As Nigeria bleeds and burns, the unabated bombings and killings by Boko Haram terrorists, advertises the gross incapacitation and cluelessness of the Jonathan administration on how to end the insurgency. For victims’ families, the insult of an uncaring government practically deepens the injury of their loss. The indubitable truth is that insecurity has transformed into a hydra-headed monster; and the President does not appear to grasp the gravity of the problem his administration and the country currently faces. Many Nigerians now find no reason to believe this government has their security and welfare as its primary responsibility. What has been on display is a shameful reaffirmation of the low premium placed on citizens’ lives by the government whose prime duty is to protect them. President Jonathan must put an immediate end to this security challenge or risk a groundswell of popular anger and frustration against his government, which might resonate at the ballot box next year.
Nigerians of all works of life are alarmed at the scale of human and material destruction. Today, citizens live in the danger of being bombed to death by militants, whose desires are simply evil. Many have been victims and the phenomenon seems endless so much so that the country has become a huge killing field. The devastation to life and property has become a common sight in ways that seem to inure the population against the horror of death. Each time a bomb goes off, Nigerians shudder and government in its usual exculpatory self-delusion often claims it is on top of the situation and thereafter, goes back to business as usual. These terrorist acts call for deeper reflection about what Nigeria is not doing correctly and what should be done to curb and extirpate the insurgency. Indeed, the spate of killings is so embarrassing and has attracted the international attention with parallels being drawn between Boko Haram and the dreaded ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria.
While many may continue to ponder over government’s incapacitation, one thing is clear: the spate of bombings is now beyond the government, it is a Nigerian crisis and Nigerians must rise up to the challenge because the activities of Boko Haram are targeted at the existence of Nigeria as a nation. The intractability of the crisis, of course, indicates the government has not got its act right. The country is dealing with a wave of terror and even with the state of emergency in the three states – Adamawa, Borno and Yobe -overwhelmed by the insurgency; it hasn’t yielded the desired results so far. The insurgents have carried on as though there is no emergency rule and the climax was the abduction of over 200 schoolgirls from Chibok who remain missing. The graphic images of concerned, hurting and traumatized mothers, who took to the streets, to symbolically remind the government of its insensitivity and incompetence in rescuing abducted school girls, spoke volumes.
The tacky and inept response of the government to tackle the insurgency has been viewed as deliberate, giving credence to all shades of interpretations. Is the government genuinely interested in ending the insurgency? In 2011 the government set up the Usman Galtimari Panel, which recommended that known backers of Boko Haram be prosecuted. The panel warned that unless urgent steps were taken, Boko Haram would become a Frankenstein monster. On March 7, 2012 the Federal Executive Council (FEC) approved the White paper on the panel’s report, but over two years on, no action has been taken to effect implementation! Rather, the government sat on that report, exposing thousands of innocent Nigerians to their untimely deaths in the hands of Boko Haram. Recently there have been revelations on some alleged Boko Haram sponsors, including Nobel laureate, Wole Soyinka’s challenge to the President to prosecute a known Boko Haram lynchpin in the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), but Mr. President is yet to articulate a strategy to degrade and destroy Boko Haram. This is most unfortunate.
The declaration of a caliphate by Boko Haram in parts of northeast Nigeria, where the group has illegally seized towns and villages must rank as the height of the sect’s daring. This is a brazen attack on the Nigerian state. Not only has it questioned the operational capacity of the troops enforcing the state of emergency in the area, it is embarrassing to see the insurgents capture the northeastern part of the country, while the Nigerian military which has been giving the impression they are in charge, appears helpless. As the London-based news magazine, The Economist noted: “…soldiers in the north-east are suffering from malfunctioning equipment, low morale, desertions and mutinies…despite a large increase in government spending on the army, little of this largesse has found its way to the front lines: many of the troops fighting against Boko Haram have been paid late, or sometimes not at all. What other names can these scenarios be called, except such unflattering descriptions as ignominious, opprobrious and devastating to the otherwise formidable psyche of the average Nigerian, known for resilience and aplomb?” Obviously, troops operating under such conditions are far from being motivated. And when morale is low, the operational performance of the troops must diminish. The wonder remains if it is the same breed of Nigerian soldiers, who, on foreign missions, triumphed over other insurgencies with remarkable success.
Aside low troop motivation, it is obvious there are other contributory factors for the brazenness of Boko Haram. First, there is a leadership problem not only within the military operation, but also nationally. When the President and Commander-In-Chief appears so absent in the face of excruciating security challenges, it will be hard, if not impossible, to expect total loyalty and commitment from the troops, who are being traumatized by the exploits of the insurgents. Moreover, the military itself appears to have failed to provide adequate leadership structure in its war against the insurgents. The leadership problem is not just about the appalling absence of a single, unified command structure to lead the operations, but also the lack of effective coordination, which manifests in the issuance of different, and at times contradictory reports on the military operation by various security agencies. Consequently, no one knows who is leading the war.
This troubling development also reveal, in bold relief, that adequate infrastructural requirements for the successful prosecution of the war against Boko Haram were not put in place before the start of the war. It was just a matter of time before contradictions and setbacks begin to rear their ugly heads. While popular discontent with the war may not be unconnected with poor planning, a greater undercurrent relates to the absence of the government in such local communities in terms of the dividends of democracy. The consequences of the absentee state manifests in the willingness of the local population to allow the terrorists free passage in a manner injurious to the success of the counter-insurgency efforts. Therefore, a serious reorganization of the war against Boko Haram is more than just an urgent national imperative. Besides motivation of troops, there is need for concrete leadership, including a clear command structure answerable directly to the President. As the nation’s Chief Security Officer, Mr. President cannot continue to tolerate this affront on Nigeria and Nigerians.
