By Alex Ekemenah, Chief Analyst
Security analysts and managers must first of all leave their personal views out of consideration and assess the unfolding situation objectively as much as possible in order to proffer bipartisan solutions.
After my posts on Boko Haram and the Shiites’ problem, friends have called to ask series of questions, probing me to get further insights into the “problems” Nigeria has found itself in recent years.
I have no answers to most of the questions asked because I am not in official position to know more than I already know (both what I have published and those not published).
What is the problem here?
There are two levels from which we can look at the problem: from constitutional standpoint on the crucial issue of secular status of the state and from national security standpoint.
The first question that naturally comes to mind is whether Nigeria is truly a secular state in practice or not?
There is no doubt that Nigeria is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state. The two major religions in the country are Islam (predominant in the Northern part of the county) and Christianity (predominant in the Southern part of the country) with admixture of traditional religions.
Adherents of the two main religions take conflicting positions on the question of the secular status of the Nigerian state.
While most Christians argue for separation of the Nigerian state from religion in the traditions of Western democracies (this matter had since been settled many centuries back after pitched between the State and the Church – in which the State was victorious), most Muslims advocate, often aggressively, the fusion of religion, the state and the law in the tradition of theocratic states in the Middle East and elsewhere as dictated by the tenets of Islam.
To many of them, the Sharia ought to govern the totality of the life of a Muslim from cradle to grave, and whenever there is infraction of the law, offenders must be punished in strict accordance with the legal dictates of Islamic jurisprudence no more no less.
What is observed is that the 1999 Constitution did not expressly proclaim Nigeria to be a secular state but it prohibits both the Federal Government and the states from adopting any religion as state religion. There are differences between the two especially when applied to national security practice.
It also went ahead to guarantee the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as well as the right to freedom from discrimination on grounds, inter alia, of religion to the citizens. This is incontrovertible as they form part of the corpus of inalienable fundamental human rights granted the citizens to lift them from the realm of brutish, nasty and solitary Hobbesian state of nature.
Some of these Constitutional provisions have been the subject of tendentious interpretations over the years. While some people contend that the Constitution has provided for the secularity of the Nigerian state, others contend to the contrary.
Nigeria is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference [OIC] against the mainstream argument that it runs contrary to the secular status of the country.
A careful perusal of the 1999 Constitution (with amendments 2011) did not help matter on the issue of secularity of the Nigerian State as it double-speaks on the issue.
The Constitution provides for religion and secularity at the same time in four sections. These are:
Section 10 which establishes the secularity of the Nigerian state in a roundabout way by providing that, “The government of the federation or of a state shall not adopt any religion as state religion”; (it did not expressly say that Nigeria is or shall be a secular state)
Section 38 establishes the rights of the citizens to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in 4 sub-sections.
But Sections 275 and 280 correspondingly made a volt-face and contradicted the two earlier quoted sections.
Section 275 provides for the creation of states Sharia courts of appeal while section 280 provides for the creation of states customary courts of appeal.
First, the provisions found in sections 10 and 38 can be argued to have been completely negated and rendered void by the provisions found in sections of 275 and 280.
Second, the adherents of other religions apart from Islam have been relegated to an inferior status and discriminated against by the provisions in Section 275 because other religions have not been given equal recognition by the same constitution in the same manner it did to Islam.
The above is the onerous legacy of bifurcated judicial system that operates two parallel legal adjudication systems because of the religious structure of the country.
Third, while these provisions recognize the important place of religion in our national life, they pretend that we can operate some modicum of secularism and not pluralism.
It has been noted that 1999 Constitution mentions ‘Shariah’ 73 times, ‘Grand Khadi’ 54 times, ‘Islam’ 28 times and ‘Muslims’ 10 times but does not mention the words ‘Christ’, ‘Christian’, ‘Christianity’ or ‘church’ even once.
These are the kind of constitutional mistakes that some religious extremists latch on to assume, presume or justify that Nigeria is an Islamic or should be made wholly an Islamic State.
Thus while the constitution tries to guarantee freedom of choice of religion to all Nigerians in one breath, it try to promote one religion over the other in another.
Thus it did not come as a surprise that Sharia law operates in at least 12 Northern states of the country from one degree to another which was a direct product of the legitimacy conferred on Sharia by the Constitution.
Thus it is also not surprising that whenever there is any attempt to review the Constitution along the long of strict interpretation of secularity, there is stiff resistance from the very part of the country that has adopted a kind of state religion above the rest of the country.
But what has been the reality of the situation? It is exactly from the same region of the country that extremism and bigotry have become predominant leading to the various threat spectrums against national security.
It must be evident to objective-minded person that the Nigerian 1999 constitution is fundamentally flawed in the treatment of Nigerian citizens as regard their religious beliefs and must be thoroughly reviewed because it provides the recipe for extremism and bigotry that generates threats to national security from the domain of religion.
Whereas in western democracies, the conflict between the State and the Church had long been resolved, of course, after pitched physical, ideological and political battles, Nigeria is still hooked to the idea of having a state religion if not through the constitution then through the back door.
Thus Nigeria obsessively pushes and put religion to the fore of national governance and discourse. Quite a lot of atrocities have been committed, whether reported or not in the name of religion since the return to civil rule.
It is not surprising, for instance, that under this administration, the entire national security architecture and governance structure is not only dominated by Northerners but also exclusively by Muslims. And yet, we face national security crisis of the greatest proportion in recent years and mostly from the same region.
Quite a lot of scholarly works have been done along the lines of secularity and national security. But the main lacuna is the treatment of the strategic management of security and national security with adequate empirical contemporary examples.
But what is most embarrassing perhaps is that the Shiites’ problem (in this particular case) has been willy-nilly allowed to grow into the current Frankenstein monstrous size over a period of four decades.
One of the most emotional and potentially explosive issue and threat to national security in Nigeria today is our gross mismanagement of the secular status of the country.
Agreed that Nigeria is a secular state as guaranteed by the Constitution, however, our secular state has unfortunately allowed the growth of religious extremism which is now threatening national security. In short, what has happened is that protection of national security has failed to curb the growth of religious extremism because no line is or could be drawn between secular nature of the State and religious extremism.
It is a quandary that any nation, especially, a supposedly liberal democratic state of a developing status, could find itself.
Interestingly, advanced democracies like the United States, United Kingdom, France, India, Russia, etc, are working hard to solve this dilemma as empirical evidences have shown over the “war” on religious extremism within the context of their secular states – even when some of them regarded themselves as predominantly Judaeo-Christian states.
In my post on Boko Haram, it was stated that “The fundamental fact is that Nigeria lack a philosophical foundation for its security policy. There are no known philosophical values upon which its security policy and strategy are based”.
That is the crux of the problem. As one the presidential candidates in the last general election consistently maintained: “Nigeria has no identifiable philosophical worldview” (Professor Kingsley Chiedu Moghalu, presidential candidate of Young Progressive Party).
Critics may want to charge that Professor Moghalu was probably speaking for himself; that Nigeria has a philosophical worldview as encapsulated in the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, alongside Fundamental Human Rights, etc, as enshrined in the Constitution.
Philosophical worldviews are shared values between disparate people, united to confront a common enemy or enemies threatening to imperil the sovereignty or legitimacy of the State to which the disparate groups have voluntarily subscribed and submitted to, at any point.
Despite the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy as stated in the Constitution, what empirical evidences have shown is that we (Nigerians) were never united around a common purpose describing these objectives and principles within the context of the secular nature of the State and national security.
That is why the State itself would look the other way when enemies like Boko Haram, Shiites and other sundry ethnic militias can be running amuck on the streets, threatening to rip the State apart until it is too late in the day. That is why Boko Haram insurgents and Fulani herdsmen could arrogate to themselves the “exclusive” right to kill anybody with impunity while the State fidget impotently, groaning or lamenting.
For instance, it beats a sane imagination how the Nigerian State would allow an Islamic Movement in Nigeria (the Shiites sect) grow from infancy to its current adulthood over a period of 45 years without questioning its secret desire to overthrow the State or partly impose Sharia law especially in the Northern states.
Now, Nigeria is trying to put a gun to the “man’s” head, threatening to shoot. Of course, anybody familiar with behavioural response in this type of situation could easily predict what the response would be.
The response would be “go ahead and shoot! You are a bastard if you don’t or can’t shoot!”
There are speculations in town now that the Federal Government is thinking of proscribing the IMN. Too late in the day!
It doesn’t work that way at all.
Proscription would not solve the problem. Rather, it would consequently escalate the strategic stakes and most probably snowball into something unthinkable: another terrorist and insurgent campaign opening up from the Northwest of the country.
The same effects (of unintended consequences) would happen if Sheik Ibrahim Zakzaky is released today. Therefore, whether he is released or not, the problem of the Shiites sectarianism has come to stay with Nigeria until it is fully discharged one way or the other. If he dies in detention, he will instantly become a martyr and would become a driving force for their struggle against the secular state.
Nigeria has boxed herself into a corner in a colossal failure to manage her secular status to the detriment of her national security over the arch of time and space. Nigeria is not also able to manage national security interests and fundamental human rights of the citizens. For these reasons, all manners of sects and individuals can challenge and grandstand the State at will, while the State either whimper impotently or in the extreme cases deploy instruments of hard power (military power vis-à-vis security forces) against the challengers (in a manner always inconsistent with protection of fundamental human rights) often without success.
For instance, at least two courts have granted unconditional bail to Sheik Ibrahim Zakzaky, in recognition of his fundamental human rights of liberty, movement, harbeas corpus, etc. It is a fundamental requirement in accordance with rule of law that Zakzaky be released forthwith, without fear of whatever he going to do next in connection with his activities.
But the State is holding fast to Zakzaky for almost four years now. What we are being presented with are evidences of Federal Government’s incompetence notably lack of public diplomatic skill to manage this situation. It is a dicey situation which without doubt can be well-managed without further escalating the stakes.
While minority rights should be respected, minorities should not be allowed to dictate to the majority because nobody should claim superiority of one’s religion over the others. Such a dictation is often a recipe for conflicts and crises. They should not be allowed to ever be in position to bully, intimidate, coerce, or stampede the State in any manner or in any direction whatsoever outside the laid-down constitutional procedures for ventilating grievances.
The State on the other hand must ensure not to trample upon the rights of the minorities in any manner whatsoever. So also the majority must not be allowed to intimidate, harass, coerce, bully or grandstand the minorities. Equilibrium (principle of balance) must be maintained at all times.
Of course, excluded from consideration is the State-sponsored or suppression of particular ethnic groups such as the Gypsies during the WWII in Europe, Kurds (in Iraq and Turkey), the Uighurs in China, Tartars in Russia, etc.
What do the Shiites really want?
Questions are now being openly asked about the real intentions of the Shiites: what do they really want? If they are demanding for the release of their leader (quite a legitimate demand within the framework of our law) and if their leader is released, would that be the end of their agitations?
Before their leader was arrested in December 2015, what was the corpus of their demands from the Nigerian State? How do their demands alter the status quo of politics and religion both in the North and the entire country? What exactly are the political and religious establishments in the North afraid of about these demands of the Shiites?
The answers to these questions, among others, first of all depend on who is answering them and from which standpoint. But security analysts and managers must first of all leave their personal views out of consideration and assess the unfolding situation objectively as much as possible in order to proffer bipartisan solutions.
But what this unfolding scenario has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt are quite many, among which some are:
- There has never really been a monolithic North whether from political and religious standpoint contrary to hitherto widely-held belief. The chickens have come home to roost to show that the North has ever been divided along political and religious lines even though there have been occasions when it is united –but only when it is convenient to do so, against for political reasons mainly to stand against the South.
At best, it can be safely argued that the era or cycle of monolithic North has come to a clangorous close. Three big examples will suffice to demonstrate this beyond reasonable doubt. The first is that contrary to hitherto widely-held belief, there are sizable number of Christians and animists everywhere in the North even though facing constant persecution and/or harassment by the Muslim majority or its fanatical groups. On the other hand, it is not possible to suppress them without political backlash and/or outcry from the international community.
- There are Hausas and other ethnic groups who are historically the original or native inhabitants of the North before they were conquered and incorporated by the Usman Dan Fodio-led Fulani Islamic jihadists. The differences between the two major groups (i.e. Hausa and Fulani) are now coming to the fore with noticeable increasing resistance to the Fulani hegemony by the Hausas and others. Now we know that there are distinct Hausa and Fulfude languages. The differences are being accentuated not so much by the increasing division within the House of Islam but more significantly by political and economic inequalities or inequities.
- The historical or ancient division within the House of Islam shortly after the death of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in which two major regional powers (Saudi Arabia and Iran) emerged at loggerhead in the Middle East are now playing out in Nigeria in its Muslim ranks and file. The Shiites exclusively supported by Iran have now emerged as a force to be reckoned with while challenging the supremacy and/or hegemony hitherto held and exercised by the Sunnis with the active support of Saudi Arabia. The Shiites do not go to Mecca or Medina on holy pilgrimage, a heresy or apostasy according to the Sunnis. They are never called “Alhaji” or “Alhaja”. They take no order from Saudi Arabia or any organization affiliated with Saudi Arabia. There are too many differences between the two to be mentioned here.
- Boko Haram insurgency even though Sunni-based is Kanuri-driven. The Kanuris are challenging the political hegemony of the Hausa-Fulani ethnic bloc. Historically, the Kanuri Empire of yore (Kanem-Bornu Empire) was never conquered by Usman Dan Fodio-led Fulani Jihadists. The Kanuris never suffered inferior complex in relation to the Hausa-Fulani bloc because historically they (the Kanuris) were regarded as the most educated and culturally advanced before the advent of Usman Dan Fodio-led Jihad. It was the British colonialists that merged (amalgamated) the three ethnic blocs together for political and administrative purposes – precisely the way Northern and Southern Protectorates of the Niger were merged and amalgamated on January 1, 1914. But in this merger or amalgamation, it was the Kanuris that suffered most because they were outmanourvered and consequently marginalized in the post independence era.
These fissures can no longer be bridged over. They are constant sources of threats to national security. This is why the advocacy or call for restructuring of the country is very relevant and seems to be the only solution to the hydra-headed problem posed by the ethnic and religious diversities/structures of the country.
Dynamic Global Security Environment
In the last two decades or thereabout, there have been dramatic changes in global security (and intelligence) landscape ushering in phenomenon like international terrorism driven by extremism and bigotry (Al Qa’eda, Al Shabbab, Janjaweed, Boko Haram, etc).
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Kenya, even the United States, Britain and France, etc, have tasted the bitter fruits or hemlock of terror, from one degree to another.
There have also been grand coalitions against terror on global scale notably led by the United States.
But there are also two seismic shifts in global environment that have also fed into the global security domain: speed of spread of information via, internet, social media, even the conventional media; and the role of the youth in terror both in the advanced countries and the developing countries.
As a result of this change in global security environment, there have been some strategic challenges to today’s both national security landscape and enterprise.
- Management of national security enterprise now involve dynamic protective security measures spanning human, physical, technical and procedural structures around political targets of terrorism and espionage (see O’Brien, K. A.: “The Changing Security and Intelligence Landscape in the 21st Century”, London, eden intelligence/the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence, October 2008, p. 4).
Nigeria has failed to respond proactively by acting to prevent in advance terrorist tendencies within the religious communities – by developing knowledge supporting interventions at inchoate stage of malicious activities such as budding extremism and bigotry especially in the North because of emotional and political considerations.
- There has been a shift from national security approach characterized by investigation and prosecution to intelligence-led interventions which may not lead to arrest and prosecution or ejection but neutralizing the enemies. “For countering terrorism, in many countries this now means a shift from “locking them up” to “countering radicalization and recruitment as it becomes clear that it will be impossible to ‘arrest our way out of this’ as was the attitude in some Western countries in the first years after 9/11”.
Unfortunately, Nigeria is still at the ‘arrest’ stage as exemplified by the arrest and detention of Sheik Ibrahim El-Zakzaky, and many of his followers – with little attention to countering radicalization and recruitment probably because it has not develop the propaganda ability and/or physical capacity/firepower along this direction.
- Shift from solo to interagency, as well as intra-agency and intra-governmental, cooperation among security agencies at the federal, state and municipal levels. Unfortunately too, while there has been much advocacy for such interagency cooperation, the regime has not been institutionalized as a cultural practice.
- There is also a global shift at the national and operational levels from strategic to tactical knowledge. However, what Nigeria needs most at this point in time is strategic knowledge and actionable intelligence along this line but without overlooking the significance of tactical intelligence generated from below up.
- Another global shift in the security and intelligence landscape is the shift from government-owned security agencies and intelligence gathering infrastructures to private sector-led security companies/service providers and intelligence gathering and analysis. Nigeria unfortunately not only has no control over the private sector-led security service providers and intelligence gathering enterprise, there are no empirical evidences to show cooperation and synergy between the two parties. This is very significant. While government-owned security and intelligence agencies hold sway in the security and intelligence community, the private sector-led enterprise is a gold mine generally in favour of external state actors who are able to successfully tap into this channel.
For instance, only God “knows” how many private think-tanks, private sector-owned research institutes, security and intelligence gathering outfits there are in the United States, Western Europe, etc, – what O’Brien called “MNC’s boutique consultancies for example the growth of ‘anonymous research, crowd-sourcing and deep-web mining work” (p.10).
The above dynamics have enormous impact on the national ability to manage national security crisis generated by religious extremism and bigotry under the guise of secularism. Nigeria has not exhibited any management ability in this domain except to use brute force to attempt to cow the non-state actors and individuals. A nuanced understanding of these issues is very important.
Is IMN now a terrorist organization?
The conflict between the State and IMN has finally culminated in the latter been declared a terrorist organization. The declaration was the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, based on an existing suit filed by the Federal Government against the group.
Justice Nkeonye Maha of the Federal High Court, Abuja, declared the Islamic Movement in Nigeria a terrorist organization. According to media report, the court restrained any person or group of persons from participating in any form of activities involving or concerning the IMN under any name or platform in Nigeria. (See https://realnewsmagazine.net/security/finally-court-declares-shiites-terrorists-organization/)
This is a novel development in both our judicial system and national security landscape. Was there a concurrence by the National Assembly? Why did government go through judicial route when it could have done the same without questioning? Was the Court provided with intelligence report to support its ruling? On what basis did the Court based its ruling?
If there is an appeal to higher court and the ruling of the Federal High Court is overturned, where would that leave the status of the IMN when government has not made a categorical pronouncement via an Executive Order by the President and subsequent official gazetting?
It is not difficult to see the hand of Esau and hear the voice of Jacob. It is a tactical way of government avoiding responsibility for the demonization of the Shiites as a terrorist group. The Federal High Court has taken up the dirty job of maligning and classifying the IMN as a terrorist organization. But for this designation to have legitimacy, both for academic and practical reasons, the Presidency must concur by gazetting the IMN as a terrorist organization – otherwise there may never be agreement especially in the security and academic circles whether IMN is a terrorist organization or not; or whether the Court has the right to do so or not.
The U.S. State Department designated Boko Haram and its offshoot Ansaru as (foreign) terrorist organizations in November 2013, citing Boko Haram’s links with AQIM and its responsibility for “thousands of deaths in northeast and central Nigeria over the last several years including targeted killings of civilians”.
But the Nigerian government voiced its opposition to an FTO designation, citing concerns that it would raise Boko Haram’s stature and have implications for humanitarian aid in the region where Boko Haram operated. Twenty academic experts on Nigeria signed a letter to the State Department urging it not to designate Boko Haram as an FTO, saying that it would hinder NGO efforts in the region and might legitimize the Nigerian Army’s human rights abuses in its efforts to fight Boko Haram.
Indeed, Nigeria never really classified Boko Haram as a terrorist organization until pressure from the international community forced its hand to regard it as such. The enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act in 2011(as amended in 2013) cleverly avoided designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization even though to all intents and purposes, Boko Haram was the main target of the Act.
Regarding Boko Haram officially as a terrorist organization was not achieved until the Governments of New Zealand declared it to be so on August 20, 2012, United Kingdom on July 10, 2013, United States November 14, 2013, Canada on December 24, 2013, United Nations on May 22, 2014, Australia, June 26, 2014, United Arab Emirates, November 15, 2014. It should be noted that Saudi Arabia has not made its official position known till date.
So one wonders how the IMN is being declared a terrorist organization when Boko Haram has not been given the same designation officially by the Nigerian Government.
Iranian Connection
There is another worrisome aspect of the situation on ground now: the Iranian connection and relationship with the Islamic Movement in Nigeria.
There is no more doubt that Iran is a meddlesome interloper in this brewing crisis.
But what has Nigeria done successfully to mitigate the external support for IMN? Nothing!
It is very obvious that Iran is not interested in the welfare of El-Zakzaky but to use him as a pawn in the global chess game of seeking to project its power to Nigeria in a manner consistent with its national security interests – using its support for Shiites worldwide as the basis for this power-projection.
Iran is not interested in whether the Nigerian State is violating the fundamental human rights of El-Zakzaky or other Shiites members (since it also regularly violate the fundamental human rights of her own citizens with impunity) but is seeking to use the growing altercations between the two parties to meddle in the internal affairs of Nigeria.
But Nigeria is strengthening the hands of Iran by its failure to clearly define what its national security interests are, by failure to call off the bluffing of Iran in international circuits such as OPEC, OIC, D8, UN and other bodies to which Nigeria and Iran belong.
For instance, why would Iran request that El-Zakzaky be allowed to come to Iran for medical treatment as reported in the media last week (See, for instance, The Punch at https://punchng.com/send-el-zakzaky-to-us-for-treatment-iran-tells-nigeria/) when in 1979 it exiled Shah Reza Pahlavi for him to die later in Egypt?
Iran is putting her nose where it does not belong but Nigeria is not spiting it because it still wants to maintain good relationship with Iran. You can’t have your cake and eat it! In international relations, it is a maxim that you don’t have permanent friends but permanent interests.
Iran is exploiting the Nigerian State’s predilection (weakness) for tolerating religious bigotry and extremism on the basis of her secular status – such bigotry and extremism posed against her national security interests by IMN over the years.
Iran should have been told in clear and unmistakable terms to mind its own business of which it has plenty, and leave Nigeria alone. Iran should be told to face its current problems with the United States which is more than enough for it to handle rather than seek to cause headaches in Nigeria with its support for the Shiite members in Nigeria. Iran should be told to respect the fundamental human rights of its citizens, more especially its minority groups such as the Zoroasterian groups before asking Nigeria to respect the fundamental human rights of its citizens.
The net-result of all these is that Nigeria is gradually descending into an atomistic society of Hobbesian character (where life is solitary, poor, nasty, short and brutish) perpetually at war against itself by all its diverse ethnic groups and/or geopolitical blocs. Armed and non-armed (but aggressive) non-state actors are rising from every nooks and corners to challenge the hegemony of the Nigerian State.
There is obvious need to rethink our secular status in view of our defined national security interests. This can only be achieved from a philosophical standpoint and not subject to the whims and caprices of each administration. Such a philosophical worldview encapsulating our secular status and national security interests can only be on a long term basis reflecting the global security environment and economic and political dynamics.
Naturally, there would be short-term considerations subject to expedient or contingent situation. Thus such a philosophical worldview would not be a rigid dirigisme but a flexible instrument moderated by changing environment or situation.
The ability of Nigeria to manage the evolving crisis would be a signpost for the strength of its statehood and hallmark of its modern statecraft in the 21st century.