Justice or peace

“Even peace may be purchased at too high a price.” Benjamin Franklin

In an ideal world, no one will be forced to choose between peace and justice. Indeed, it has been said that justice and peace are two sides of the same coin. The idea of justice is inconceivable outside a social context, which comes into existence in the first place to create peace under which justice can thrive. Justice creates a key precondition for the existence of peace, but is also fundamentally a function of peace. Although we say that there cannot be peace without justice, in reality justice suffers from the inherent imperfection of peace. All through human history, peace has had to be built on the skeletons of injustice. The resolution of social conflicts have involved painful concessions to injustice. The peace built on skeletons of crimes and injuries is an imperfect peace. It could endure, leaving time and post-conflict circumstances to heal wounds and determine its quality and longevity. It could also collapse because it is not adequately rooted in a fair resolution of the conflict between the search for justice and the need for peace.

The government of President Buhari is being confronted by the perennial choice between peace of sorts, and justice of sorts. Thousands of people now routinely march in towns and cities in the South East and South South demanding for unconditional release of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Mr Kanu is being detained and tried by the federal government for operating an illegal radio station among other offences. His supporters who appear to be gaining in numbers, confidence and audacity insist he must be released unconditionally or they will make life impossible for the rest of the nation. The rest of the nation is uncomfortably watching a small fire that could eventually engulf it.

The question is, will justice be served by the unconditional release of a man publicly dedicated to subverting the sovereignty and integrity of the Nigeria state, breaking its laws, leading a chorus of hate speech widely aired by an illegal radiostation, publicly stating his plans to take up arms against Nigeria with the goal of seceding, and inciting thousands to march and provoke with potentially frightening reactions? How much peace will be secured by the unconditional release of a man whose project is to violate the very essence of peace through the threat and use of violence and who shows no willingness to renounce his project?

Truth is, those who demand for the unconditional release of Nnamdi Kanu are not bothered over the justice or injustice of his detention and trial. They believe they can force the government to open the gates for him through intimidation and violence. People who do not recognize the legitimacy of the Nigerian state do not debate justice or injustice of its law and order institutions.

There are other interests that are wading in, from different angles. Some of them believe that it is not in the interest of Kanu to be released, with or without conditions, and this is precisely why he should be released. They see a man who relocated from the comforts of Manchester, England and literally provoked his arrest and trial in Nigeria, because every day he remains in the custody of the government of Nigeria, his stature and martyrdom are boosted. Now Kanu is bigger than MASSOB (all factions put together); Ndigbo Ohaneze and all the political leaders of the East.

Well, almost. Some of the Igbo leaders believe they understand the problem, and elders are beginning to raise their voices in a conflict which threatens to make them irrelevant, and pitch government and Kanu and IPOB against each other in a direct conflict with frightening consequences. A meeting of the highest organ of Ndigbo last week called for the release of Kanu, although it also expressed strong sentiments around respecting the laws of the land and the need for national commitment in the complex search for justice and peace. You will not find reasons why leaders who bear scars from conflicts that challenged the nation in its history in the last half century would want a man like Kanu to be released. You will have to guess that they believe it will deflate his campaign, and restore some standing room for them in the fast-changing vortex of Igbo politics. Anything to the contrary will suggest that they see their political fortunes intimately linked with a nod in the direction of IPOB and the clamour for radical changes in resolving Igbo grievances. In which case, the waters are deeper than they look.

The problem for those who may be persuaded by the case for release of Kanu is that no one gives a guarantee that it will be infinitely better than detaining and trying him, and dealing with the consequances as any responsible government should do. He will walk out a hero, resume hostilities on a grander scale, and reinforce the image of a weak and vulnerable Nigerian state which can be taken apart by mobs.

There could be Nigerians out there who believe they can mediate this conundrum successfully. The will have to persuade a Nigerian leadership neck-deep in fighting a dangerous and stubborn insurgency to see the IPOB threat through different lenses. They will need to convince Kanu and his mob that they cannot win against a nation united against fighting another war; and show him many Nigerians from all parts of the nation who believe he has no monopoly over threats and violence. They will have to have genuine credibility and clout. They have to have a good grasp of the reality that if poverty and perceived injustices alone provided impetus for violent attempts to pull out of the nation, Nigeria would have ceased to exist a long time ago. They will have to have enough credibility to urge the rest of the nation not to raise their own emancipation movements, and that Nigeria is worth preserving. They will have to be the type of elders and leaders that can give assurances that we are safe, and that we can live in peace with imperfect justice. If they are out there, they need to step forward. Now.