THE NORTH FOR BEGINNERS

“In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.”

Confucius, Chinese Philosopher  551 – 479bc

Recent attempts to draw attention to the linkages between poverty, politics and insecurity in the North of Nigeria make it necessary to try to understand the basic elements of the political economy of the region, and its relationship with the rest of Nigeria. It is vital to that this understanding is informed by facts and analyses that do not mislead either northerners or other Nigerians, because wrong assumptions or conclusion could compound the political and security situation in the country. It is particularly important to appreciate that the North represents an asset and a liability for Nigeria; and it could be more of either, depending on how its current situation is handled.it is vital to realize that unless the problems of the North are fixed, Nigeria’s problems cannot be fixed.

          Three important comments have recently been made with reference to the linkages between poverty, politics and insecurity, all of which provide basic insights into the current state of the North. First, a few weeks ago the Governor of Borno State said that poverty and poor governance in the last few years are responsible for fuelling the Boko Haram insurgency in his region. He said there are linkages between PDP politicians and Boko Haram insurgents. In making a case for massive state spending to fight poverty, he alluded to the secret behind the successful control by the murdered leader of the Boko Haram insurgency, Yusuf Muhammad over his followers, which was his painstaking attention and investment in their stomachs, employment and personal dignity. The second insight into the North’s economy came from the Governor of Niger State, Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu when he said that Northern Governors will soon demand for a review of the revenue allocation formula to address the absence of fairness in the manner national revenues from petroleum and gas are distributed. He said current allocations are not informed by equity or the law, and are responsible for extreme imbalance in the manner the north and some southern states are developing. He complained that the North is gravely poor, and its levels of illiteracy, poverty, ignorance and general backwardness are rising. The chairman of the Northern Governors’ Forum said that his State receives, on the average, N4.2b monthly, from which it pays out half as salaries, while some other States with much smaller populations receive 20 times more. The third comment on the state of the North came from the U.S Ambassador to Nigeria, who said his country will encourage the Nigerian government to reach out to people in the desperately poor north in its fight against the Boko Haram insurgency, in addition to better use of technology and intelligence. He said the insurgency would not be solved by treating it exclusively as a security issue, and advised the adoption of a holistic approach to dealing with the problem.

Now, all three of these comments and insights provide a glimpse into how the North is defined today. The region is currently defined principally by poverty and an escalating insurgency. These defining characteristics are challenged by some basic facts about the North. Its taxes and agricultural economy for decades, supported the development of the early colonian Nigerian state, including much of the most developed sections of Nigeria today. It was a vital part of a federation where populations meant much, and where resources were derived directly from productive activities of the people, long before virtually all of Nigeria came to adopt a parasitic existence around revenue from petroleum and gas. It was and is the region with the potential to provide enough food for much of Africa; to support a vibrant agro-allied industrial base, and which has more solid minerals under it than almost any part of the world. The North is the region that frittered away its achievements, and failed to tap into, and develop its potential. It was sucked into the dangerous dependence on revenues from products located in far-away places, where politics is played in a manner that makes it appear that they belong to the people who live on top of them. It failed to develop its two largest assets: its considerable population and vast, rich agricultural potential. It is de-industrializing and regressing economically at a rate which threatens every facet of its existence, and the Nigerian nation.

The North has far more voters than the rest of Nigeria, so in free and fair election, it does not need to beg the rest of the nation to allow northerners to become President. It does not need zoning, which is the product of elite scheming, that severely short-changes the north, and deprives all Nigerians of the right to vote for the best candidates available. Yet the north also has the largest number of poorest people in Nigeria among its population. It has the largest number of children beggars, and young people who do not go to school, or go to schools without learning anything of value; and pass out of schools without qualifications, skills or any hope of leading productive, responsible adult lives. The North has an aging political leadership which has lost control of the political process in the region. Its political machinery is firmly under control of Governors, who show no evidence that they have the capacity, or vision or commitment to address its fundamental problems. It is being politically weakened by the increasing incursion of faith-based politics, ethno-religious conflicts and the declining influence of traditional values. Its pluralism is dragging it down in terms of competing as a region. Huge chasms have developed between its muslim  population which has a long list of grievances against its christian population; and a christian population which is developing a split personality: now telling it that it is free of decades or centuries of Hausa-Fulani domination; and next being warned about engaging the south entirely as northern minorities.

The North is being presented now as a victim of endemic poverty, and that its current security and political problems will be addressed once there is massive public spending in its human capital and basic infrastructure. In a nation where fortunes of entire populations increasingly depend on the ethno-religious origins of leaders who determine the allocation of scarce resources, the loss of political power engineered by northern Governors appears to be hurting the north much more than all its old problems. The Boko Haram insurgency is still being labeled as a northern rebellion against the loss of political power by the north to President Jonathan. Little attention is paid to the fact that Boko Haram is pre-eminently an insurgency against the northern Muslim establishment, in both its doctrinal and political forms; and that it is the insurgency that now appears to be setting the agenda for northern Muslims, whether they agree with it or not.

The poverty of the north, manifested in its poor leadership, its declining economy and the absence to a visible and purposeful challenge to the damaging dominance of Governors and their party in its politics will be compounded by the image of the beggar region that will be made more pronounced when Governor Babangida and his colleagues go abegging cup-in-hand, for a few more crumbs from the South South. They will cause northerners to be insulted even more, and will get nothing because they have nothing to leverage in their demands. They will not convince the rest of Nigeria to yield more of the resources the north deserves as a matter of right, because they cannot answer questions over what the north did with its own resources. They will get little support from northerners who will ask what value additional allocated revenue will be to the north when Governors and their army of sycophants and parasitic Local Governments will absorb all of it. They have no capacity to show in terms of their own efforts to develop the huge potential of the north, which additional revenues from oil and gas will boost.

Northern leaders will behave like loyal party men and hope that their party will help. It will not. The PDP has no influence over what the President does. They cannot therefore push through genuine reviews of the manner resources are allocated. They cannot organize an informed response to the rest of Nigeria which believes that it is better off without the North, a region and people full of poverty and violence. They cannot assure its people that the north fought times without number for the unity of Nigeria, and will do so again, if necessary. They cannot articulate a range of options for the north, including the possibility that parts of the nation may go their separate ways; and that this could actually be a good thing for the North.

