Amid the crisis rocking the Northeast region by virtue of the Boko Haram insurgency, the pig-headed opposition by Northern leaders against the announced extension of emergency rule by President Goodluck Jonathan, which gravitated into outright display of animosity in the Senate and the National Conference Committee on Security, is a national embarrassment and pointer to the fact that Northern leaders are yet to imbibe statesmanship in the midst of collective suffering. Opponents of extending emergency rule, including Islamic scholar Sheikh Abubakar Muhmud Gumi, argue that the extension would bring more hardship to the people of Adamawa, Yobe and Borno States without ending the insurgency. Even as a public relations gimmick, this doubtful assertion by leaders of a region embroiled in a debilitating crisis is laughable and should attract no further comment. At the moment, ending the insurgency ought to remain the main pre-occupation of the President, who has the constitutional responsibility to protect Nigeria and Nigerians from all enemies, both domestic and foreign.
Emergency rule was first imposed on in the three states in the three North East States of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe in May, 2013, extended in November, 2013 and was to expire on May 15. Citing the deteriorating security situation, President Jonathan issued a proclamation extending the emergency rule. He requested the National Assembly to approve the extension in the best interest of peace and security in the affected states, arguing that “without that the security operatives in those places would be so frustrated.” The proposal passed the House without much ado but hit a snag in the Senate, which deferred debate and consideration of the President’s request until after the Minister of Defence, Aliu Gusau, the Inspector General of Police as well as the National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, and all the service chiefs had briefed the lawmakers on the security situation in the three states. The Upper Chamber based its decision on a technicality – the President’s proclamation for the extension was yet to be gazetted and circulated. This kind of delay tactics is unwarranted and unacceptable.
The Senate decision came after Northern leaders meeting in Kaduna under the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), in a statement by its Secretary General, Col John Ubah – a former military administrator of Kebbi State – expressed strong reservations over the extension. “We caution that the request before the National Assembly to approve the year-long state of emergency declared in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa States be considered against its impact so far, which can only be described as disastrous.” AREWA noted that in the three years prior to emergency rule in 2012, the combined casualty from the insurgency in the three states was less than 1500, but sky-rocketed to 2700 in one year of emergency rule. “It is not clear to the public why the violence has been escalating since the imposition of the state of emergency on those three states,” AREWA said, adding: “if we counsel against the continuation of emergency rule, we are only being guided by our ugly experiences thus far.” Similar sentiments were expressed by Alhaji Muhammadu Gambo Jimeta, former inspector general of police and co-chair of the national conference security committee; and Senator Ahmed Lawan of Yobe North, who both argued that emergency rule has outlived its usefulness; dismissing claims by the government that extending emergency rule was the best option to tackle the insurgency.
Honestly, the opposition to emergency rule by so-called Northern leaders is unhealthy for a nation in distress. The Nigeria of today needs all hands on deck. It is a claim of crass ineptitude to say the state of emergency has outlived its usefulness. This is cheap political grandstanding and for Northern leaders to descend to such self-serving and shameless obstructionism, especially at this time when the nation is in a state of mourning and sober soul-searching, is the height of insensitivity and sheer dishonor for the dead and families of victims of the Boko Haram carnage. In the judgment of an average sense of decency, this action; at a time Nigeria stands to benefit from international goodwill in the war against the insurgents is a moral weakness of asinine proportion. This absence of stately comportment displayed by Northern leaders, who by authority and common trust ought to be leading the fight against Boko Haram, is highly disturbing. It appears the federal government and the northern leaders are working at cross purposes, because they should be calling for a full military deployment to the states. Granted that emergency rule has not stabilized the region as the situation has rather been compounded by the counter insurgency operations of the military, including human rights violations, restriction of movement, molestation of innocent citizens, extra judicial killings and burning of schools.
Having said that, the opposition to extending emergency rule at this stage raises certain posers: what is the alternative plan proposed by Northern leaders to end the insurgency, assuming they have a plan? When? Who prepared the plan? Were there consultations and input from stakeholders? Is the plan predicated on the subsisting security situation in the area, or in anticipation of ending emergency rule? Again, what is the timeline for implementation? What about the budgetary provisions? Is there a budget for their plan? How much will it cost? Who approved it? What is the source of funding? It is clear that the opposition to extending emergency rule by northern leaders is an act of bad faith which raises more questions than answers, and heats the polity unnecessarily.
Northern leaders must be told in whatever language they understand that the Boko Haram insurgency is a threat to national security and an external aggression that amounts to a declaration of war against the Nigerian people. At this crossroads, all quasi-ideological boundaries and partisanship barriers should be put in abeyance to further the cause of national unity. Nigeria is greater than any political party, group, person or position. It is a denigration of the collective spirit and a negation of the inviolability of the Nigerian people, for northern leaders and politicians to continue blaming the federal government and conducting themselves in such shameless and indecorous manner, while Nigeria bleeds and burns.
