BIAFRA AND MULTIPLE NARRATIVES OF HUMAN RIGHTS, BY UCHE IGWE

Beyond the brute force of security agencies, there is a place for the use of the moral authority of persuasion. We need to use it more. This responsibility falls on the shoulders of the elite in the affected regions. They must break this unwritten code of silence. Prominent Islamic leaders – in case of the North and political leaders must join in condemning the actions of these radical movements. This is where the Governor of Kaduna State and the Emir of Kano have distinguished themselves as statesmen.

I decided to maintain a studied silence after the controversy that emerged from the Shiite-Army encounter on December 12th hit the public domain. The avoidable deaths that resulted from the incident caused me pain and I extend my condolences to all those who lost their loved ones during the clash. I have learnt from experience not to make any hasty commentary on sensitive religious issues, until I listen attentively to important historical and background matters from both sides to enable me read in between the lines. It was however fascinating to read how several people reportedly gave different accounts of the same incident. Some said it was an ambush while others preferred to call it a massacre and a crackdown.

For instance, the Nigerian army reported it as an ambush and attempted assassination on the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen Burantai – although many Nigerians, as usual, do not believe their account. Others including the Islamic Movement of Nigeria aka the Shiites sect, reported it as an attack on their members and a deliberate massacre of ‘harmless’ protesters who were on a peaceful demonstration. Gradually the conversation took a national and later an international dimension with a heavy slant towards the protection or lack of it of the human rights of the protesters. Even Amnesty International, the global human rights watchdog at some point issued a statement condemning the violation of the human rights of the protesters. The Nigerian National Human Rights Commission has already set up a panel to probe the clash. Now in the cacophony of dissenting voices often with strong emotions, it is important to objectively determine who is telling the truth and what lessons can be learnt to prevent the matters from escalating further.

From the videos available in the media, it is clear that the soldiers spent some time trying to persuade the protesters to clear the way for their boss to pass. Eye witness accounts confirmed that the protesters were armed with dangerous weapons during their occupation, further necessitating a response from the soldiers in self-defence. I found the accounts of the Governor of Kaduna State, Mallam Nasir Ahmad El-rufai and the Emir of Kano, HRH Muhammadu Sanusi II, most informative. From their accounts (which was corroborated by many others), the Shiite sect seem to have a history of committing various illegalities including blocking of major roads and the forceful acquisition of property belonging to others. The Emir even bemoaned their utter disregard to constituted authority,which was often extend to both religious and political leaders.

My take is that making this whole conversation predominantly a human rights one risks oversimplifying what is a complex and contentious issue. I am aware that citizens have a right to lawful assembly. The prohibition of extra-judicial killings is central to human rights law, while arbitrary detentions and torture under any guise must be condemned. Based on the above, it is useful to argue that the rights of members of the Shiite sect should be protected. However, they must also be reminded of the rights of non-members and the need to be sensitive to those rights in the pursuit of their own. Trampling on peoples’ rights in the course of enforcing your own is unacceptable and hypocritical. That is why I think that the current direction of conversation around the human rights of Shiite protesters must be placed in the right context – just as that of other agitators.

However, the issues here are more of law and order and the conduct of religion in a multi-religious society, rather than the over-dramatisation of the issue of human rights. Those who engage in demonstrations in Nigeria must understand the limits of their own freedom, whether they be Biafran agitators on Onitsha highway, Niger Delta ex-militants on East-West Road or Shiites on Kaduna-Zaria expressway.

There is yet another aspect of our selective perception of human rights that I am yet to comprehend. A few weeks ago some protesters in the name of Biafra were marching peacefully somewhere in the South-East. Mind you, I do not support their cause whatever it may be. However, I am aware that they were confronted by security agents and some of them were extra-judicially murdered. Those agitating for Biafra were not armed but Shiites protesters were. No one raised the issue of human rights around the Biafra matter. Those protesting in the name of Biafra were simply shot and forgotten. The whole controversy around the death of another set of armed protesters from another part of the country, doing partly the same thing, raises the curious question as to whether some lives are more important than others. Several committees have already been set up to look at the Shiite clashes both at the national and state levels but no one has spoken about the Biafran one. What a double standard! Are we really in one country?

Human rights are universal in nature. Their interpretation can be ambiguous, potentially misleading and even dangerous if we continue to tell only one side of the story. Doesn’t a soldier have rights? Are they not citizens? Some years ago more than one hundred security agents were summarily executed in Nasarawa State. How come no one shouted about their right to life? What about other road users? Security forces in the country must be urged to exercise some restrain but not in the face of danger. However, the issues here are more of law and order and the conduct of religion in a multi-religious society, rather than the over-dramatisation of the issue of human rights. Those who engage in demonstrations in Nigeria must understand the limits of their own freedom, whether they be Biafran agitators on Onitsha highway, Niger Delta ex-militants on East-West Road or Shiites on Kaduna-Zaria expressway.

Beyond the brute force of security agencies, there is a place for the use of the moral authority of persuasion. We need to use it more. This responsibility falls on the shoulders of the elite in the affected regions. They must break this unwritten code of silence. Prominent Islamic leaders – in case of the North and political leaders must join in condemning the actions of these radical movements. This is where the Governor of Kaduna State and the Emir of Kano have distinguished themselves as statesmen.

Although some commentators insist that opposition to El-Zakzaky’s style is coming from the Sunnis Muslims who are in a majority but that man must be called to order. The controversy and conversation around the Shiite confrontation with the military carries with it very clear risks to national stability. We all can remember how the so called Boko Haram insurgency started and how many people got fixated with the poverty and human rights narratives. Whatever they have become today is a product of our collective hypocrisy. We all saw the gradual expansion of the devotees of the El-Zakzaky’s brand of Islam with all its extremist tendencies and kept quiet. No one should be surprised that he got bolder up to the point of confronting the military, same as Boko Haram. When the late Mohamed Yusuf started his movement partly this same way, many people dismissed him as a rag-tag effort. To some, Maiduguri was too far for them to bother. It was the case of not-in-my-backyard NIMBY syndrome. Others hid under the debate around his extra-judicial murder to give that lethal movement the credibility it never deserved. Today, we have a hydra-headed monster in our hands. We must learn to call a spade by its name if we want to make progress in this country. The followers of Ali have their right to worship the way they deem fit. But it must be stated that where their freedom of worship ends is where other peoples’ freedom from worship begins. Fela Anikulapo Kuti said human rights na my property.