The danger of linking the current threats of the Boko Haram insurgency with poverty is that it gives a wrong picture. Poverty has always been a feature of the northern political economy, and it will require trillions in real investment over many years to address those unacceptable and dangerous levels of poverty in the region. Nigeria has no choice over whether it should undertake this massive expenditure. It should, and it must. A desperately poor North is a danger to itself, and a danger to the rest of Nigeria. Restructuring the country or threatening poverty and insecurity with radical reviews of the nature of the union will achieve little. This nation may have to fight another war to settle the question of its future, its structure and its values. It does not need to; but if or when it becomes necessary, the North will fight as it had done in the past. Not necessarily to preserve a union when many others do not want it; but to preserve a national or regional arrangement which allows all sections to live in peace and develop on the basis of the resources which God gave each or all of us. A vital element in understanding the North today is to appreciate that its fundamental weakness is at the political level, and poverty and insecurity cannot be decisively tackled unless its quality of leadership radically improves.                                                                 

                                                                                  

LEADERS OF THE FRINGES

A group which gave itself the title of Eminent National Leaders of Thought met a few days under the umbrella of a forum called National Summit Group with suspicious official support at the expensive Sheraton Hotel and Towers, Lagos. They met to review the condition of the Nigerian State, and examine what options exist in dealing with its many problems. The self-acclaimed leaders, the vast majority of whom were all elderly men, who have never tested their popularity or acceptability with the Nigerian people through the democratic process, or any other means that will entitle them to speak for the Nigerian people, know each other very well, and have spoken the same language to each other for many years. They used to congregate every time the nation went through some political turbulence; they consulted each other and delivered the same verdict: the nation is on the brink, unless Nigerians yield their sovereignty to them to convoke a conference of tribes and cultural groups to decide whether it should continue to exist as one entity, or break up into hundreds of tribal homelands. A few among them who see themselves as moderates say the nation could survive as one entity, but each tribe must say how it wants to relate with other tribes, as a basis for the survival of the Nigerian nation. The difference this time was the suspicion of the Federal Government in the organization and participation.

This meeting was no different from the other similar meetings in its conclusions. The moderator of the event, Professor Pat Utomi said Nigeria is on the brink of collapse. The former Governor of Kaduna State, Alhaji Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa said in almost every respect, Nigeria is on the verge of being a failed state. A former Presidential candidate and former Secretary to Government of the Federation, Chief Olu Falae, said there are no solutions to the many problems the nation face unless a Sovereign National Conference is convened, and Nigeria is structured. Most of the other participants and speakers which included eminent legal practitioners, distinguished and accomplished tribalists, religious leaders, professionals, politicians who have no place in the current political dispensation (not for lack of trying) and many others with a long record of stay in the political fringes, concluded that our 250 tribes must be allowed to sit down together and discuss the terms of the Nigerian union. Just in the event that the tribes do not know what the solution to our problems are, and what positions they should all adopt, the Summit put forward its unchanging magic solution. It says all Nigerian ethnic groups must meet and agree to restructure the Nigerian federal system in such a manner that it becomes essentially a federation of tribes. This is the only way Nigerians can redress the historic injustice which British colonial rule visited on all Nigerians when it forced us to subsume our basic tribal identities under a Nigerian citizenship and an artificial nationhood. If all tribes revisit this historic injustice and choose to have a loose federal system where tribes organize their politics and economy substantially along lines of their choice, or even if they choose to opt out the Nigerian state, that decision should be binding and final. In order to do this, the current constitution which claims to derive its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the Nigerian people, and which establishes a government and other institutions that exercise this sovereignty in delegated form, should be repudiated and jettisoned.

They say our constitution is an illegitimate document because it is not the product of tribal conferences and consensus. A new constitution should be written and endorsed by all the federating units (tribes), and only a system of government produced by a national conference made up to leaders of all tribes, and which should be legally superior to the constitution, and find,  should be accepted by Nigerians as legitimate. This government, and all other governments, institutions and structures which derived their powers from the current and past constitutions were and are illegitimate, and are very source of Nigerians’ problems, according to these leaders. A new Nigeria may emerge, with different fiscal arrangements, different federating arrangements, and new institutions or structures which may give all citizens and federating units the sense that they live in a fairer and just nation. Presumably, a new nation with all Yoruba living together as an autonomous nation or largely-autonomous sub-nation may emerge. Igbos may similarly have one of their own, and possibly Hausa, Kanui, Tiv and Ibibio. Other Nigerian ethnic groups will be organized into over 200 tribal organizations reflecting their relative sizes and cultural autonomy. They could choose to federate with each other, or go their own ways. No one will have the legal or any other right to insist that Ijaw and Itsekiri, Bajju and Atyap, Fulani and Kilba should live under the same federating unit, or even in one nation. Then all our problems of corrupt and inept leadership, insecurity, unacceptable levels of poverty and massive alienation from a democratic process which merely allows the wealthy to grab power by all means necessary, will disappear.

The Summit of our self-styled leaders on the fringes is a sad reminder that Nigeria desperately needs genuine leaders who will think through and lead it into finding solutions to its real problems. Virtually everyone who participated at that Summit where discredited and worn-out ideas were re-hashed and given the semblance of real solutions knows that there is nothing new that it offered. This may, in part, explain why President Jonathan said he will forward its conclusions to the Alfa Belgore Committee to look at. The idea of a National Conference of tribal organizations is as old as the Nigerian federal system in its post-colonial stage. Every time pseudo-intellectuals on the margins of relevance find something wrong, they demand a Sovereign National Conference, which is explicitly a demand that delegitimizes existing authority in all its forms. The talks in  Aburi, Ghana in 1967  represent the nearest that this nation came to a sovereign discussion on Nigeria’s structure and future; and even those talks were all about arresting a declared rebellion, but they fell flat when the rebels insisted that the talks gave them autonomy. The administrations of Babangida and Abacha came under intense pressure to open up questions about the legality and acceptability of a united, federal Nigeria by some of the very people involved in this Summit. General Babangida’s Political Bureau ended up looking like a grand diversion from a military strongman who had become used to the illusion that he can take the nation for a ride every time he chose to. General Abacha’s constitutional conference was hijacked by politicians who had the courage to call off the military’s bluff and reckless brinkmanship. The combined sins of Babangida and Abacha, which included, among others, the hanging of the Ken Saro-Wiwa group and the annulment of the 1993 elections, and the incarceration and death of Chief M.K.O Abiola gave rise to even more strident demands, spearheaded by late Chief Authony Enahoro and his fellow sovereign travellers, for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference.

