In the melee, your guess is as good as mine. The Shiites, through their spokesperson, Ibrahim Usman, who was reportedly shot dead the next day in Zaria, denied the Army’s account of events. According to him, the sect members were in the process of celebrating their annual Maulud and had cleared off the path of Buratai before soldiers came to the scene to cause the mayhem. Action against the Shiites appeared to have continued a day after the first confrontation as a result of which the Shiite spokesperson, who had driven from Kaduna to Zaria to find out details of the confrontation, lost his life.
I am sure you know that the truth of the matter would not lie with any of the two explanations by the antagonists. We need to read between the lines as well as bring to bear our understanding of the basic character of the contending forces to unearth the truth. Without doubt, we know how Islamic fundamentalist groups behave. They are not likely to peaceably vacate their ground just like that; not even for armed soldiers.
And soldiers, especially in the convoy of an Army chief, will brook no such effrontery. If soldiers subsequently determined to teach the sect members a lesson; we have seen that happen again and again in previous confrontations between the military and “bloody” civilians. So, if that is what happened in this case, it would be in the character of the Nigerian military as we know it.
Fundamentalist Islamic groups as we know them also regard and carry themselves as if they are above the law. We have seen that also again and again in the uncountable number of religious crises in different parts of the North where such sects had killed and maimed and had gone away scot-free. It will not be out of place to say that they may have got used to having their way, regardless of the atrocities committed.
Therefore, the issues involved in this unfortunate incident are to be carefully gleaned from the statements of the antagonists involved. The after-effects of the confrontation, however, leave much to be desired. The image of the country, seriously battered over what many in the international community perceived as the lack-lustre posturing of the previous presidency, has returned to the front-burner again.
One reason given by the international community for its reluctance to help the Goodluck Jonathan administration with weapons and other necessary facilities to contain the Boko Haram insurgency was the allegation that the military engaged in extra-judicial killings and the violation of fundamental human rights not only of suspected Boko Haram members but also of civilians in the theatre of the insurgency.
The Zaria killings would now appear a further confirmation of that charge against the military. Coming in the wake of the renewed enthusiasm of the international community to give the new government of President Muhaamadu Buhari benefit of the doubt and the cooperation pledged by critical Western countries to support it, the Zaria killings are one killings too many. Not only that, it has only come at the wrong time. It will no doubt force the international community to be wary of hitherto pledged support; possibly, they will slow down on it or withdraw aspects of it. That will not augur well for the war against Boko Haram. The Army ought to have been sensitive to the likely consequences of their actions before embarking on them. The world has become a global village, such that no action in one part of the world can be hidden for long from the prying eyes of far-flung countries.
Moreover, the rapidity with which events spread today is alarming. Before many Nigerians knew what was happening in Zaria, the international community had become awash with the news. Importantly, the course of action by the military did not attack the roots of the problem of Islamic fundamentalism in the North; it was reactive and not proactive. It attacked the shadows and not the substance. In that case, it is more counterproductive than meaningful to the resolution of the problem posed to our common good by incendiary Islamic preachers. As if that was not bad enough, the same military last week announced that soldiers sentenced to death on allegations of cowardice in the fight against Boko Haram have had their death sentence commuted to various prison terms.
Did the Army authorities expect Nigerians to clap? At best, the decision was a huge joke and at the worst a farce. Ongoing are the sordid revelations of how monies voted for the military to prosecute the war were turned into bazaars servicing all sorts of interests other than those of the fighting forces. So, we have confirmation beyond all reasonable doubt that the soldiers were sent into battle without commensurate resources.
How, then, could they have done the fighting required of them? When they complained and retreated, they were arrested and charged. But now that we know that the real culprits are those being charged to court for diverting monies meant for the war effort, the most reasonable thing to do is not just cut back on the death sentence but quash it altogether and let the soldiers go home free; except there are other justifications for still punishing them. Otherwise, the tokenism proposed by the Army is not only laughable but also offensive.
NEW TELEGRAPH
END
Be the first to comment