There is no subject matter in Nigeria today that is as sensitive as the Niger Delta question. It attracts fear and anger, arrogance and naivety, boastfulness and condemnation, emboldenment and depression. Many are mute or indifferent because they do not wish to be pigeon-holed; many people even fear reprisal attacks on them or their family members, if they expressed their honest and genuine views over the subject matter. But we have to overcome the sentiments and the arrogance, the half truths and falsehood about the Niger Delta. We have to also think about a more enduring strategy and road map for the region. Otherwise, nothing will happen, the Niger Delta has become, as it is currently, big business for government officials at both state and federal level; it has become big business for oil multinational corporations, community leaders and youth. Yet, the ordinary people in whose name the struggle in the Niger Delta is waged continue to wallow in abject privation and poverty. What then is the alternative approach?
The Niger Delta Militants have been urged to disarm and accept amnesty within sixty days. Oil is fast running out and there is bound to be crisis in the next fifteen days because there is no supply to the refineries. As a result, world prices of oil have surged momentarily to US$70 per barrel. The Joint Task Force (JTF) had claimed military success. Government had alleged that it had documents with names of prominent Nigerians who were fueling and benefitting from the militants; this it claimed was found in the camp of Government Tompolo. The people of the Niger Delta and Human Rights activists world wide, said that “victory” in the Niger Delta was mere attempt to annihilate the people of Gbaramatu as there was heavy casualty in women and children following the JTF operations.
Jomo Gbomo of MEND has already condemned the amnesty, as has Mujahid Dokubo-Asari. Some have welcomed the amnesty, others have asked for a “wait and see”, yet some have viewed it with suspicion. But the core question is: will this amnesty bring peace to the Niger Delta? The militants claim to be fighting to bring justice to their people; the government claims they are criminals simply interested in making money through illegal oil bunkering and mindless terrorism in the region. The issue is not so much which view is correct as what is the best way forward. That is what I seek to address in this piece. I propose six theses:
One: “the federal government is wrong, and the militants are right” is not the correct approach to the crisis in the Niger Delta region. Neither will name-calling resolve anything in the Niger Delta. More importantly, militarism either by government or the militants will resolve even less-it will lead to more destruction. If our leaders and the militants perceive each other as enemy then there is bound to be problem. The notion of “we-they” must give way to the notion that we are all Nigerians who share common citizenship. The key problem is that channels for discussion have never been open, they only seem to be open, but they were never truly open.
Two: There has to be an agreement that the use of arms whether as a mission of aggression or as a means of response or check on militants is not and cannot be a solution to the Niger Delta question. Both sides do not seem to be listening to each other and they do not seem to share the view that there is bound to be consensus or discussion. Both sides feel that military victory will make them important, better appreciated and win them respect. In this case, it has not won either the government or the militants.
Three: there is no common understanding of what the Niger Delta question is, is it about “true federalism” is about “resource control” is it about “political autonomy” or is it even about separate development? Nobody seems to be listening to the view point of the other side. This even makes discussion and roundtable negotiation difficult. It is trite and fruitless to say a government cannot negotiate with militants. History of resistance round the world shows that if government takes that view it is at its own perils.
Four: in a crisis situation, there is nothing lost where and if citizens and the state enter into some package, deal, and negotiation., The notion that it may encourage others to take up arms against the state, is farfetched, because while some may feel that some of the militants are stupendously wealthy, it should be realised that the flip-side of what they are doing is an extremely risky or dangerous venture in which one may not be alive to see the money or spend it. Again, events spur action. Reflect on what happened in Zaki-Biam, Jos and Kaduna. There is no such thing as “violence-for-violence sake”. It is rare in history to have such a thing.
Five: building common ground and negotiation are cardinal principles of democracy. Democracy is not about showing contempt for people or claiming arrogance, it is also about skillful negotiation to make citizens see your point of view and carry them along. Persuasion is an instrument of dialogue and discussion is at the core of this.
Six: having lost so many lives in such a short but intensive battle, what impression that the government and militants must do now is to create in the minds of the people that they are committed to genuine peace.
All of this taken together then suggest that there has to be amnesty; there is need for spade-work to get a crop of critical members of the militant groups to accede to giving up their arms and the sources of their arms. Reintegration and rehabilitation also need to be discussed and how those militants can be used as ambassadors of peace. Healing cannot take place in one day, after an attack or counter-attack, amnesty is supposed to provide a context for political repair. Healing is both an emotional and spiritual matter. Amnesty is a legal and also a political matter, but we should go beyond it to think about the social content of our citizenship within which context we should begin to find ways to reconcile. State and personal egos must give way; mutual suspicion and fear of betrayal or insincerity in the process should be eschewed. Already, there is allegation that the amnesty is meant to make government trap the militants. What does government stand to gain in that?