The logic of their demand was located in their insistence that the Nigerian state is illegitimate, unworkable and doomed to failure. It can be salvaged in some form, but that form must be what they have already pre-determined. The solutions for them must take the form of a constitutionally-elected government “handing over” sovereignty to a Conference of delegates from Nigerian tribes who should decide every element of the existence and structure of Nigeria and its constitution. Presumably, the conveners of the Summit will be the delegates, along with a few they may also handpick, because they offer no formula for representation. Although they appeared to draw some historical inspiration from a few post-crises West African States which, under the firm guidance of France, convened National Conferences made up of delegations from political groups due to their failure to achieve orderly military-to-civilian transitions, they ignored the tricky question that no authority was ever going to hand over sovereignty to a conclave of tribal leaders in Nigeria. The only way that could happen was if the tribal leaders themselves took over power by force and therefore assume the sovereignty of the people, or if someone else takes over power and hands it over to them. That would have made them more illegitimate than the un-elected governments they condemned, and any decision, including constitutional amendments or wholesale changes they make, will be illegal. They routinely ignored the possibility that a tribal conclave will be led by our “traditional rulers” or other such culturally-determined “leaders”, as well as priests of all types, who are the nearest to our “cultural identities”, or as they like to say, our “nationalities”. 

There have always been legal options in the search for real changes in the manner Nigeria is structured and governed, but our unelected, self-appointed leaders do not like them. These options involve using the political process to achieve power and amend the constitution or any aspect of our existence as a nation. But majority of the advocates of a Sovereign National Conference do not accept the legality of the political process or our present democratic dispensation. They do not accept, therefore, that it can engineer the type of changes they want all Nigerians to live under. They will not test the popularity of their ideas in the political arena, and they will not even submit themselves to popularity contests, except for the few who tried many times and lost at elections. Ironically, many of the delegates at the Summit had submitted themselves many times to elections and courts provided for by this same constitution. None had repudiated the electoral process or the judicial system as illegitimate.

There are many things wrong with our federal system and our constitution, but whatever we think of the origin and evolution of the Nigerian state, the fact of a Nigerian nation made up of many ethnic groups has been an accepted fact in our lives, and has been built with blood, sweat and hardwork. No Nigerian should be ashamed of the historic origin of our nation, and its history cannot be an impediment to making it work well for its citizens.  It is not by any means a perfect arrangement, but any useful discussion on its defects must acknowledge that a gathering of elitist, elderly Nigerians who see themselves not as concerned citizens but as tribal leaders cannot wish it away. A productive discussion on the merits and defects of our constitutional arrangements and federal system could draw attention to a number of issues which should improve the way the Nigerian state is structured. For instance, why do we need 36 States, when the six geo-political zones can suffice as federating units? Why do we need a bi-cameral legislature when it is obviously wasteful, and the cost of governance has become unbearable? Why should a few States receive so much of our national resources under a revenue sharing formula which impoverishes other parts of a federal system, and generates massive social and security problems for the nation? Why should elected leaders receive so much pay for serving their nation, and making political offices the fastest routes to wealth? Why shouldn’t larger but fewer federating units have their own police, and much more responsibility for socio-economic development which is currently being handled unsatisfactorily by the Federal Government? What needs to be done to improve national security, and the electoral process, and to bring an end to the tendency for some Nigerians to deprive fellow citizens of basic rights, including rights to the security of their lives and property, and their rights to economic progress under some dubious claims to superior rights? Why haven’t tribes given room to the emergence of citizens? How could a nation as blessed as Nigeria fail to live up to its full economic and political potential?

These and many other questions could have been raised and possibly some answers found for them by these highly educated Nigerians. But, no. They want to use all their knowledge, experience and wealth to demand for what is clearly impossible to achieve. Their meeting has very little value for majority of Nigerians who are under 35years, and who were not even considered fit to attend the Summit, even though it is their future that was being discussed. Women, who constitute half of the population, and who suffer greatly from the fallouts of a corrupt system, underdevelopment and widespread insecurity had no voice or significant presence at the Summit. The only conclusion which can make sense is that these elite with some support from the administration assume that raising the bogey of a Sovereign National Conference will balance, and possible cancel out the threat from the Boko Haram insurgency. If that was the assumption, it was a waste of energy and resources. The Boko Haram insurgency threatens the very foundation of the Nigerian state, and conferences which create the impression that you can distance some parts of the country from it merely play into its hands.

The nation should take note of this Summit only as a reminder that there are highly privileged Nigerians who prefer to live in their own world because they do not like this one. A group such as these self-styled leaders could have drawn the attention of President Goodluck Jonathan to the fact that his failure to govern well, and his inability to tackle the Boko Haram insurgency effectively is threatening the lives of Nigerians and making life unbearable. They could have reminded him that the Committee on Review of the Constitution under Justice Alfa Belgore whose mandate is basically to tidy up past reports, will not achieve anything of value in terms of addressing the real weaknesses of our constitutional arrangements. They could have made substantial and well-informed inputs into current concerns about the foundations of our insecurity, rampant corruption and the difficulties of everyday life for the vast majority of Nigerians. That they failed to do this makes them part of the problem of the Nigerian people. Unless their expensive outings are funded by governments which seek to divert attention of Nigerians, they should save the nation more of their tired prescriptions, or engage the political process and convince Nigerians that they do have real solutions. 

No section of Nigeria should resist a critical examination of its foundations, structures and values. If doing this will address its fundamental weaknesses, by all means let us have a National Conference to do this. But neither these champions of primitivism nor this administration which shows no capacity to address any of our fundamental problems should even venture into this important issue. Let those who have legitimate powers to respond to the pressure to re-asses our union as a nation take note, and respond appropriately. If they do not, we will not hear the end of these fringe voices.

OUTSOURCING INTEGRITY

The Minister of Petroleum Resonances, Diezani Alison Madukwe has set up a 21-member Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force in response to widespread public demands for improved accountability and transparency around all facets of the oil and gas industry. The Committee, under the chairmanship of Malam Nuhu Ridabu, former Executive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Presidential candidate of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) during the last election, have terms of reference derived largely from the statutory function of  many government agencies. These terms of reference generally give the Special Task Force the power to work with consultants to establish all amounts payable to the government; to collect unpaid but due payments; and generally to devise better systems for ensuring that all proceeds due to the federal government from the industry are properly assessed and paid. It is to submit monthly reports to the Minister, and report directly to her.

