B’HARAM INSURGENCY AND ATIKU’S CHICANERY: Last Monday, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar was so moved by reports that the terrorist sect, Boko Haram, captured Mubi, that he held a press conference to invite international assistance towards containing the growing insurgency. He was so distressed that one of the largest towns in his Adamawa State has been taken by the terrorist group that he had to alert the world of the humanitarian crisis that has come in its wake. Atiku’s concern is understandable. “As somebody who hails from Adamawa State, you can appreciate why I feel such emotion at the fate of my people”, he declared. Though the insurgents are still.far from Jada, the fall of Mubi invokes as much ethnic passion in the All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain. However, it also presents the astute politician an opportunity to make some political capital at the expense of President Goodluck Jonathan and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Rather than situate the crisis properly, he blames the growing insurgency on “a crisis of leadership” and made scathing remarks about the supposed inability of our armed forces to defend the nation. Atiku’s remarks are not only unstatesmanlike and absurd, they are all actually intended to deliberately distract the government and the security forces from their efforts to contain the insurgency. It follows a pattern in his past utterances which, like those of his co-travelers in th APC, Muhammadu Buhari, have fuelled rather than help find solutions to the insurgency. Though both men have consistently refused to genuinely condemn the activities of those terrorist they are usually the ones that shed more crocodile tears whenever innocent Nigerians are victimized by their actions Unlike in other developed democracies where statesmen come together in moments of national crisis irrespective of their partisan political persuasions, to support government to contain a common threat, Atiku, Murtala Nyako and Buhari have only paid lip service to this ideal. In the run-up to the 2011 presidential election, it was General Buhari who allegedly told his supporters to go on a lynching spree if the result did not favor him. Confronted by newspaper interviewers later, he had declared that “there may be no Nigeria” if the election was rigged, drawing a curious parallel with the events in Somalia. Though he eventually lost in a contest adjudged free and fair, it did not stop the post-election violence that arose from that careless pronouncement. The presidential panel that investigated those outbreaks of violence, headed by Sheikh Ahmed Lemu, was on target by submitting a report that largely indicted the former Head of State for making inflammatory comments that contributed to the violence. At the Northern stakeholders Forum in 2010, Atiku was quoted as saying that “those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent change inevitable”. Atiku may have refrained from directly accusing President Jonathan of complicity in the growing insurgency, but his veiled reference to suspicion that it is part of the ‘electoral politics’ of 2015 betrays his real intentions. That is sad indeed, as it is a grim reminder of the activities of former Adamawa State governor, Murtala Nyako another APC leader who had consistently attempted to incite the North against the Federal government. Like Atiku’s press conference, Nyako’s April 16, 2014 letter addressed to his colleagues in the Northern Governors Forum, has all the trappings of incitement to violence. The Satanic letter which accused the Jonathan administration of “full-fledged genocide” against Northern Nigeria, was not only incoherent, it was shameful coming from an elected governor. Now it is convenient for Atiku to talk of ‘electoral politics’ and to use the insurgency as political tool to take a swipe at the Jonathan administration. Atiku says that the ‘seeming inability of the government to end the crisis is a plan to weaken some parts of the country ahead of the 2015 elections.’ While it is not the first time Atiku had made such incendiary statements that have the potency to incite the citizenry to violence the last one is most irresponsible, to say the least. How can a former VP reduce the security issue in his own backyard to mere ‘electoral politics’? That is the height of insensitivity, coming from a man who nurses the ambition of becoming Nigeria’s President. While it may appear to be patriotic, Atiku’s call on the international community to help Nigeria tackle the Boko Haram insurgency, is an exercise in self deceit. As a former VP, Atiku knows what to do, since charity starts from home. It behoves him to first support his government’s efforts to find a solution, otherwise take whatever criticism he has on the ongoing efforts to the President himself. While he has refused to take those options, he refuses to attend statutory meetings where such matters are discussed and solutions proffered; rather he revels in criticizing the Nigerian military and concluding they have been ‘overwhelmed by the insurgents’. The questions that keep agitating the minds of Nigerians are: why does scathing criticism of government efforts to contain the nation’s ongoing circle of violence come mainly from known leaders of the main opposition party? Why have their utterances tended to exacerbate, rather than calm or offer solutions to the nation’s charged security situation? There is no doubt that Atiku, Buhari and Nyako contributed to what has today become a national calamity through irresponsible utterances; however, it is most cowardly for any of them to use th present situation to further their narrow political interests, like Atiku’s press conference seeks to. Written by Sylvester Okoro.
Posted on: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:45:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015