What is important is to terminate terrorism in Nigeria, not on whose account By Emeka Asinugo
The recent public engagement between the United States of America and Nigeria which was sparked by President Donald Trump’s televised and social-media threats to “go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic terrorists unless Nigeria acts” has captured the attention of the world and made noisier and more political a bad situation Nigeria was already struggling to contend with. Trump’s posture immediately prompted a defensive response from Abuja. The government spokesperson insisted that Nigeria would not accept a characterization of Christian genocide and stressed that any outside assistance must respect the national sovereignty of Nigeria. For ordinary Nigerians, however, the argument about who speaks louder from Washington or Lagos is less important than the question of whether or not security of life and property can be restored in every disturbed part of the country.
For decades Nigerians have helplessly continued to watch their communities sacked by night, farmlands abandoned for fear of being kidnapped by bandits, busy markets emptied for fear of suicide bombers. They have watched in tears as mass burials become familiar sights, especially in the northern and middle belt regions. Christian and Muslim families, and even families of no faith have been slaughtered in cold blood. Livelihoods have been destroyed. Children have been denied schooling on account of incessant kidnapping, and whole towns have been emptied of life. The human toll of organised violence and terror across parts of Nigeria is, to put it mildly, a national tragedy. It is a test of global concern. But whatever international noise surrounds the issue, the immediate and universal need inside Nigeria is simple and urgent: restore security and protect citizens and their properties.
The Nigerian government must understand that the enemy is not Trump. It is the militants who attack villages, bomb markets and abduct schoolchildren. Political arguments about motif, whether the alarms raised were driven by concern for the lives of Nigerian Christians specifically, or by broader geopolitical calculations, should not distract from the core objective of flushing out the terrorists to secure peace in the land. Terrorists are not known to list the religion of their victims before launching an attack. In many affected areas the victims could be Muslim or Christian. In many more, they are ordinary Nigerians living at the fault lines of poverty, communal competition and criminality. But that is secondary. The question that yawns for an answer from the federal government of Nigeria now is: are you willing to focus on the elimination of the bandits and terrorists and restore peace in the land or not? Whether it is for the sake of Christians or Muslims or the vulnerables in the country is secondary.
Nigerians must ask their government and their political leaders: do you truly want the terrorists eliminated? And if you do, what is the plan? Can Nigerians trust their government to combine competent military operations, superior intelligence, effective policing to dislodge local supply chains for arms and money to the terrorists? Can they trust their government to root out corruption and political patronage that allow criminal networks to survive in the shadow of officialdom? Nigerians have learnt from experience that the prevalent empty promises, fancy declarations and secret deals with the terrorists is not the way to end the violence. They want a clear, public, accountable plan.
Allegations that some officials are sporting to “negotiate” with or even pay ransom to the terrorists must be investigated transparently. Nigerians are no fools. They know that at the end of the day, the ransom money only goes to fund the purchase of more guns and effect further violence. If negotiators are acting in such national interest as securing the release of hostages, that must be spelt out and subjected to parliamentary or judicial review. If officials are enriching themselves by colluding with extremists, the law must take its course. Public confidence in state action is as essential to defeating insurgency as any battalion. Without it, communities will look elsewhere for protection and foreign interference, no matter how clumsy or otherwise, will look less illegitimate to those desperate for safety. They understand that the longer the government appears undecided about what it can do, the more the space militants will find to entrench themselves.
It is important, therefore, that the Nigerian government uses its leadership yardstick to measure its capability. If a Muslim President and his Christian Pastor wife can live peacefully under one roof and maintain a healthy family, why should Nigerians not want to emulate their President and his family that way, for the sake of peace in the land? Why should foreign boots descend on Nigerian soil to create an atmosphere of peace for the people? How can the government pretend that diplomatic bluster absolves it of its national responsibility? Sovereignty matters. So does competence. And so, the best path towards restoring security in the land is one that combines openness to international support with firm government leadership and oversight. Where such external assistance as troops’ training, intelligence sharing, logistics, financial controls or targeted special operations is offered, Nigeria should evaluate it soberly and accept what strengthens its democratic institutions. Any cooperation must be accompanied by public reporting, parliamentary oversight and judicial safeguards so that the fight against terror does not become a license for human-rights abuses.
The international community understands that both humanitarian impulse and global security interests justify supportive action. But such support is most effective only when it strengthens accountable national systems. Military assistance without rule-of-law reforms risks repeating such mistakes as handing weapons into environments where criminal actors and corrupt officials can convert them into new threats. External actors should, therefore, only offer technical aid, intelligence cooperation, capacity building for police and prosecutors, and conditional assistance that encourages transparency. Where abuses are documented, partners should press for accountability while Nigeria is allowed space to lead operations on its territory.
Nigerians themselves must embrace the imperative to make national security a civic demand rather than a partisan cudgel. Calls for decisive action are legitimate. So too are demands that force must be used responsibly and that victims of violence must be assisted, irrespective of creed. Civil society must insist on a single standard: the state exists to protect all its citizens. Religious leaders should, if possible, de-escalate sectarian rhetoric and use their influence to promote cooperation between communities where joint intelligence and local vigilance can stop attacks before they start. Political leaders must resist exploiting insecurity for electoral gain. The moment is too grave for triumphalism or cynicism.
Practical steps the government should take, and be willing to be held accountable for, must include: publishing a clear national security plan with timelines and measurable targets; creating an independent commission to audit security-sector spending and expose procurement irregularities; accelerating community-policing pilots that give residents a stake in prevention; prosecuting corrupt officials implicated in security lapses; and increasing immediate humanitarian relief for displaced families. A public and verifiable approach will reduce the temptations for clandestine deals and reassure partners that assistance will be used to protect citizens, not to entrench impunity. The politics of international posturing and the memory of religiously framed violence should not blind Nigerians to the primary objective which is the security of the lives and livelihoods of their people. Whether it is because of their attacks on Christians or Muslims or people of no faith, what is most important to Nigerians now is to see that the bandits and terrorists are eliminated. On whose account is not necessary now. It will be the narrative for another day.
Chief Sir Asinugo, PhD., M.A., KSC writes in from the UK.