The work of this Special Task Force is the same work which is the core responsibility of government ministries and agencies such as the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, NNPC, Ministry of Finance and the Accountant-General of the Federal, Central Bank of Nigeria and the Federal Inland Revenue Service and the National Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and other agencies involved in enforcing laws and regulations which should eliminate corruption and waste in the economy. The Minister did not make it clear whether all these agencies will now cease to have any responsibility for ensuring that every kobo due to the government from the oil and gas sector is properly and promptly paid. It is also unclear how this committee will work better than all these statutory dodies, or whether they have powers over and above those enjoyed by government agencies and ministries.

The first major conclusion to be drawn from the establishment of this committee is that the Jonathan administration has no political will, competence or capacity to deal with the serious issues raised by the overwhelming rejection of the fuel subsidy removal, which were the need to radically improve the levels of accountability by key operators and the transparency of the whole process. Everyone even remotely familiar with the absence of transparency and corruption around the oil and gas sector knows that their root is to be found in the office of Ministers of Petroleum Resources which the nation has had, including the present Minister. Many informed non-government organization and prominent citizens have demanded for the removal of the current Minister of Petroleum Resources, because no real progress can be made in investigating abuses or weaknesses in the system, or discovering corruption and waste with her in place. President Jonathan ignored these calls, and instead allows the same Minister to appoint a Task Force to report, not to him, but to her. Needless to say this will not solve any problem of improved accountability or transparency.

Secondly, the absence of any major scope for the Task Force to achieve any tangible result will strike many informed observers. Implicitly, the establishment of the Task Force amounts to an admission that everyone connected with accountability, transparency and efficiency in the oil and gas sector, including the Minister, has failed in their elementary responsibilities. If agencies or public officers whose failure  has made the Task Force a necessity will not be sanctioned, how can government improve accountability and efficiency in the public sector?  How can the Task Force achieve any result? When it has to work with inefficient and corrupt agencies? Is the Task Force to work on its own without institutional support from discredited agencies and public officers? Will the consultants which the Task Force work with do the work, including creating their own independent systems and entire infrastructure of data and processes?

Thirdly, it is important to ask why, if President Jonathan believes the Task Force is necessary, he does not make it report to him. This way, even the Minister of Petroleum Resources and the entire battery of agencies under it can be placed under scrutiny of the Task Force and the President. The design of the committee is such a way that it reports only to the Minister suggests that the President has no interest in any matter above the Minister, or has so much confidence in the lady that he cannot see how she can be a problem. Every chief executive in the oil and gas sector is still in place, and is still available to the Minister to query or to account to for their competence and honest. If the idea of the Task Force is the Minister’s in the first place, why doesn’t the President demand that the Minister recommends chief executive officers and other officials for removal and other sanctions? Does the Minister bear no responsibility for the failures of the sector; and if the President thinks so, does the same thing apply to all staff and officials in the sector? If there are no major institutional changes in the oil and gas sector and related agencies, why is the Task Force being created?

Fourthly, the Task Force major questions regarding legality of operations of government agencies. Is it going to be empowered by law? Is it advisory? Is it going to operate above NNPC, Department of Petroleum Resources, Federal Inland Revenue Service and many other agencies which are established by law; or simply make them redundant by doing their work? The Task Force will simply multiply bureaucracy at a time when Nigerians are demanding a major reduction in the cost of governance. It will add no value to the manner the institutional mechanisms operate, because it will obviously operate outside them, yet will depend heavily on them for its work.

Five, the membership of the Task Force will raise many eyebrows. Nigerians are yet to know whether all the people whose names were announced as members have actually accepted to serve. We do know that Malam Nuhu Ribadu has accepted to serve, and the views of many Nigerians are that he had made a serious mistake on accepting to serve in a committee which have very limited powers, and which will be entirely subject to the pleasures and whims of a single Minister, not even the President. Many of his admirers worry that he has placed his considerable reputation and integrity at risk.

The Task Force established by the Minister of Petroleum to work with consultants to improve accountability, transparency and efficiency in the oil and gas sector is a white elephant that will not solve the endemic problems which Nigerians seek solutions for. It will merely create a façade, using some names with personal integrity, that government is serious about the endemic corruption and lack of accountability in the sector. The Task Force is an admission that all organs and public officials, including the Minister in the oil and gas sector have major responsibilities in the absence of acceptable standards of conduct and personal and corporate responsibility. They have failed the nation, and so long as they are still in place, the Task Force cannot achieve any tangible result.

BOKO HARAM AND THE STATE: TIME FOR A RE-THINK

It is now painfully obvious that neither government nor Boko Haram will accept that it is losing the war which is bringing unprecedented pain to the nation. In the last few weeks, the Boko Haram insurgency has escalated its campaign of terror, and has claimed that it is doing so in response to arrests, killings and detentions of its members in Maiduguri, Kano and Kaduna, among other areas. It also claims to have issued threats to people in Sokoto through their leaders that it will attack the city if its members continue to be arrested. The government, on the other hands, has intensified its crackdown on members, and has made many arrests. There are allegations and accusations in Maiduguri that suspected members of the Boko Haram were being killed extra-judicially by soldiers after being arrested in their homes. Many members of the group have been arrested and are undergoing interrogation, but neither the attacks nor the proganda from the group is abating. The audacious attack on military formations in Kaduna on Tuesday February 7^th which is coming in the midst of the unceasing attacks on police stations in Kano is a reminder that the group’s intention is to continue to wage war against the Nigerian state and its agents, and if innocent citizens, muslims or christians get caught in the crossfire, it is just their ill-luck.

The manner this conflict is developing will leave all citizens extremely worried. With all the human, technical and legal resources at its disposal, government appears incapable of preventing spectacular and devastating attacks on security agents and the public. Its intelligence, if it is has any, is obviously severely faulty, when it cannot prevent a large and coordinated attack on many targets in Kano, and the subsequent attacks almost on a daily basis on police stations. This failure had already been amply demonstrated in the nature of the endemic assaults in Borno and Yobe States in the last few months. But the attacks on military formations in Kaduna will expose the weaknesses of the government and security agencies even more. These attacks remind the citizens how vulnerable they are; and the reported attempt to blow up the Kawo overhead bridge may indicate that the insurgency is beginning to target critical civilian infrastructure.

