Who grants amnesty to whom?

Also published in Daily Trust

In a country like Nigeria where so much blood has been and indeed being shed, and where the culture of systematically organized violence and counter violence prevails under the helpless watch of the security agents, many of whom are ironically involved in committing the same crimes, one wonders who is clean enough and indeed has moral right to grant amnesty to another. Under circumstances where ethno-religious groups are engaged in the vicious cycle of mutually destructive struggle against one another, perpetual quest for revenge against one another, inter-communal tension, mutual resentment, mistrust and general lack of confidence in the supposed constituted authorities, and where a victim in a given time and location is the perpetrator in another and vice-versa, it is obviously tricky to determine who grants amnesty to whom.
 

In highlighting this chaotic socio-political background, I obviously refer to the raging controversy over the proposal to grant amnesty to Boko Haram insurgents in Nigeria. By the way, Boko Haram leadership has dismissed the proposed amnesty as confirmed by its leader, Shekau, who, as I had predicted, argued that it was the government who should plead with his group to grant it amnesty, not the other way round. On a serious note anyway, in view of the growing audacity of Boko Haram insurgents, the declining morale of Nigerian security agents and both parties’ involvement in crimes against the innocent, one actually wonders who, between Boko Haram and the government, is in the position to declare amnesty to the other. 

       Nigerian police kill some suspects extrajudicially 

Anyway, though, I, in principle, believe in the imperative of granting amnesty to Boko Haram when it is actually due, I don’t incline to either of the two opposing views on the issue i.e. who call for granting it to them unconditionally, and who vehemently oppose the whole idea completely. In “Politics of Amnesty” {Daily Trust, Friday, 15 March 2013} I explained my arguments in detail. Yet, a closer look into the peculiar intricacy of Nigeria’s socio-political circumstances as summarized above, I believe that, as the situation stands now, amnesty may not be an effective solution proposal in the first place. This is because the best outcome achievable through amnesty under these circumstances is a mere cautious calm while the situation remains delicate and likely to explode anytime, because the fundamental issues that actually trigger the unrests are not addressed. 

Incidentally, even the efficacy of the amnesty granted by former President Yar’adua to Niger Delta militants is actually being exaggerated considering the fragility of the situation, unwillingness of the militant groups to renounce their secessionist agenda and indeed the amount of financial and economic concessions they were able to extract from the government, which confirmed that it was effectively a mere arrangement designed to financially induce the militant commanders, who have ever since then been making huge financial fortunes from the public resources under various pretexts particularly under the incumbent President. Nevertheless, the situation in the area remains delicate as sporadic violence still persists, which warns of the return of the status-quo. After all, just recently the so-called MEND movement announced its responsibility for the murder of more than ten police officers in the region, yet surprisingly, government claimed that it was not MEND that did it. 

Therefore, instead of considering amnesty as a means to end Boko Haram’s insurgency and other violent groups’ activities, government should consider a comprehensive reconciliation drive, which should not be a mere event to conduct or celebrate, but a continuous process aimed at addressing every bit of the causes of these persistent crises. This is quite imperative because neither amnesty nor any other initiative can dispel the accumulated anger and frustration that have built up over the decades. It is only on the platform of such comprehensive reconciliation initiative that aggrieved individuals and communities would be able to freely express their grievances against one another in light of which their respective ethno-religious and political elites who mastermind the unrests to achieve or maintain their vested interests would be exposed, named, shamed and possibly barred from playing any further role in public life.

In making this suggestion however, I am not being oblivious of credibility challenge, which poses the question of which entity in the country, including the government for that matter, is credible enough to inspire the public and stimulate people’s unreserved and enthusiastic cooperation and participation in this proposed initiative. This is because the general impression of Nigerians towards Nigeria as a system is understandably negative, to say the least. For instance, serious issues like corruption, nepotism, incompetence, and recently, cluelessness are generally regarded as basic characteristics of the system. 

In view of this, I humbly suggest that government put its pride aside, which by the way is largely empty already, and also compromise on the so-called national sovereignty to make all necessary legal, constitutional and administrative arrangements in order to engage  a credible international body, which should be given a clear mandate to adopt the best mechanisms available to conduct a thorough job with a view of achieving a comprehensive reconciliation between Nigeria’s various ethno-religious and regional components. 

Admittedly I may sound rather funny or even naïve to many people out there, yet I believe this desperate measure matches the desperate situation in the land. Besides, as the country is already increasingly overwhelmed by security challenges, which overshadow the unresolved issues of poverty in the land, I believe whatever it takes to restore communal harmony and sustainable peace is worth whatever amount of effort, concession and sacrifice necessary to achieve this end. After all, no matter how bad is the economy, we may not live to lament in our joints or criticize the government in the media under constant life-threatening violence.