The Shi’ites-Military clash
THE backlash from civil rights organisations and other groups over the bloody clash between soldiers and members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria, has only pointed to the necessity to view the incident first as a matter of national security, more than anything else. The clash resulted in the death of 62 persons in Zaria. It is as well that the Kaduna State Government is planning a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the incident; even as the Senate ad hoc committee also probes the causes of the clash. It is perhaps alarming that the Iranian government promptly reacted to the clash, criticising the Army’s action. Against the backdrop of recent Shi’ites’ protests in the Middle East, Nigeria should exercise care not to be drawn into that region’s religious politics.
Troops in the convoy of the Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai clashed with Sheikh Ibrahim El Zakzaky-led Shi’ites, who had reportedly blocked the road, denying the army chief thoroughfare. The ensuing commotion led to an altercation between the Shi’ites and the soldiers, who reacted according to their “rules of engagement.” Lamentably, scores of persons were killed.
Without prejudice to the outcome of the impending inquiry, one lesson of the confrontation is that although the Shi’ites, like any other group has freedom of association and movement, the exercise of that freedom ought not to be at the expense of other Nigerians or groups. Along with others, even President Buhari has urged the group to be law abiding and peaceful in its activities. Whatever may be its motive in setting up its reported roadblock, it is always unwise to disrupt the movement of the Army, not just because it is a constituted authority, but also because of the likelihood of such disruption being construed or misconstrued as an attack.
Nevertheless, despite the explanation of the Nigerian Army Public Relations Officer justifying the soldiers’ reaction to the Shi’ites, the Nigerian military need to pay greater attention to civility, particularly when dealing with the general civilian populace. What, for instance, does ‘Rules of engagement’ connote to civilians in a non-combat setting?
Beyond the debate over personal rights and civility, it is pertinent to wonder whether the clash does not signpost a deep-seated animosity between the sect and the Nigerian state. Does the clash suggest a compromise of state security or a violation of the territorial integrity of Nigeria? These are some of the posers needing resolution by the inquiries.
There seems to be little dispute on whether the Army Chief was in danger following the disruption of its entourage. And it is implausible that soldiers, whose duty it is to protect the country’s sovereignty, would permit its foremost officer and aide to the Commander-in-chief to find himself in a ridiculous circumstance in which he has to negotiate with his ‘captors’ for a truce to ensue. Had the army chief been killed, would Nigeria be the same? How will other countries treat a similar threat?
Nigerians, individually or in groups, should not commute constitutional freedom into a licence for recklessness and lawlessness. Rather, they should respect their institutions and organs of state, which are established in the first place to safeguard the freedom and rights of people.
The Iranian government and people’s reaction to the incident is rather provocative, because Iran abused diplomatic protocols by summoning the Nigerian ambassador in Tehran over the incident. This is besides the series of protests carried out by Iranians at the Nigerian embassy in Tehran, Iran’s capital. The country ought to allow the benefits of Nigeria’s position before throwing its diplomatic weight on the matter and consequently portraying the Shi’a movement or the Islamic Movement of Nigeria as representative of Iran’s official power projections.
That the Nigerian government needs to exercise caution against being enmeshed in Middle East sectarian rivalry is underscored by the fact that on Saturday, Saudi authorities executed popular Shi’ite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, amongst other Shi’ite activists, for alleged incitement against the police. The execution has pitched Shi’ites in the gulf region against Sunnis, with foreseeable incendiary consequences. Nigeria does not need the Iran and Saudi Arabia clash to play out in the Shiite El Zakzaky-Nigeria Army incident.
Iran should also be careful against harming its friendly relationship with Nigeria, along with their bilateral interests ranging from power, trade, to agriculture and education.
As for Sheikh Ibrahim El Zakzaky, who is now in police custody for questioning, the Nigerian authorities should be mindful of his pain of losing, in less than two years, four sons and scores of devotees in clashes with agents of the state. While it is incumbent on the sect leader to respect the Nigerian state as a sovereign entity, law enforcement agents similarly must not take the laws into their hands or mishandle the crisis. History has taught this country that, right from the Maitatsine to Boko Haram, every fatal mishandling of a sectarian leader has resulted in a monstrous post-mortem development of his sect.
Get the latest news delivered straight to your inbox every day of the week. Stay informed with the Guardian’s leading coverage of Nigerian and world news, business, technology and sports.
1 Comments
The Iranian intervention is provocative to say the least, no matter what has happened, Nja is NOT a banana republic, and the people involved in the incident are ALL Nigerian citizens, the last time I checked!
We will review and take appropriate action.