On the other hand, the Boko Haram insurgency must by now be acutely aware that the general population is both afraid and angry with it. It is fighting a war in the name of Islam and muslims, and many of its victims are muslims who just want peace. It wants the same thing most muslims and christians want; which is a just and fair Nigeria where leaders live as God decrees, and where lives are not taken at will without punishment. Overwhelming majority of muslims still believe that suicide and murder are irredeemable sins, so they are unlikely to find overwhelming support among the muslims umma when they claim that all they do is in the interest of Islam and muslims. Millions of muslims share the pain of the mass murder of muslims in Zangon Kataf, Zonkwa, Jos and Yelwan Shendam, but most muslims cannot see how the killing of chrisitans and fellow muslims, as well as policemen and soldiers with bombs today will avenge those atrocities. Most Nigerians also doubt that Boko Haram will succeed in bringing the Nigerian state to its knees, and forcing it and all Nigerians, muslims and non-muslims alike, to live only under the Sharia or risk living in perpetual conflict. Similarly, Boko Haram is operating in an environment which gives all muslims the comfort that if they are murdered, Allah Subhanahu wa Taala will visit their sins on their murderers, and they, in turn, are assured of Aljanna Firdausi, while their killers will be condemned to hell. There is also the danger that the insurgency will suffer splits fatigue and a dilution of its essence, leading it to an inglorious defeat, or a long war with itself.

Unless there is a dramatic improvement in the capacity of the Nigerian state to obliterate all traces of Boko Haram activity in the next few months, or a radical re-think on the part of Boko Haram to renounce all hostility, this conflict looks likely to drag on and take more casualties. Both are highly unlikely. Boko Haram leaders have very deep suspicions of the government’s offer to discuss their grievances, provided they can reveal themselves. They know that it expose themselves is to give up their strongest weapons; and they say  that past efforts to discuss with the agents of the government have betrayed them. Government, on the other hand, will not admit to a failure to bring the insurgency to an end, and will continue to throw troops and barricades at it. In the meantime, young people willing to commit suicide during missions seem to be more and more available to the insurgency. The ability to make local bombs appears to be spreading. The sophistication and intelligence of the Boko Haram field operations appear to be improving. Their access to weapons, uniforms and detailed intelligence against the Nigerian security agents is improving. Above all, they are succeeding in terrorising host communities into silence and enforcing  acquiescence, which makes their capacities to operate within innocent localities easy, but tends to attract hostility and some heavy-handed treatment from security agents.

It is time to re-examine other options for both government and the Boko Haram insurgency. If both of them agree, it may be useful to accept a three-month moratorium, during which all hostilities and arrests should cease. In these three months, avenues should be explored to put arrested Boko Haram suspects through the judicial process, and where it serves the law and public interest and security, they may be released from detention. The insurgency leaders should also demonstrate their control over their people by ceasing all attacks, and perhaps, in this manner, they may expose criminals widely suspected to be killing Nigerians and attacking churches and banks and making it appear as if Boko Haram is responsible. It may help to assure the nation that Boko Haram’s claim that it attacks only agents of the state and those who betray it is, in fact, true. After all, Boko Haram says many killings and destruction are done by agents of the state.

A three month moratorium on hostilities and arrest should be used by both the government and Boko Haram leadership to intensely explore options to their current strategies. Respected Ulama and other leaders should also get involved in mediating between the two, with firm assurances that their safely and integrity will not be compromised. The period should be used to explore genuine avenues for resolving the core grievances of the insurgency, and no options should be excluded. By the end of the moratorium, a formal and structured platform should emerge which may allow an all-inclusive dialogue and a roadmap towards a resolution.

The proposal for a moratorium on hostilities, arrests and trials is just about the most useful suggestion which could be offered in the current stand-off between government and the Boko Haram insurgency. It should be given serious consideration, because the only other option is a continuation of current hostilities which are threatening the lives of every Nigerian in the short term, and the future of the nation as one entity in the long term. There will be some Nigerians who will scoff at the idea of the ceasefire and dialogue with Boko Haram insurgents, but they should be reminded that it was dialogue and massive concessions that brought a resolution to the Niger Delta insurgency. There may be some in government who will feel that government is capitulating. They should be reminded that the government is actually losing this war, and it shows no capacity to win it in the long run, going by its present disposition. There may be some in the Boko Haram leadership who will insist in fighting on. But they should know that fighting alone, without some objectives which are achievable, is a wasteful exercise. The nation has taken note that Boko Haram has a grievance, and a capacity to force attention to it. It is time to consolidate on this, and not fritter it away in a war that is fast taking its toll on it. Above all, it is time for all Nigerians, particularly those respected by the people as men and women with unimpeachable integrity, leaders of opinion and the ulama to stand between the government and the Boko Haram insurgency, and broker a ceasefire for at least three months.

STATE POLICE, POLICE STATE

“No System of government was ever so ill devised that, under proper men, it wouldn’t work well enough.”

William Penn, 1644 – 1718

The respected former Director-General of National Security organization (NSO) and a former top policeman, Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi recently made a strong case for the introduction of police formations to be controlled and managed by State Governments. He made the case in the context of the current concerns over the need to improve the state of our national security; as well as the many problems which have arisen in the course of implementing a constitutional provision which vests control and management of the police exclusively under the Federal Government. The case he made also noted a widely-known fact that State Governments assume huge responsibilities for the upkeep and maintenance of the Nigeria Police, but have very little control over its operation.  He drew attention to the negative influences of State Governments on the police, particularly the tendency to subvert its neutrality and integrity in the achievement of partisan political goals by State Governors. Collusion and corruption at higher levels of State Governments and police leadership have created situations where the effectiveness and credibility of the Nigeria Police have become severely compromised. Finally, he reminded the nation that much of the criticism against state police is entirely informed by unfounded prejudice, because a state police had not existed in the nation’s history in the strict sense of the concept. The case he made is basically that state police will improve the management of internal security and the maintenance of law and order, because local communities are likely to be more involved, and those with power will also have responsibility to determine how a vital institution like the police operates.

Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi is well-placed and eminently-qualified to understand the weaknesses of the Nigeria Police, and the manner the political context in which it operates can affect its effectiveness. A lawyer and an intelligence officer who made his mark at a time the NSO was rated among the best of such organizations in the world, he also has genuine roots with the traditional authorities in the north, as well as an extensive network of relationships across the entire nation. A well-read man who has never shied away from offering his views in public on matters of national security, he is highly regarded in national and international circles as an authority on security management in Nigeria.

