms how it would   tackle the terrorist scourge. It merely committed itself, under the general heading of ‘National Security’, to ‘establish a well-trained, adequately equipped and goals – driven Serious Crime Squad to combat terrorism, kidnapping, armed robbery, militants, ethno-religious and communal clashes nationwide’.

But both as presidential candidate and now as President, Buhari has been more categorical and forceful. Saying at an interview in Daura that he ‘felt terribly embarrassed that for six years the Nigerian military couldn’t   bring order to 14 local governments out of the 774…in the country’, the then candidate vowed that ‘God willing, with our experiences, we will quickly marshal support and we are asking Boko Haram to pack and go’.

In his inaugural speech he described ‘this evil’ Boko Haram as ‘a mindless, godless group who are as far away from Islam as one can think of’ and he envisaged a time when ‘the group is subdued’.

Buhari’s person, background, and utterances give Nigerians reason to believe that a man has come who appreciates the nature and the seriousness of the problem on the one hand, and how to combat it on the other.

The military has been ‘fully charged’ to move against the terrorists and part of the new strategy is to move the high command close to the theatre of engagement, which apparently explains the change in tactics by the group. So the Commander -in- Chief, his forces, and Nigerians must know that we have a different kind of war on our hands.

Since Islam is a religion of peace that also values and promotes knowledge, it is pertinent to ask: What does Boko Haram really want?  Its claim to reject western education is wishful thinking for many reasons that include one, that western form of education is a large beneficiary of Arabo-Islamic education, and two, globalisation relentlessly fosters a free flow of idea, knowledge and other cultural manifestations far beyond the capacity of any one to stop.

If Boko Haram seeks to convert people by fear, force and murder to its peculiar form of the faith, then its strategy is severely flawed. If its aim is to islamise the whole of this pluralistic Nigeria, it is a doomed project. Boko Haram is containable because it lacks a clear and defined grouse or a well reasoned argument for it; it is even unable to present to the world persons directing its affairs and positioned to speak or negotiate with full authority on its behalf.

The activities of the terrorists are doing unquantifiable damage to the northern part of this country. But most terrible and saddening is the fact that its activities are reinforcing the underdevelopment of the area.  Education is fundamental to development, and as it suffers in the north, the human capital that was never adequate for the tasks on the ground is further depleted by mindless killings and closure of schools.  It bears repeating that leaders in the northern part of the country are not speaking up loudly enough, nor are they doing enough to confront Boko Haram.

But they must not at all allow ‘this evil’ to frighten them into silence; the man dies in him who fails to speak up in times like this. But more generally, Boko Haram is a clear and present threat to not just a part, but all of Nigeria.  President Buhari’s government and his party must galvanise all segments of society against it; all resources of the nation must be marshalled in a transparent manner to subdue it.