Insecurity: And Trump Stirs Nigeria to Action

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Teaching Nigeria Values from Outside

The Yorubas have a proverb, that a child who refuses to imbibe the good values taught at home, will be taught those values outside (but will possibly have to learn those lessons in a harder way). This is what appears to be happening to Nigeria, courtesy of President Trump’s utterances, threat, and USA’s stand on Nigeria, which appears to be the magic wand that has finally spurred the Nigerian Government into positive action to secure the country (see Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution). Nigeria is being taught from outside, by President Trump and the American Government! And, it is becoming clear that Nigeria needs these lessons, since successive governments have refused to teach themselves, even in the face of deteriorating security.

In fairness to former President Jonathan, his administration must have identified some of the obstacles to Nigeria fighting the insecurity alone, and so, they quietly engaged foreign military contractors to fight the insurgents, an initiative which President Buhari promptly cancelled on his assumption of office. The lackadaisical attitude of the Buhari administration to the fight against insecurity, cosseting terrorists and turning a blind eye to the so-called Farmer-Herder attacks in the North Central, certainly didn’t help matters; and in the last decade, these heinous attacks flourished. 

At its inception in 2023, the failure of the Tinubu administration to take out the measures it is now taking, until President Trump’s prompt, affirms the assertion that Nigeria needed to be taught these lessons from outside. Hopefully, Nigerians will begin to see the positive results from the lessons when the examination scripts are marked, the new measures now being put in place, being the answers to the questions in the promotion examination. 

The Promotion Examination 

Last week, three important things that occurred, were questions that would necessarily have been part of the promotion examination that would result in the outcome of whether the Government of Nigeria secures the country better (pass) or not (fail). 

1) Senatorial Screening of Rtd General Musa

I laughed when I heard the Senate President’s reaction to Senator Sani Musa who suggested that the nominee for Minister of Defence take a bow, instead of facing proper screening. Isn’t that what the Senate has been doing hitherto? Just confirming people, whether they are qualified or not? Nigerians watched an old video of the Minister of State of Defence, Bello Maitawalle, possibly from when he was Governor of Zamfara State, in which he spoke in support of terrorists and bandits, offering useless excuses on their behalf, as reasons for their heinous crimes, instead of being concerned about the security and welfare of the people of Zamfara, which was his primary constitutional mandate. The fact that such a person was confirmed by the Senate as a Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, still leaves many bewildered to this day. It is true that strangely, in Nigeria, Ministers are screened blindly, without their portfolios, but with Mr Maitawalle’s record, not only should he not have been confirmed, to make matters worse, he was taken to Defence where he had previously failed abysmally. 

Indeed, the former Chief of Defence Staff who is the new Minister of Defence, Rtd General Christopher Musa, appears to tick all the boxes. But, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, still took exception to the Senator Musa’s ‘take-a-bow’ suggestion, alluding to the fact that security is too important to ask someone to just take a bow, stating that Nigerians had a lot of questions to ask the Ministerial nominee, and that President Trump was on their neck! Suddenly, SP Akpabio realises the importance of screening nominees properly because of President Trump, while people such as Mr Maitawalle who had shown from the get-go that they were not fit for purpose, sailed through the Senate’s hitherto lack lustre screening process with ease. 

Maybe by 2027, Nigeria would have metamorphosed to screening Ministers with their portfolios already attached to them. in order to ascertain that each nominee is fit for purpose. 

Today, Nigerians are wondering how Mr Maitawalle can continue as Minister of State of Defence, when his weak, over-conciliatory and friendly approach to the handling of terrorists and insurgents seems to directly contradict the stand of his new Principal, Rtd Gen Musa, who has stated unequivocally that there will be no negotiation with terrorists, and they will be faced head on. On Sunday, Nigerians received the good news of the rescue of 100 students of St Mary’s Catholic School, Papiri, Niger State, who were kidnapped a few weeks ago. How were the students rescued? If there was a rescue operation in which the kidnappers were engaged, why weren’t all the victims rescued? What has happened to the over 100 that are still not accounted for? Even if the details of the modus operandi of the rescue operation must remain vague for security reasons, how many of the kidnappers were apprehended? 

2) Bad Optics in Abia State Governor’s Visit to Nnamdi Kanu

A few days ago, the Governor of Abia State, Alex Otti surprised most right thinking people, by wasting the scarce resources of Abia State to make an ill-timed visit to a convicted terrorist, Nnamdi Kanu, in prison in Sokoto. The optics are bad. What message are we sending to the world, at a time when President Trump has designated Nigeria as a CPC? That the Nigerian Government and/or top Government Officials support terrorism, and care more for convicted terrorists than their innocent victims? That Kanu, a person who was found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction, of multiple acts of terrorism that resulted in the deaths of many innocent people of Igbo extraction like himself, and over 70 law enforcement officers, the destruction of government infrastructure, and orchestrating monumental financial losses in the Southeast as a result of the unlawful Monday sit-at-home order which was sustained for years, intimidation of the governments and people of the Southeast, has done nothing wrong in his bid to further his cause for the actualisation of Biafra? In Charge No. FHC/AB/CR/383/2015 FRN v Nnamdi Kanu per Omotosho J, the trial court had this to say on Page 142 of the judgement: “It is interesting to note that the Defendant who claims to be a freedom fighter, has even caused more harm to his own people who are predominantly of Christian faith. Can this be said to be agitation of self- determination? Not at all. Agitation for self-determination, cannot be detrimental to people who are supposed to be beneficiaries of the said self-determination. The usual sit-at-home orders, primarily affects his own people. The killings of people who disobey the order, are his own people. Ordering of closure of churches and schools as well as markets, also affects his own people. They are unable to trade, go to school, farm or even worship on such days. The threat of violence and death, have prevented the people from going about their legitimate business. Are these acts of the Defendant consistent with agitation for self-determination, the answer is in the negative”. I concur. 

Acts of terrorism are heinous, as can be seen in the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPA 2022) and the punishments of up to death sentence prescribed therein. In Karumi v FRN (2016) LPELR-40473(CA) per Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh, JCA, the Court of Appeal couldn’t have said it better when it held thus: “The gravity of the offence of terrorism which involves the use of violence or force to achieve something, be it political or religious, is a grave affront to the peace of society, with attendant unsalutary psychological effect on innocent and peaceful members of the society who may be forced to live in perpetual fear. It is an offence that may even threaten the stability of the State. The sophisticated planning and execution of the acts of terrorism, show it is an offence that requires premeditated cold-blooded organisation. The circumstances under which such a crime is organised calls for appropriate sentencing, to deter its recurrence by potential or prospective offenders”. Also see Abdulmumini v FRN (2017) LPELR-43726(SC) per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, JSC (now CJN). 

The visit of Governor Otti combined with the ridiculous statement of former Counsel to Nnamdi Kanu, Aloy Ejimakor, while making a statement to the press upon Kanu’s conviction, isn’t only capable of inciting Kanu’s supporters to violence having been deliberately misled into thinking that Kanu is innocent, but promotes the impression that Government isn’t particularly concerned about the effect of terrorism on the people, bringing perpetrators to book or making them pay for their crimes. This playing to the gallery, can result in negative consequences. Instead of simply stating that they were dissatisfied with the judgement and would go on appeal, Mr Ejimakor, a former Counsel in Kanu’s case, who is obviously conversant with Section 2 of the TPPA which has several definitions of acts that amount to terrorism, is aware that the provisions state clearly that a person doesn’t have to be physically present in Nigeria to commit acts of terrorism, and that what he refers to as Kanu simply talking, for example, amounts to incitement and instigation in Section 2(2)(g) of the TPPA. 

Mr Ejimakor said something to the effect that, he had never seen anybody convicted because of what they had said, implying that Kanu was convicted simply for talking innocently. If what a person says cannot spur people into action, why has the Nigerian Government made noticeable changes to its security apparatus and appointed Ambassadors since President Trump’s CPC ‘talk’ a few weeks ago? If what a person says cannot translate into a criminal offence, why then was Simon Ekpa convicted in Finland? After all, he wasn’t physically present in Nigeria, AK 47 in hand, forcing people to stay home on Mondays, or shooting anybody. Just like Kanu, he was instructing, directing, encouraging, inciting, instigating and insisting by broadcast, from wherever he was. This constitutes an offence, under Section 2(3)(c) of the TPPA. In Kaza v State (2008) LPELR-1683(SC) per Niki Tobi, JSC, the Supreme Court held thus: “An encouragement here means an act of making someone to feel brave or confident enough to do something, by giving active approval in support of the crime. Incitement also has the element of encouragement. By incitement, the person is provoked by a strong passion or feeling to commit an offence….the act of instigating, means something happening by the action or conduct of a person, who is the starter. By the act of instigation, the co-accused is propelled or gingered to commit an offence”.

Mr Maitawalle’s utterances which showed a Governor’s soft spot for terrorists, and another Governor, Mr Otti’s ‘esprit de corps’ visit to Kanu, a convicted terrorist, certainly gives the impression that the Nigerian Government may not have been ready to take the bull by the horns to fight insecurity, and may have required a push from the outside. It also gives the impression that though the Constitution provides for equity, equality and fairness in its Preamble, contrary to Section 42(1)(b) thereof, some criminals, such as terrorists, are given special privileges that other ‘ordinary’ criminals do not enjoy.

3) Non-Consideration of the Sharia Issue 

The Constitution makes provision for Customary and Sharia Law, but only in their civil personal sense. What Customary Law is to Southern Nigeria, is what Sharia Law is to the Muslims in the North. The Northern Christians, also have their own various customary laws. Even if Sharia is mentioned one million times in the Constitution, there is nowhere in the Constitution that it is provided that Nigeria is an Islamic country, nor are Sharia and Customary Courts endowed with criminal jurisdiction. See Sections 262, 267, 277 & 282 of the Constitution. 

I heard an argument on television last week about the doctrine of sovereignty, and how America cannot tell Nigeria what to do about Sharia Law. The truth is that, America is only teaching the Nigerian Government that as provided in Section 1(1) thereof, the Constitution is supreme, and the provisions  of the Constitution must be obeyed by all; that the 12 Sharia States must obey Sections 10 and 277 of the Constitution. What America, or Senator Ted Cruz is saying in his Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Bill 2025 (NFRAB), have their origins in the Nigerian Constitution, they aren’t dictating to Nigeria. This Sharia issue which can certainly not be divorced from a great deal of the violence that obtains in Northern Nigeria today, has been ignored from the administration of President Obasanjo, when it should have been nipped in the bud, to date. America is simply pressuring the Nigerian Government into doing what it should have done in this regard, decades ago. Nigeria is hearing and learning. Hopefully, Nigeria is hearing and learning, albeit from the external pressure of President Trump and USA.

Conclusion 

Successive Governments’ failure to thoroughly examine persons of interest in matters relating to terrorism, or to follow obvious leads that may have resulted in the arrest of terrorists, leaves any reasonable person with the irresistible conclusion that outsiders may need to intervene to ensure that Nigeria does the right thing for her people that are being kidnapped, hurt and killed almost on a daily basis. Additionally, one justification for breaching the doctrine of sovereignty, is humanitarian grounds, as the right to life and security are globally accepted fundamental rights, sacrosanct and must be protected. 

I end with the Yoruba proverb I started with: “Omo tí kò gbo nílé, yóò gbo lóde” (a child who doesn’t hear at home, will hear outside). Hopefully, Nigeria is hearing and learning, albeit from the external pressure of President Trump and the USA.