The federal government’s recent condemnation of former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s comments, attributing ethno-religious motive to Boko Haram and Islamic State’s West Africa Province (ISWAP) was not unexpected. As a matter of fact, no government, responsible or not, the Obasanjo administration inclusive, will tolerate a situation where the nation’s fault lines are exploited for the purpose of inciting civil insurrection.
The federal government said Obasanjo’s statements were deeply offensive and patently divisive. It said such indiscreet comments are far below the status of an elder statesman. In a statement in Abuja last week, the Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, said it was particularly tragic that a man who fought to keep Nigeria one is the same one seeking to exploit the country’s fault lines to divide it in the twilight of his life.
According to him, Boko Haram and ISWAP are terrorist organisations pure and simple, adding that they care little about ethnicity or religion when perpetrating their senseless killings and destruction.
Mohammed said, “Since the Boko Haram crisis, which had been simmering under the watch of Obasanjo, boiled over in 2009, the terrorist organisation has killed more Muslims than adherents of any other religion, blown up more mosques than any other houses of worship and is not known to have spared any victim on the basis of their ethnicity. It is, therefore, absurd to say that Boko Haram and its ISWAP variant have as their goal the ‘Fulanisation and Islamisation’ of Nigeria, West Africa or Africa.”
He said President Muhammadu Buhari put to rest the mis-characterisation of Boko Haram as an Islamic organisation when he said, in his inaugural speech in 2015, that ”Boko Haram is a mindless, godless group who are as far away from Islam as one can think of”.
The minister said Obasanjo’s comments were, therefore, insensitive and mischievous, adding that they were also offensive and divisive in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country like Nigeria. He said Obasanjo’s prescriptions for ending the Boko Haram/ISWAP crisis, which included seeking assistance outside the shores of Nigeria, were coming several years late, saying President Buhari had done that and more since assuming office.
He said, “Shortly after assuming office in 2015, President Buhari’s first trips outside the country were to rally the support of Nigeria’s neighbours – Benin, Cameroon, Chad and Niger – for the efforts to battle the terrorists. The President also rallied the support of the international community, starting with the G7, and then the US, France and the UN.
“That explains the massive degrading of Boko Haram, which has since lost its capacity to carry out the kind of spectacular attacks for which it became infamous, and the recovery of every inch of captured Nigerian territory from the terrorists.”
He said Obasanjo’s call for wide consultations with various groups as part of the efforts to tackle the Boko Haram crisis has been neutralised by his ill-advised comments which have served more to alienate a large number of Nigerians, who were offended by his tactless and distasteful postulation.
The minister urged the former president, whom he said took bullets for Nigeria’s unity, not to allow personal animosity to override his love for a united Nigeria, saying it will not be out of place if he withdraws his unfortunate statement and apologises to Nigerians.
Obasanjo had penultimate weekend claimed that the reasons for the incessant Boko Haram and herdsmen attacks are now for “West African Fulanisation, African islamisation and global organised crimes of human trafficking, money laundering, drug trafficking, gun trafficking, illegal mining and regime change.”
Speaking on the topic: “Mobilising Nigeria’s Human and Natural Resources for National Development and Stability”, at the second session of the Synod of Anglican Dioceses at Oleh in Isoko local government of Delta state, Obasanjo claimed that “Fulanisation and Islamisation of West Africa” is now the main reason for ‘Boko Haram’ insurgency, kidnapping and banditry.
It is unfortunate that Obasanjo has cut a figure of a notorious elder statesman with a penchant for mischievous criticisms of succeeding governments after his. This posture would have been understandable if the former Nigerian leader, who many believe is suffering from a bloated ego having been over-pampered by the establishment, is guiltless of the crimes for which he is condemning others.
Obasanjo had in 2014, during his eight-year rule, insulted the then Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) chairman, Plateau state, Rev. Yakubu Pam, calling him an “idiot” for having the temerity to complain about the festering ethno-religious crisis in the state. It then beggars belief that this same Obasanjo would have the moral authority to condemn another president, who has not only demonstrated amply empathy for the citizenry but also done everything possible, within limited resources, to tackle the inherited problems of insecurity, corruption and the economy.
While acknowledging the constitutional right, even obligation, of every citizen to hold government accountable, it is trite statutory requirement that such civic duty must be done within the ambits of the law and to the extent that it is not injurious to national unity or jeopardises the nation’s sovereignty or territorial integrity. This, Obasanjo should know too well.
