Agitation versus Pure Terrorism: Understanding the Difference Between a Lesser Evil and a Higher Evil.
It is no longer news that Nigeria has been embroiled in a war against insurgency particularly in the northeastern part of the country since 2003. It is equally known that government has evolved several strategies which it has deployed and continues to deploy into bringing the war to an end. These have ranged from direct military action, the establishment of the Northeast Development Commission to the de-radicalization, rehabilitation and re-integration, into the society,of some so-called repentant insurgents. The strategies above were not without some criticisms from several quarters.
Recently, there are those who believe that the government should consider granting amnesty to the insurgents, while a majority of other Nigerians do not think so. The recent introduction of a proposed bill for an act to establish an agency for the rehabilitation and re-integration of Insurgents into the society sponsored by a former Yobe State governor,Senator Geidam on the floor of the Senate seems to lend credence to the call for an amnesty for a group that has been responsible for thousands of death in this country. Whatever it is,everyone is entitled to his or her opinion as to what should be done to end the insurgency.
It is however important that we know what we have been dealing with in order to be able to decide whether we should grant them amnesty or not. Over time, I have read and listened to some who have merely succeeded in confusing a mere agitation with brutal terrorism. Niger Delta Militants were granted amnesty by the Federal Government. Why shouldn't Boko Haram insurgents be granted amnesty? After all,what is good for the goose is equally good for the gander.
It is important that we understand that there is a difference between a mere agitation and raw terrorism. Unfortunately,many people in this government, particularly those calling for amnesty for the insurgents, do not have a good grasp of the huge difference between these two concepts. To be able to,eventually,prevent a waste of tax payers' money on a wild goose chase, this government has to learn to draw the line between the two concepts of agitation and pure terrorism, particularly one that is perpetrated in the name of a God, so that it becomes easier for them to decide who truly deserves amnesty. At the risk of sounding too bluntly, I make bold to say that what we have in the northeast is not a mere agitation from a people who loves their communities. It is deliberate terrorism by a group bereft of any form of compassion for people in their immediate environment.
Agitators usually have objectives that are specific, measurable and realistic so that as soon as the root cause of their agitation is addressed,and this could be economic emancipation through resource control or political independence, it becomes very likely they will lay down their arms and embrace amnesty. In the case of hard-line terrorists, however,they set objectives that are not specific, measurable and realistic. At best,their demands are so utopian in nature that any offer of amnesty by the government becomes an impetus for more emboldened terrorism. Agitators deserve amnesty but terrorists do not.
It is important that we understand what we are dealing with in order to effectively contain the conflict. For me, I think that we do not need to establish any government agency funded with tax payers' resources for a group that has continued to take precious lives and create overwhelming humanitarian crises for us on a daily basis. Senator Geidam is entitled to his opinion but I think the government should begin to investigate him. There is no smoke without fire. It is said that a mad man who dances in the middle of the road has his drummer in the bush. The Senator may not be acting alone.
©Ogiri John Ogiri
Comments