Indices of Failure: Insecurity and the Peter Obi Solution 1

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak for me
First They Came by Rev. Martin Niemoller.
This poem by the Reverend Martin Niemoller, who was a German theologian, has gained global popularity. It has often been quoted by rights activists, political agitators and other categories of leaders. Regardless of the circumstances under which it is quoted, its message remains the same – we owe one another a mutual responsibility to preserve the sanity of the society. If we neglect that duty because we are not personally affected at the moment, we will soon be consumed when the tide turns against us.
While the poem has a sobering message even at face value, the story of its composer and his circumstances even adds more weight to it. At the peak of Nazi Germany’s hatred for Jews and their systematic destruction, Niemoller had been a Nazi supporter. Apparently, being not a Jew, he did not see any reason to speak out. Yet, his circumstances changed when the authorities clamped on him and imprisoned him in one of the concentration camps used for the Jews. What was Martin’s offence? He had spoken against the Nazi control of the churches.
Whereas the events of the Holocaust have come and gone, this quality of the average human – of limiting his concern to himself alone – has continued to be a feature of all societies. It explains the behaviour of individuals who attempt desperately, and often contemptuously, to defend the obviously indefensible policies of government merely because they happen to be benefiting from that regime. Often, these individuals start to cry wolf when the transient comfort of their circumstances changes.
Since the return of democracy to Nigeria in 1999, the nation has had its fair share of challenges, often aggravated or perpetuated by bad governance. These challenges came to a peak since the inception of the present federal administration under the All Progressives Congress (APC). Everywhere one turns, the evidence of state failure stares one in the face.
This series focuses on insecurity. In the period leading to the 2015 general elections, Nigeria’s gross insecurity was limited to the North East of the country where insurgents occupied whole local governments and mounted flags, claiming parts of Nigerian territory. Nigerians were rightly angry and appropriated that anger by voting out President Goodluck Jonathan. In his place, a retired army general and former head of state, Muhammadu Buhari was elected. Buhari had promised to lead the fight against terrorism “from the front.”
At the abduction of hundreds of schoolgirls from Government Girls Secondary School, Chibok, by the Boko Haram insurgents in 2014, Buhari had queried, “How can hundreds of schoolgirls be abducted and the president appear incapable of acting?” Sadly, under the Buhari regime mass abductions have happened in more than 5 schools by both the Boko Haram terrorists and a well-organized body of invaders known by the baptism name of “bandits,” whom it took the federal government more than six years to call by their proper name as terrorists. Schools have been closed in many communities in the North East and North West regions of the country for fear of terrorists.
Under the same administration, communities in the North East and North West have been under occupation by the so-called bandits, who no longer hoist flags, but now collect levies and taxes from the people. This has been corroborated by several media accounts, including serving senators from the president’s own party whose constituencies approached for support to raise funds in order to pay the levies imposed by the terrorists, without which the communities are denied access to their farms.
In the Middle Belt and South West, several advance teams of foreign terrorists disguised as herdsmen have been slaughtering communities and eliminating whole families throughout the seven years of the Buhari presidency. These murderers, whose origin the president has curiously spent his entire presidency explaining rather than curtailing, have not hidden their agenda. They want to take over Nigerian land and other resources. They parade high-grade military equipment and have seamless passage on the nation’s roads, prompting a former Minister of Defence, General Theophilus Danjuma, to accuse the Nigerian Army of colluding with the terrorists, an accusation the army has reportedly “investigated” but not made its findings public.
In the midst of all these, what has been the response of the Commander-in-Chief? Abysmal, that is, on the few occasions that he tried to respond. The retired general that promised to “lead from the front” has often been found holed up in Aso Rock, appearing totally detached from the happenings in his country. On several occasions, Buhari’s response has been to merely say he is not aware. When he was not denying being aware, he managed to express shock, convey condolences and issue several “last” warnings to the terrorists – of course, through his spokespersons.
Perhaps, the most befitting description of the administration is that it is a regime of choice without consequences. Following the New Year Day mass murder of Benue indigenes in 2018, Buhari reportedly ordered the Inspector-General of Police to relocate to Benue and attend to the situation. It was three months later when he visited Benue that he was told that his Police IG did not relocate according to the president’s orders. The president said he was not aware the IGP had flouted his orders. Yet, there were no consequences.
This year, the correctional facility in Kuje holding hard core terrorists was attacked with scores of the terrorists fleeing. Visiting the facility, President Buhari expressed disappointment with the nation’s intelligence agencies, and demanded a detail report on the incident. In the days that followed, it emerged that over 44 intelligence reports warning of the impending attack went ignored. As usual, there are no consequences. The Commander-in-Chief has since returned to the villa, waiting for another opportunity to express “disappointment.”
The question is, faced with an existential threat that has potential to destabilise the whole West African subregion, why has Nigeria’s Commander-in-Chief spent over seven years in office doing nothing in particular? The regime has not prosecuted any sponsors of terrorism. It has failed to demonstrate any political will in dealing ruthlessly with the phenomenon. Unable to provide security, it is also refusing to authorise local arrangements by state governments to protect their own people, arrangements pioneered by state governors belonging to the president’s own party.
Now, what will Peter Obi do differently, and why should Nigerians trust him with the presidency at this time?
To be concluded.
Dr Anzaa is Head of Literary Works, Doctors4PeterObi