Editorial: President Jonathan and his Boko Haram Negotiator

The irreverent trading of words between the main opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) and the President Goodluck Jonathan-led Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), over the actual sponsor of Boko Haram was not unexpected and bears closer examination. Last August 28, a footage aired on the “Arise News Now UK” television station wherein Dr. Steven Davies; a self-claimed negotiator for the federal government accused two prominent officials - Gen. Azubuike Ihejirika and former Borno State governor, Ali Modu Sheriff as being amongst the sponsors of the insurgency. The interview triggered another war of words with the APC saying the PDP should be held responsible for the thousands of Nigerians killed and destruction of property worth billions of naira by Boko Haram. Even as the uproar has gravitated into a national embarrassment, Nigerians would like to know those responsible for the raging campaign of terror.

Expectedly, the interview has excited intense public debate and recriminations. APC National chairman, Chief John Oyegun, who aired the footage to reporters at the party’s secretariat in Abuja, accused the PDP of sponsoring Boko Haram for partisan political advantage. Oyegun described ex-governor Sheriff as a PDP foot soldier; urging the President to arrest him and former Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Ihejirika as well as others linked to the insurgents to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigation and subsequent prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity, in line with Article17 of the Rome Statute setting up the ICC; and to which Nigeria is signatory. The PDP in its characteristic how-dare-you posture, unapologetically insisted an unholy alliance existed between the APC and Boko Haram; virtually telling the APC to shut up. Governor Sheriff, one of the sect’s alleged mastermind and sponsor, dismissed the allegations as politically-motivated; declaring his readiness to face any panel seeking to unravel Boko Haram’s sponsors anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, the umbrella pan-Igbo organization, Ndigbo discounted the allegation against Ihejirika as dirty politics and a smear campaign by “northern bigots.” Ndigbo called doe a high-level inquiry to address this “choreographed defamation of an illustrious General.”

As Boko Haram continues its fierce campaign for illegal territorial expansion in Nigeria, there is an urgent need for the Presidency to clarify whether the said Dr. Davies; an Australian by birth was indeed contracted by the federal government to negotiate the release of the over 200 schoolgirls abducted from Chibok by Boko Haram; and whose whereabouts remain unknown. To begin with; was Dr. Davies hired (assuming he was) as a negotiator or an investigator? What were his terms of reference; how much was he paid, and for how long was his assignment? It is bizarre that Davies claimed to be working for the federal government but did not even avail the same government which hired him the report of his findings, or speak to the Nigerian media, but rather sneaked out to purportedly speak to a third-rate TV station. Besides questions over his identity and credibility, the Presidency must be seriously troubled by the fact that Davies provided no evidence to support his allegations. And while many unanswered questions hover over Dr. Davies, what is not in question is that there has been no official attempt to debunk the story. The National Assembly, not unexpectedly, has kept quiet. Owing to the gravity of the accusations, this should worry all Nigerians.

It is an insulting and shameful paradox that Nigeria should be hiring foreigners, to come and negotiate with fellow Nigerians who have taken arms to wage war against their own country. What happened to the presidential commission set up to negotiate with Boko Haram? What is it about the said Davies that would have made him succeed where Nigerians have failed? Why can’t the government erect a high-level panel of eminent Nigerians statesmen like former Presidents Obasanjo, Babangida or Abdulsalami Abubakar to negotiate an end to the insurgency? Is the Presidency saying a foreigner can love Nigeria more than Nigerians themselves? If as it is alleged, the said Davies is highly wired to Aso Rock, then there is an obvious conflict of interest inherent in his hiring. Critics are charging that if the president knew Davies; who is widely viewed in the ilk of past white mercenaries, was hired to negotiate with Boko Haram, Jonathan has committed an offence against Section 6 of the Code of Conduct for Public officers embodied in the First Schedule of the 1999 Constitution and the Code of Conduct and Tribunal Act (CAP C15) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 which he swore to uphold. There is no question that such an expansive interpretation of this clause will neither call for Jonathan’s impeachment or resignation but, at the very least; Nigerians expect an expression of remorse from the president for having let the people down. The high office of the President has never been brought any lower!

This scenario is a testimony to how indolent the government can be in terms of insensitivity and lack of focus, thus raising questions about the real intention of the negotiations to free the Chibok schoolgirls. Furthermore, the latest development has exposed the ignorance and ineptitude of the ruling class. The glaring absence of a consensual understanding of the Chibok incident at the corridors of power exposes the levity with which a situation as crucial as this was being handled.

But for Femi Falana’s who has threatened to sue the federal government over the issue, it is indeed a pity that well-meaning Nigerians have merely watched in bewilderment. What times like this require are virile civil society organizations, a dynamic citizenry, a vocal populace and a Nigerian Bar Association that is up and doing, insulated from partisan politics and bold enough to tell truth to power. Nigerians cannot afford to be guilty of conspiracy of silence, mute indifference and cold complicity which their silence would suggest should they continue to ignore these allegations of who is behind the grotesque campaign of human savagery and barbarism; that is threatening the fabric of Nigeria.

This Davies controversy is another example of the lack of transparency in government. The labored explanations and analogies proffered by government apologists remain largely unconvincing. There is need for full disclosure of the facts relating to the hiring of Davies. Refusing to admit responsibility or politicizing public criticism diminishes the presidency and creates an atmosphere of suspicion. The presidency has done Jonathan no favors by its deafening silence over the issue, as the need to thoroughly probe Davies’ allegations remains imperative.

At this juncture, Nigerians are looking unto their leaders to protect them. However, there is no illusion that the war against Boko Haram is a Nigerian fight and all Nigerians must brace up to fight this war squarely. In the quest for solution, the responsibility of ending the insurgency does not rest squarely on the laps of the President alone. It is a moral burden hanging on the shoulder of every Nigerian. Thus, a concerted national effort, harnessing the energy and goodwill of every Nigerian, is required to end the scourge of terrorism so that the country can face the urgent task of nation building.