In all, the real reasons why militants are in the creeks need to be addressed. Federal government says it is already addressing the matter through the establishment of the Ministry of the Niger Delta and the NDDC. Is that sufficient? How much has NDCC accomplished? What can state governments in the region be urged to do? What else is needed to bring genuine development and solve the soaring unemployment in the region?
We need to realize that the Niger Delta crisis has both local and international dimensions. It is also a struggle that did not start with the massacre of the Ogoni nine. It is a struggle that has been able to bring together otherwise diverse region and diverse peoples in a common struggle, whether we agree with the content of their struggles remains quite another issue entirely. Such a commitment means that there are real reasons to listen to what the people are saying, their demands and their grouse. The argument has been environmental degradation, and then it went to militarization and killings in the region leading to open political agitation for justice and autonomy, be it economic or political.
Things have become so complex that it is unclear how the matter should and can be addressed. But it must be addressed. And in doing so, it is improper for a set of people to criminalize others and to make inflammatory remarks about another set of citizens. In so doing we heat up the system rather than solve the problem on hand.
What the Niger Delta crisis requires at this urgent time are true patriots on all sides, people who realize that as citizens, we all have equal right to development and basic needs. The Rights-based approach to the Niger Delta crises is the most correct one. It is the approach that will reveal to us that in all, we are citizens with entitlements. There is nobody who will visit the Niger Delta today that will not agree that the region is devastated and degraded and below human subsistence levels.
However, just as the Niger Delta crisis has produced victims so has it also produced beneficiaries on all sides both government and militant levels. It will not be true to say that all government spokespersons have been measured in the way they spoke about the Niger Delta neither will it also be appropriate to say that the militants have put up the best conduct. Some of the militants are genuine about their belief in the cause of the Niger Delta, others are simply extortionists. It is therefore not right to generalise or criminalise all the militants. It should realize that they did not call themselves militants, we gave them that label. MEND says it is for the "emancipation" of the Niger Delta. It did not call itself militants. Hence our language is even biased and unfair. But also this is to be expected in a society where basic respect for rights of others is no longer seen as a virtue. When such happens, anarchy takes over.
Restoring peace in the region will simultaneously address the issue of justice, dialogue, consultation and willingness by all parties to abide by decisions and outcomes. There has to be a road map for the region. The crisis in the Niger Delta cannot be solved by the establishment of a Ministry or Commission, there is need to re-look at the fundamental philosophy of governance in Nigeria; this re-examination will not only impact on state policies and programmes at the national level but also at the level of the various state governments in the region, community level and at the level of the oil multinational corporations. Every body is a stakeholder and blame does not need to be allotted to one side, all have to be blamed. But blaming anybody is helpless at this moment- it is all about action and reaction.
There is need to admit that there have been excesses on all sides. Such becomes a prelude to saying we are all sorry. But we are sorry must also come with rectificatory remorse and enduring peace can only be built on the principle of genuiness and fairness. Peace is not lack of war, peace is not just a state of affairs, peace is an attitude, a state of mind, peace is a perception and an expectation. Peace is not only what we want for ourselves but what we wish for others. Peace has high stakes, it comes at a price. But we must at no point ever allow the price of peace to be too high for our country.
People took the Niger Delta crisis with levity, others trivialized it and in the end we were all consumed by it. Our attachment of significance to the Niger Delta crisis should not be measured by how many barrels of oil we produce or do not produce; it should be measured by our sense of respect and dignity for the people of the region and vice versa. We must treat the ordinary people of that region as human beings and with sensitivity just as the people in the region should also be made to understand that kidnapping cannot be the best approach to their struggle. That is the only way they will a feel a sense of belonging and inclusiveness. However, what the people in the region need are a roadmap laced with a political commitment of service. It is not too late to design that; it is also not too late for us to come out of our parochial position and narrow-mindedness- either of revenge or of vindictiveness, because in the long run it is the country and everybody that suffer it.
It should not be assumed that I support violence or even violence by the militants; I am merely saying that in criminalising the militants and/or not giving genuine room for sustainable and enduring solutions to the crises in the Niger delta we are inadvertently nurturing and promoting the agenda of the militants. That is not good politics. While war benefits a few, peace benefits all.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });