In the last one week, the South-East geo-political zone of
Nigeria has witnessed crisis arising from the deployment of troops in an
operation termed the Python Dance by the Nigerian Armed forces. A curfew has
been declared in Aba, Abia State and there have been reports of the loss of
lives and severe violations of the right to human dignity of fellow Nigerians.
A number of very well meaning Nigerians have called on the
president, Muhammadu Buhari to withdraw the soldiers to prevent a further
escalation of the conflict, which may lead to blood bath. The arguments are
based on the fact that the military have no business in the routine maintenance
of law and order and they can only be called in when the challenge overwhelms
the normal police, and they are specifically invited by the civil authorities
as a matter of last resort. Again, there was no reported breakdown of law and
order in any part of South-Eastern Nigeria. Rather, the zone has witnessed loud
agitations and complaints about not getting its due in the scheme of things
under the present federal administration. This discourse admits that there is a
certain Nnamdi Kanu leading the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) who has made
provocative statements and taken steps that could be considered irritating by
the federal authorities.
The current declaration of IPOB as a militant terrorist organisation
by the military authorities seems to be an escalation of the crisis to a new
level that may precipitate unimaginable bloodshed and violation of human
rights. The Terrorism (Prevention) Act of 2011 and its 2013 Amendment are clear
on how to identify a terrorist or a terrorist organisation. Section 1 (3) of
the Act states of the act of terrorism as one which is deliberately done with
malice aforethought and which involves or causes an attack upon a person’s
life, which may cause severe bodily harm or death; kidnapping; destruction of
government or public facilities; seizure of aircrafts, ship or other means of
public transportation. It also includes the manufacture, possession,
acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear,
biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of
biological and chemical weapons without lawful authority; the release of
dangerous substance or causing of fire, explosions or floods, the effect of
which is to endanger human life; interference with or disruption of the supply
of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource, the effect of which
is to endanger human life; and an act or omission in or outside Nigeria which
constitutes an offence within the scope of counter terrorism protocols and
conventions duly ratified by Nigeria.
Terrorism further includes acts which may seriously harm or
damage a country or an international organisation; is intended or can
reasonably be regarded as having been intended to unduly compel a government or
international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act;
seriously intimidate a population; seriously destabilise or destroy the
fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a
country or an international organisation; or otherwise influence such
government or international organisation by intimidation or coercion.
Even though the
provisions of the Act seem very wide, they must still be contextualised within
the purview of the mischief the law was intended to cure. A literal meaning of
these last parts of the definition may equate strong advocacy (unduly compel a
government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing
any act) to terrorism. A careful examination of the above definition of the
provisions on terrorism and our ordinary day-to-day knowledge of groups that
have been declared as terrorists show that IPOB is nowhere near the status of
being a terrorist organisation. Pray, can anyone in good faith argue that IPOB,
Boko Haram and ISIS are on the same pedestal? Alternatively, can anyone point
to the destruction of lives and property or the sabotage of public facilities
that have been wrought by IPOB? One must distinguish irritants and persons who
do and say things that may offend the sensibilities of others from terrorism.
Again, even if the leadership and members of IPOB have been accused of hate
speech – is this now the same as terrorism?
In declaring IPOB a terrorist organisation and taking the entire
South-East as its terrain means getting the authority to lock down the entire
region and treat anyone suspected of being its member as soldiers will treat
combatants who are out to attack them. In essence, their rules of engagement
may permit the so called “terrorists” being neutralised or killed.
The second part of this discourse is that this declaration of IPOB as a terrorist organisation by the military high command is unknown to the law. The power to declare a group as a terrorist organisation lies with the Federal High Court upon an application made by the attorney general, the national security adviser or inspector general of the Police on the approval of the president. Although the order is obtained ex-parte, it is to be published in the official gazette, in two national newspapers and such other places as may be determined by the Judge. The proscribed organisation and persons affected have a right to seek to upturn the order through an application to the court on notice. This enables the court to further review other materials and facts which may not have been brought before it when the initial order was made. For the military high command to have failed, neglected and refused to follow the steps laid down in law, their action is ultra vires, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. And any steps they take in furtherance of their declaration will be in clear violation of the law.
In declaring IPOB a terrorist organisation and taking the entire
South-East as its terrain means getting the authority to lock down the entire
region and treat anyone suspected of being its member as soldiers will treat
combatants who are out to attack them. In essence, their rules of engagement
may permit the so called “terrorists” being neutralised or killed. It will
legalise all forms of searches, seizures, detentions, curfews and other
violations of fundamental human rights without the luxury of the declaration of
a state of emergency. Thus, not just IPOB members alone are likely to be taken
out, their purported financiers, supporters, sympathisers, accessories before
and after the fact will all face the law as defined by the military
authorities.
Can anyone in good conscience declare that there was a breakdown
of law and order in the South-East before the deployment of the troops?
Assuming without conceding that it is answered in the affirmative, was the
breakdown of the magnitude that is beyond the capacity of the police and other
civil authorities? Clearly, the agitations in the South-East are political in
nature and require mature political negotiations to resolve them. It is
important to recall that then acting president, Professor Yemi Osinbajo had
held several meetings with stakeholders and was in the process of calming
frayed nerves before the president returned and things started getting out of
hand. Deploying soldiers and letting the agitataions escalate to the point of
taking lives will only drive the agitation underground. And no one can predict
if it goes underground whether it will not lead to a mutation and what kind of
new demons that may emerge from the mutation.
Dear Mr. President, do not allow this crisis to degenerate, call
back the soldiers; withdraw the declaration of IPOB as a terrorist
organisation; give a sense of belonging to all Nigerians. Finally, call in good
faith for a pan-Nigerian dialogue and settle the troubled waters of Nigeria by
implementing the outcome of such dialogue.
Eze Onyekpere is lead director
at Centre for Social Justice. Twitter: @/censoj
Source: premiumtimesng.com
No comments: