That the incongruity called Nigeria is not working as presently constituted is a point of general consensus. Against this context, the protracted silence of President Muhammadu Buhari in the face of hydra-headed criminality and insecurity that has virtually taken over the country; is an implicit insulting and provocative act that betrays Mr. President as incapacitated and clueless; a man overwhelmed by the job and who simply has ran out of ideas or doesn’t know what to do about the challenging demands of his office. At the highest level of constituted authority in Aso Rock, the silence of the president to the dangerous drift of Nigeria into chaos and anarchy is deafening, notwithstanding the laconic statements of presidential aides speaking for the President. If the primary purpose of government as enshrined in the 1999 constitution is to guarantee the security and welfare of the citizens, if leadership is a trust, and the very first essence of leadership is service, then the failure of President Buhari in these respects is all too palpable. A nation rises and falls on its leadership. It is trite to say Nigeria is betraying its destiny and course to greatness and the blame is squarely on Buhari.
Going by his insensitivity and lack of reaction to multifarious incidents, including rabid insecurity plaguing the nation, charges of an Islamization agenda and ethnic cleansing and domination by the Hausa-Fulani, as well as the recent shooting of peaceful #EndSARS protesters at the Lekki tollgate, the president has been mum and relatively aloof of these incidents. The perception is therefore not misplaced, that Buhari’s silence on burning national issues is, in popular parlance, not golden at all. This, in itself, creates more despair among the populace as the attacks persist and succor is not in sight. It is such a desperate situation. At a time that tries the soul of Nigerians, silence is not a virtue in governance. At a time when not a single day passes without news of precious human blood being shed somewhere in Nigeria; at a time when innocent citizens are kidnapped, raped, murdered; at a time when homes are burnt and farms are destroyed with a regularity that is nauseating, President Buhari, the man Nigerians elected to protect their security and welfare contends himself with laconic messages expressing regret, commiserating with victims, and vacuous promises of firm action to bring the perpetrators of these heinous crimes to justice. He then falls asleep again, in the comfort of Aso Villa fortified and maintained at public expense. And when Buhari is compelled to speak; what does he say?
When the security situation had clearly gotten out of hand, following the repeated mass abduction of school children in different parts of the country, what the nation heard was a reported speech, through Malam Garba Shehu, the President’s senior special adviser on media; that Mr. President had ordered that any person found with an AK-47 rifle, should be shot on sight. This kind of glib talk not borne out of mental rigor exposes the president to charges of intellectual lazy-mindedness. Did Buhari really mean shoot to kill or shoot to maim and disable? Did he actually mean that a holder of an AK-47 wherever found should be shot dead? How are we to distinguish policemen who adorn tattered Jeans and T-shirts while flaunting their AK-47 inside Nigeria’s inner cities and on high-ways; or is the order intended only for those wearing turbans? Is the order limited to AK-47? What about AK-49 and deadlier machine guns menacingly flaunted by insurgents, bandits and Fulani herdsmen, on social media? Finally, to whom is the president’s order directed; the army, navy and air force or the police? What about Customs, and the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps?
Quite predictably, the presidential shoot-on-sight order was greeted with public cynicism and became the butt of jokes, with some of his confounded supporters denying he ever gave such an obnoxious directive. But as if to clear all doubts, as to the authenticity of the directive, last Thursday March 11, 2021, the Presidency released a 12 second video, wherein President Buhari at a meeting with the National Council of Traditional Rulers at State House, personally reinforced the directive, that anyone carrying an AK-47 rifle illegally, should be shot, because according to him: “AK-47 is supposed to be registered, and only given to security officials.” The President is right: banditry is new name for murderous Fulani herdsmen on the rampage with the confidence of who can stop us. They are well armed with AK-47 guns, grenade launchers, and vehicle-mounted guns and well supplied with ammunition. This is happening in a country where all arms are supposed to be licensed by the police; where indeed, the government had long ago ordered that such arms be surrendered. Having discounted suggestions that he misspoke or was quoted out of context, one question begging for an answer is whether Buhari’s shoot-on-sight order was constitutional or legal?
Chapter IV Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), protects the sanctity and right to life and guarantees the fundamental rights of citizens. According to Section 33 (1) every person has a right to life; Section 34 (1) every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person; Section 35 (1) Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty; Section 36 (1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing. The point to be made is that, there is in existence basic principles on the use of force and fire arms by law enforcement officers, which emphasizes proportionality, and mandates that the use of lethal force should be as an absolute last resort, and only when strictly unavoidable, in order to protect life. Placed by the above standards, President Buhari’s shoot-on-sight order, which provide the opportunity for law enforcement agents to shoot and kill at will, clearly has no basis in law. It is obvious the president was playing to the gallery of public expectations, but this order is an illegality that must not be allowed to stand. The famous dictum is that, even in times of war, the law is not silent, as there are laws of wars.
No matter the gravity of the insecurity situation, the law is that every citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction and can only be punished as stipulated in law. All Nigerians are exposed to danger, in a situation where the President by casual order confers powers of life and death to a policeman or soldier, who accuses, judges and executes punishment, in spite of the standard set in the law. Besides, Buhari has not declared a state of emergency under Section 305 of the Constitution; and were he to have done so, a formal proclamation will be necessary and the stipulations and preconditions outlined in the Constitution will be complied with; the duration will be as spelt out in the law, and the National Assembly would have to play its role in the process. This is not the case here.
The virtual war situation across the nation is at the root of the rising food scarcity: Boko Haram, banditry, kidnappings and raping of women in farms have together dealt a massive blow to food production. Following the killings and destruction in many parts of the country by Fulani herdsmen who allow their cattle to trample freely on farms, farmers have abandoned their farms. Even in parts of the south, villagers are being rendered into refugees, seeking safety and protection in smaller neighboring countries. Farmers have turned to beggars in refugee camps. There is, no doubt, that the tide of insecurity is dealing a big blow on food production in the country. What is happening in Borno and other northern states is gradually but steadily being replicated in the southern states, as farmers are being abducted, killed or driven away from their farms in Ogun, Ondo, Oyo, Edo states, among others.
No doubt, the security situation Nigeria is contending with at this time is grave, but the rational handling of the situation calls for circumspection and not knee-jerk reactions. As Buhari and his government muddles, wobbles, and fumbles, so will the fortune and fate of the Nigerian people and that of their country. This can be tragic not only for Buhari himself, but for the country he leads. Both the federal executive, led by the President, and national assembly have an onerous duty to amend the constitution to enable a change in the country’s security system. The present set-up is grossly deficient and would sooner than later only preside over an unpleasant disintegration of the country. Only those who still benefit from the current sorry situation will have the temerity to assert that all is well with the polity. Buhari must be told in whatever language he understands that, states must be allowed to take charge of the security of their domain, as a precursor to tackling the insecurity menace and achieving a lasting peace in the country.