Alhaji Umaru Shinhafi has an extensive understanding of the operations and limitations of the Nigeria police; so when he makes the case for the establishment of state police, the nation should consider his advice very seriously. The examples of advanced industrialized democracies that have state or regional police which enjoy high degrees of autonomy, and effective collaboration with central police and each other, and which operate at very high levels of efficiency also speak volumes for the case being made by the Marafan Sokoto. Among the most telling arguments he makes for the introduction of state police is the position he puts forward that critics of the idea have no historical basis for their criticism. In spite of the existence of Native Authority and federal police prior to the unification of the police under the Nigeria Police Force, he says those local police operated only with limited powers, were substantially decentralized, but effective in dealing with local crime, protecting law and order and in intelligence gathering.

Sceptics and hostile opponents of the establishment of state police should pay more than a cursory glance to the case for state police put forward by the Marafan Sokoto. The professionalism and overall impact of the Nigeria police in maintaining internal security, law and order and fighting crime has been declining at such a rate that millions of Nigerians now see the police as a major liability, unless you want an illegal act to be committed, and you have the money to pay for it. The federal government which controls and manages it all but publicly acknowledges it as its biggest handicap in the fight against crime. In the last ten years, we have had numerous Inspectors-General of police, and the last one was removed because of the spectacular failure of the police to handle the Boko Haram insurgency. The federal government is supposed to finance the operations and maintenance of the police, but it does this substantially by default, or so it would appear. Time after time Nigerians accuse it of active collusion in subverting the electoral process, and sundry abuses of human rights. State and Local Governments spend huge amounts in providing logistics, allowances and many other unseen forms of assistance to the police. Yet, state governors particularly complain that what they have is responsibility for the police, but no power over them. As chief security officers, they have no power under the law to direct the police command in their states to undertake any activity unless it is cleared and authorised by superior police authorities outside the state. When, in order to allow the police in states some flexibility, their superiors outside the state give them room for some initiative or decision-making, governors complain that the relative autonomy and flexibility is put at the disposal of governors only at great cost. They find that they have to fund every emergency or contingency, even though the nation knows that billions are routinely budgeted for police operations and contingencies. What they do not publicly say, however, is that they routinely put police commands in their states to marginally-legal or out rightly-illegal use, most often around partisan political activities.

Governors complain that superiors of Police Commissioners in states at Zonal or National Headquarters are too removed from the ground to appreciate the need for some specific engagements or operations; and in many instances, the federal government uses its monopoly over the control of police operations to hamstring or frustrate them in exercising their responsibilities as chief security officers. When Commissioners of Police and State Chief Executives build close relationships, they are suspected by superiors of colluding to achieve narrow political objectives. Governors who are not in States controlled by ruling parties say that they literally have to buy loyalty of the Police, and even this does not guarantee that they will not face periodic hostility or obstruction. Funds expended by the Federal and State Governments together on the same police are impossible to establish; and this represents a worrying source of corruption. Finally, the case has long been made that a federal system which centralises policing severely crippled the capacities of federating units to function as effective levels of government.

Below the state level, all chairmen of Local Governments know you have to literally pay for operations of the police units deployed to the Area. At lower levels, the  police have very few linkages with the communities with which they are to work, and have few incentives to be transparent or accountable. Citizens who report crimes have pay for investigations every step of the way. When you report a crime, you have to fund logistics, intelligence, investigations and sometimes even prosecution if, that is, suspects are found. If you are unable to do this, your case is as good as dead, unless you have powerful political connections in lieu of a strong financial clout. This is why many citizens say to report crimes to our police is to risk suffering double jeopardy. The Nigeria Police has acquired a global reputation as the embodiment of crime, and most Nigerians will readily admit that the fight against corruption and serious crimes will not be won with the type of police Nigeria has.

If any evidence is needed that the manner our police is controlled, structured and managed is fundamentally flawed, they only need to look at the fact that in the last ten years, the size and funding of the Nigeria police has more than doubled. Yet, crimes are rising, and more significantly, the nature of the crimes are such that they represent far more serious threats to larger numbers of lives and the security of the entire polity. Before initial skirmishers were even over, the capacity of the police to deal with the organized criminality in the Niger Delta was entirely exhausted, and the military took over. It is now part of the infamous record of the Nigeria police that its handling of the leaders of the Yusufiyya movement was singularly responsible for the escalation of a localized problem into the monstrous threat we now have to deal with. Because the police has failed in its primary responsibility of maintaining internal security, law and order, our entire military asset has now been deployed to do its job. This has very serious consequences over the professionalism of the military, and the long-term effect of its exposure on civil-military relations. Neither the police nor the military is involved in exercising its core responsibilities at the moment, and no nation is as exposed as we are in this situation.

So, on the face of it, there are many good reasons why the case for state police should be given serious consideration. This consideration must however be informed principally by the nature of our political system. The quality of the political leadership basically determines the manner it manages critical institutions which are available to it for governance. The cynism of  a large section of Nigerians towards the establishment of state police is well-rooted in the poor perception of the capacity of our leaders to lead with transparent commitment to public interest, honesty and even-handedness. The worst example of State government- controlled institutions is the State Independent Electoral Commission (S.I.E.C), a vital institution for engineering the entrenchment of democratic values, institutions and practices at grassroots levels and in popular culture, but which has been turned into an embarrassing parody by State Governors. Governors have turned state civil servants into organized sycophants. They treat public funds as if they are their private assets to do as they wish. State legislatures have been turned into mere chorus lines of governors, even where opposition members are in large numbers. Local Governments have been perverted by Governors; their funding and autonomy have become entirely subsumed to the whims of Governors. In short, states are increasingly looking like personal estates of governors, and it takes less than six months after elections before all political and other forms of opposition are completely silenced or obliterated. To live with police controlled and managed by these types of leaders will be a nightmare few will contemplate. Certainly, even the worst critic of the police today is likely to prefer it to a state police under Governors. So, a major weakness of the argument for state police is that it is vulnerable to the accusation that it will make policing worse, not better for Nigerians.

