The insurgency, which has claimed more than 20,000 lives, with a further two million internally displaced persons and crippled the socio-economic life of the people of the Northeast geo-political zone, has often been misunderstood. Beginning from 2010, the Boko Haram insurgent and terror group have engaged the Nigerian government in a protracted war of attrition. The fundamental misunderstanding of the terror group and misinterpretation of its motive by the various interest groups and stakeholders have aided and abetted, if not strengthened, the group and the result has been an intractability of the war.
In the early days of the insurgency, Boko Haram apparently enjoyed some form of legitimacy among a significant section of the people of Borno state and environs because their doctrine of rejecting western education and lifestyle was simply a continuation of an already existing religious sentiment preached and taught among the predominantly Muslim populace of the area; that was why their grouse was initially viewed as a result of local religious issues which found expression in politics involving principally the former governor of the state, Alli Modu Sheriff. Following the security crackdown on the group and the killing of Mohammed Yussuf, their leader, in the process, the stage was set for an endless war.
Beginning with isolated terror acts targeted at political allies and followers of Sheriff, their avowed enemy. The predominantly Muslim populace of Borno saw this as a direct confrontation between the Boko Haram sect and Sheriff and sympathised with the group, who appears to be oppressed by the state. When the group graduated to attacking security agencies and other government’s targets, this fitted well into the already pre-existing anti-government sentiments prevalent among the populace.
When again the group expanded its violent activities to Christians and their places of worship, it was received with indifference because that also fitted into the religious bias, intolerance and resentment of people of other faiths that is pervasive among the predominantly Muslim populace of the region. Therefore, the sympathy and legitimacy the group enjoyed, helped to nurture it to violent maturity.
Dr Goodluck Jonathan had the misfortune of becoming president and commander in chief shortly after the Boko Haram insurgency broke out, following the death of former president Umar Musa Yar’Adua in May 2010. Jonathan’s 2011 re-election bid pitted him against the northern political elite both within and outside then ruling PDP, because his ambition violated PDP’s zoning arrangements. Jonathan’s violation of the gentleman’s agreement, which sought to oscillate presidential power between the north and south, left a lot of northerners disappointed.
The feeling that Jonathan was taking the turn of the north, was a bitter one. When all efforts to stop him at the PDP presidential primaries failed under the power of incumbency, the north massively voted for then CPC candidate, Muhammadu Buhari. Following the loss of Buhari, there were violent protests throughout the north. This post-election violence was a reflection of the frustrations of the northern political establishment.
Leading political figures in the north had made certain statements which may have incited their followers to violence. Lawal Kaita, former governor of old Kaduna state, was reported to have declared making Nigeria “ungovernable” if Jonathan emerges president and former vice president Atiku Abubakar, who contested and lost at the PDP primaries against Jonathan, was quoted as saying “those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable”.
The post-election violence coincided with steady rise of Boko Haram to a formidable and bloody insurgency machine that will eventually become the most deadly group in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Jonathan administration, mistakenly viewed the Boko Haram insurgency through the narrow prism of partisan politics. It was interpreted as the north’s response to loss of power. The blunder was highlighted by then NSA, Owoye Azazi. Speaking in Asaba, Delta state capital, during the Southsouth economic summit in April 2012, he attempted to link the Boko Haram insurgency to the power struggle within PDP, by muddling up the terror group’s activities with the post-election violence.
Jonathan was apparently fixated on this narrative that for a long time, he treated the issue politically, by being none too committal to finding a lasting solution to the insurgency.
He simply viewed it as self-inflicted crisis aimed at discrediting his administration. This impression by the presidency was largely responsible for the non-implementation of Amb Usman Gaji Galtimari report, which substantially addressed the remote and near causes as well as short and long term solutions to the problem. The gross misunderstanding of the Boko Haram terror group was also responsible for the initial doubts expressed by the Jonathan presidency about the abduction of the Chibok girls, from their dormitories by the terror group.
However, the blame for the misunderstanding of the Boko Haram terror group is not entirely that of the Jonathan presidency. The larger Muslim community in Nigeria helped, in no small measure, to adding to the confusion by consistently denouncing members of the sect as non-Muslims. The living in denial by the Muslim community in Nigeria compounded the issue immensely.
A ridiculous conspiracy theory was even evolved which was widely believed by many to the effect that enemies of Islam, possibly aided and abetted by the Jonathan presidency, were responsible for the Boko Haram insurgency to give the religion of Islam a bad image. The resentment of Jonathan by the northern political establishment also added to the cacophony of confusing voices.
The inability of the Jonathan presidency to rein in the insurgent group successfully was politically capitalized to ridicule the administration as incompetent.
Even the various military operations and strategies to curb the spiralling menace of the group were either interpreted as punitive or genocide against the north by reducing their population to give demographic electoral advantage to the south. Nigeria simply could not form a consensus of opinion on a common enemy, due to our deep fault lines.
The resurgence of the Boko Haram terror group, under a Northern Muslim Presidency of Muhammadu Buhari has shattered all the myths and reveals the various conspiracy theories as mere fallacies that have obscured the true nature and motives of one of the deadliest groups in the world. Within a fortnight, two army battalion commanders were ambushed and killed in Borno with frequent suicide bombings claiming civilian lives. It is becoming clearer that Boko Haram does not fit into any of the beliefs long held by different stakeholders. Boko Haram is not Islamic but Muslim. It is a Muslim problem which can only be solved by Muslims in the short and long term, by reforming and doing away with poisonous doctrines which are at the roots of radical Islam. Boko Haram came about as result of entrenched and sustained intolerant and violent doctrines which are not only found in deviant Muslim sects like Boko Haram, but in mainstream Muslim theology.
The seeds of radical Islam were sown in mainstream Islam and it is still being nurtured by some mainstream Islamic authorities who share the same aspiration of Islamic rule in Nigeria and this has created a critical mass of millions of Nigerian Muslims that are latently radicalized with the potential of easy recruitment by the terror group. The Boko Haram insurgents are only putting to practice what has been taught and imbibed over a long period of time. Northern Nigeria is a fertile soil for nurturing the seeds of radicalization because of the pervasive revivalist Islamist sentiments that pervade the entire environment. This region was part of the historic western Sudan, where violent Islamic revivalist and reform movements thrived and continue to thrive. Modern day groups like Boko Haram draw inspirations from earlier and successful Jihadi movements, especially the Uthman Ibn Fodio Jihad of 1804, which established the Sokoto Caliphate over a large part of northern Nigeria. Boko Haram is driven by ideology. The aim of the group is to establish a Muslim theocracy over Nigeria, an aspiration shared by millions of Nigerian Muslims who are not even members of the sect.
The concept of Caliphacy; a successor state to that of the Holy Prophet Muhammad PBUH, is the major driving force of radical Islam. The caliphate system has never been achieved successfully because it is not Islamic but a Muslim invention which has been a source of acrimony among even Muslims, leading to bloodshed and eventual schism into the Sunni/Shia divides. Muslims should understand that Islam is an empire of faith and not a religious hegemony to be presided over by one man. In a multi religious country like Nigeria, sharia faith and not sharia law should be imbibed and practiced by Muslims. Sharia faith should reflect in the individual lives of Muslims as the true successors of the Prophet, by being obedient to Allah in doing good and abstaining from vice. Nigeria cannot and should not be a country of multiple legal systems. Nigeria is a constitutional democracy, which guarantees freedom of religion with additional safe guards against violation of rights of Muslims to worship freely. Nigerians should submit to constituted authority, law and order.