To allow the type of leaders we have at state levels the control of their own police will amount to the Hausa proverb which says that God does not give the man with the knife in his hands access to the meat. This is most unfortunate for a nation genuinely in need of radical reforms in the manner it organizes its federal system and its security. Only recently, it was revealed that Kano State with a population of 9million has only 8,000 police deployed to it. Virtually the entire police personnel, particularly in the north, is now mobilized against the threat of Boko Haram. This means that essential duties of the police are being sacrificed. The South-East has long had the look of an occupied zone, yet it has an endemic crime rate unheard-of in the history of this nation. The current level of deployment of police in the South East will only will be reversed at great political cost and resentment. There are huge parts of the nation where only the visible presence of heavily armed police personnel will give citizens the comfort to sleep with both eyes closed. Even Governors only venture into some parts of their States with a very large, heavily armed escort of police. Yet, crimes and massive breaches of security continue to rise. We are told we are under-policed, but there is little evidence that more police personnel will make us more secure. Finally, there will be many citizens in states which experience ethno-religions conflicts who will shudder at the mere thought of a state government-controlled police.

The fear of having state police is that we will become a police state. In truth, we are not too far from that state, what with the self-defeating belief of the administration that it can fight Boko Haram with force, and the massive deployment of police personnel into every nook and cranny where armed robbery, kidnapping or communal strife are daily occurrences. There are many attempts by State Governors to raise quasi-police formations, especially in the western states, to plug loopholes in the manner policing is handled. These do-it-yourself, which include Hisbah and similar organizations in the north merely compound the problem, and make the management of law and order and the rights of citizens that much more complicated. The real value in the suggestion of Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi for the establishment of state police is that in the short-term, government and all citizens with responsibility must explore all avenues to bring the Boko Haram insurgency to an end. Those who complain that northern elite are silent on Boko Haram should see Shinkafi’s contribution as a major attempt to address the issues. The Boko Haram insurgency is the worst case scenario for a police such as ours which is poorly managed and structured. In the long run, it reminds us that a leadership creates a police after its own image. There is a case to be made for state police, but the quality of our political leadership must be radically improved before Nigerians can feel comfortable with the idea.

JONATHAN’S SHOES

“Next time a man asks you to vote for him because he grew up without shoes, just buy him a pair of shoes and move on.”

A recent Nigeria joke about President Jonathan.

 

Because he had failed to take ordinary Nigerians along in the run-up to his decision to remove subsidy on petroleum, millions of Nigerians saw President Jonathan’s action as cruel and insensitive. Many remembered his inaugural speech which touched a sympathetic nerve, when he reminded the nation that he started as a schoolboy who went to school barefoot in his village. Many Nigerians who saw themselves or their children in the life and experiences of President Goodluck Jonathan thought the lessons and benefits of his remarkable journey will not end in the Presidential Villa in Abuja . They were told to expect a fundamental changes from the past, and transformation from a man whose humble beginnings and fairytale journey to the top could only mean that they will have a government that will address poverty, hopelessness and fear.

President Jonathan’s comments since the beginning of the subsidy removal fiasco indicate that the knows many simple and poor Nigerians are angry and disappointed with him. A well read friend of mine said if the poor knew philosophy, they will describe their betrayal by Jonathan as that of politicians like him who, according to Oscar Levant, double-cross bridges before they even come to them. Poor Nigerians said President Jonathan took away their tattered shoes now that he has many of his own. His assurances that things will get better was cold comfort to many who think they will also lose their feet by the time things improve. President Jonathan must feel like the former US President Harry Truman who in his many battles with Congress and the opposition over the economy said, “I never give the pubic hell. I just tell the truth, and they think its hell.”

President Jonathan’s best friends will hope that he can fill the big shoes required to deal with the consequences of his decision to remove subsidy on petroleum, because he has won one battle, but has a long way to go to win the war. In many ways the challenges he will face will be even more demanding than those he and the nation have just come through. The poor manner the subsidy policy (which predated Jonathan) was handled, and the even poorer approach of President Jonathan to its removal have thrown up fundamental questions about governance. Nigerians now know just how murky the waters are around the petroleum sector. They want a radical reduction in the size and cost of governance. They want higher levels of transparency and accountability in leadership at all levels. They want to know how budgets are made; who decides how much is spent on who; why so much should be spent on selected areas and not others; and what their elected leaders earn and why. Nigerians want to know what comes to their governments and from what sources; who is giving up to the public purse and who is withholding; who is underpaying and who is exempted from paying. They want to know how much our leaders set aside to eat and entertain themselves; to travel or buy planes and bullet-proof cars; to buy diesels for their giant generators and drugs for their clinics. They want to know what the additional income to government from the removed subsidy will be used for. They want answers to their poverty, insecurity and massive unemployment. Young Nigeria want to see a glimmer of hope that they have a future as productive adults in a nation which should secure and guarantee it for them.

The involvement of many civil society organizations and other groups as well as the political opposition in demanding for answers to these questions will keep President Jonathan on his toes, and on his feet. This, in a way, is why his shoes must be tough enough for the assignment. Just dealing with endemic corruption around petroleum sector community which ties up NNPC, PPPRC, Ministry of Petroleum Resources, Ministry of Finance, Nigeria Customs Service will require the deployment of the strongest political will. Beyond investigating past violations of the law and due process, a matter over which Nigerians have a registered cynicism, raising the levels of transparency and accountability in and around the petroleum sector will be a major undertaking. Many legitimate questions have been raised regarding the capacity of Jonathan’s administration to tackle both corruption and deep reforms around the petroleum sector, with many of the key players sitting smugly on their seats. Then there are basic issues about the budgeting process, and the hard questions which Nigerians will demand answers for. Why, for instance, should we spend N1 trillion on security when the police cannot prevent the escape of a high profile suspect in a Boko Haram bombing? How much comfort should we derive from a N1 trillion spending on security when Middle Belt leaders are shown on television discussion how they can improve their own security, complete with a briefing from an Israeli? Nigerians will ask why we have to pay elected leaders so much, when workers had to go through very difficult struggles to get a minimum wage of N18,000, which the increase in petroleum price has now rendered virtually useless? Then there are many valid questions around the size and redundancy of government Ministries, Departments and Agencies; hundreds of political appointees who do virtually nothing to add value to the quality of governance, and an entire federal structure which merely serves to absorb and spend public funds around leaders.

The post-subsidy saga has put President Jonathan in a real spot. He will have to reclaim lost ground in political terms, which has been caused by two developments. One was the unfortunate outing by Ijaw leaders and youth which exposed his base in its narrowest form. The second is the resort to strong arm tactics to bring to an end the subsidy strikes, which included the invocation of security concerns and the virtual occupation of Lagos . He has further alienated the leadership of the Yoruba, and has offended many northern christians who voted for him at some cost, and who being among the most impoverished segment of society, will feel that he has rewarded their loyalty with hardship. He has made enemies with the vocal elements of civil society organizations, and the dormant political opposition is stirring.

In economic terms, President Jonathan will be expected to perform near-miracles. He will be expected to deliver on the palliatives he has promised, at a time when there really isn’t spare cash to put aside for them. All because subsidy has been removed (President Jonathan will say partially removed) Nigerians will expect a higher performance rate in rehabilitation of basic infrastructure, particularly power, roads and rail transport. They will expect a radical improvement the overall performance of government in terms of delivering service, as compensation for the radical rise in the cost of living. They will expect a reduction in terms of the threats to their lives and property; and they will expect to see their leaders make sacrifices the same way they do.

The shoes that President Jonathan wears now should enable him go the distance to deliver on his promise to transform Nigerian. It will be fatal for his administration and the nation if he fails to do this, particularly at a time when Nigerians’ faith and trust in politicians is at its lowest ebb. Former Soviet Union leader Nikita Khrushchev once described politicians as people who promise to build a bridge even where there is no river. President Jonathan has no luxury of a honeymoon period, and he certainly cannot afford further decline in popular perception regarding his competence to run the country. His job as President has been made more difficult by his recent decisions, and by the impression he has created that it will be well for Nigerians in the long run. Since he now has shoes, Nigerians will expect him to cover the distance, and win the race against cynicism, opposition and a weak political capacity.

AL-MUSTAPHA AND NIGERIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM.

Yesterday, Monday 30^th of January, the Lagos High Court sentenced Major Hamza Al-Mustapha, the chief security of officer to the late Head of State General Sani Abacha and a former aide to chief M.K.O Abiola, Lateef Sofolahan to death by hanging, after finding them guilty for the murder of Kudirat Abiola in 1996.Judge Mojisola Dada ruled that the prosecution had proved its case for conspiracy and murder against the two accused persons who have been on trial since 1999. Major Al-Mustapha and Sofolahan can appeal their convictions at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, so the sentence of death by hanging does not have to be carried out immediately. Predictably, major Al-Mustapha said the court’s verdict was a conspiracy against him, and was not based on the evidence before the court. His lawyer also rejected the judgement and said he would appeal against it.

The judgement of the Lagos High Court will bring one chapter in the long-drawn saga of major Al-Mustapha to a close, but it is by no means the end of this tragic drama. Since the commencement of the prosecution of major Al-Mustapha and Sofolahan, the trial has been a lot more than a legal and judicial process. In the 13 years during which Al-Mustapha has been in detention, the nation has been treated to a drama that reminded it of a very sad chapter in its history, as well as the limitations of its judicial system. Major Al-Mustapha has never been removed from the powerful position he occupied as General Abacha’s CSO; and he has always insisted that he was a victim of a conspiracy by very powerful people to cover up the killings of Abacha and Abiola.

The killing of Kudirat Abiola had shocked the nation, at a time when it appeared that the Abacha administration was involved in organized killings of prominent members of the opposition. Many other prominent people, including chieftains of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) had either fled, or been killed in suspicious circumstances. Not long after the death of Abacha, Al-Mustapha and the infamous strike force under his control began to have accusing fingers pointed at them over killings and attempted murders and arson as part of the efforts to eliminate the opposition to Abacha.

Since the trial commenced, the judicial process has been severely stretched and challenged both by Al-Mustapha’s determination to fight for his freedom, and by the insistence of the Federal Government, Lagos State Government and some powerful political interests to see that he is convicted. Every trick in the book has been thrown at judges, courts and the Nigerian public.  The result, sadly, has been that the trial appeared increasingly less to do with the law, and everything to do with politics. Al-Mustapha tapped into a vast sympathetic sentiment which saw his trial as politically motivated and unjust. On the other hand, his prosecutors played their own ethno-cultural cards, generating much support from people who wanted Al-Mustapha punished as a symbol of impunity and a past which needed to be brought to its knees. Many relatively independent Nigerians lamented the manner a judicial system could be so openly abused and sacrificed on the alter of narrow politics. They agonized over how long the trial took. They complained over seeming weaknesses of a system which will keep a citizen in detention for 13 years while he was being tried. And they worried over the widespread feeling among Nigerians that the trial of al-Mustapha was creating massive regionalised sentiments, and in the end, the verdict of the Court was likely to be seen as political, and not judicial.

Now that the High Court has pronounced Al-Mustapha guilty, the arguments over the justice of the trial will intensify. Many Nigerians will find much to complain over a judicial system that keeps a citizen in detention for 13years, and then sentences him to death by hanging in the end. Many more will raise their voice against the allegations of conspiracy against al-Mustapha, and will intensify their demand for justice outside the judicial system for him. On the other hand, there will be much rejoicing in some quarters over Al-Mustapha’s conviction, among those who have always believed that he was guilty. There will be many who will say that it is not how long it takes for justice to be served; but whether it is served in the end.

The trial of Al-Mustapha had put the judicial process in the dock as well, and it is by no means a clean acquittal for it that he has been found guilty. A judicial process that leaves people to think that it is incapable of delivering justice because it has been compromised by political considerations cannot generate support from the people it is meant to serve. On the other hand, even those who will rejoice at the conviction of major Al-Mustapha will prefer that he was convicted only for murder, and that his trial is not hijacked by shadowy political interests.

At this stage, it is important to remember that there is a long way to go before major Al-Mustapha exhausts the entire judicial process in his defence. While this will be little comfort for him, his family and many supporters, it must be acknowledged that this right to explore the entire process, which could take many years, is part of the very judicial process that many of his supporters condemn. It may also be useful to remind his supporters that their insistence on his freedom and an end to his trial before this conviction was largely responsible for the insistence by the government and a section of the public that his prosecution must be logically concluded.

For now, Al-Mustapha has the right to continue to pursue his freedom, which he says he will. The trial has polarised sections of the country, and there are very strongly-held views regarding the justice and propriety of his trial on both sides. Many of the sentiments around the trial have deep roots in ethnic politics, and Al-Mustapha himself says he has many enemies in powerful position. The nation cannot afford to add a major fallout along ethno-cultural lines from Al-Mustapha’s trial to its current legion of political and security problems. If the appal process is the only route available to Al-Mustapha, now that he is a convict, it is important to demand that it does not drag in the same way as the trial did.