By
Abdul-Rahman Baban Saibo
It is a fact that
whenever the mention of the name Shi’a is made he whom knows the bearers would
have an image of ‘outlaws’ run his mind before any other ruminates. Nevertheless,
the apprehended outlaws are also always glad to have such an image registered
to them.
The clash of the
Shi’ites and the Nigeria military last week in Zaria was not a mere
coincidence. The Shi’ites had it since history that immoral proficiency to
instigate violence, break laws and prove noncompliant in every turn of event
you find them dwell in. When the Kano State Government banned the riding of
motor cycles by twosome, it was evidenced that the Shi’ites proved disobedient
to the law and rode sometimes in threes holding up their banners/flags, even
breaking traffic laws. How notorious?
The military raid on
the Shi’a on December 12th which resulted from the Shi’ites blocking
the road on which the Chief of Army Staff and his troops were said to take to
attend the passing-out-parade of the recruit of Deport Nigerian army, and also
to extend a polite gesture to the Emir of Zazzau, indeed resulted to a Social
media uproar. Disagreements between what one may categorize as ‘pro-military
acts’ and ‘anti-military acts’ (towards the Shi’a) heated the Nigerian cyber-atmosphere
–especially the Northern-space. But whatsoever the interests, the people failed
to register the larger picture. A result of which the stories of the incident
emanated alternately fragmented and mostly distorted; as it has become a modernists’
habit to relay the story in the way it best sooths their interest.
The blockade by the
Shi’a was as a result of a Shi’ite activity which was said to be in process.
The Chief’s convoy was said to be halted by the members of the sect and it
appeared no diplomacy was in anyway applicable to get them to let the road
through. Some claimed that they (Shi’ites) have been denying access of the road
for other people, then why would they make any exceptions for the Chief? Quiet
typical of the Shi’a indeed!
Thereafter, the army
claimed to receive missiles of stones and other harmful objects. The army said
they stood only the chances of forging ahead to ensure the safety of the Chief,
and that quite frankly employed the necessity to engage in forceful approach
–the use of lethal ammunitions thus became a ‘no choice’. The scene was
deserted thereafter leaving casualties –dead and alive.
The following morning,
the army was said to send a tactical unit to arrest the leader of the sect
Ibrahim El-Zakzaky. And until this point, there has not been any genuine
evidence as to what actually caused the brutal end which left many dead. It all
remains to be “as they said” and distant video records which mostly captured
the incident at its finale. Here the pro-military acts say the Shi’ites were
the ones whom started firing shots at the army. Whilst anti-military acts say
why hadn’t the army lunch a safer approach?
Although both parties
have rational points to support their arguments, both might also want to look
into the reasons behind the other party’s agitation. The pro-military acts
might conclude that the Shi’ites have proven to be a prominent menace in the
country so lethal action had to be the only favoring contact at the time. Of
course this party sees the reasons that had Lieutenant General Buratai come to
any harm by the Shi’ites the war against Boko Haram would have been crippled. The
Chief of Army Staff is one man whom has boosted the morale, courage, and
bravery of the Country’s young army in the struggle to curb the insurgency. He
has won even my sympathy.
Whilst on the contrary,
the anti-military acts would say it was a “barbaric act” by the military; but,
should the military have sent just a company of unarmed men to arrest/summon
the leader of the Shi’a sect for questioning, would it have caused any terror?
Quite frankly myself doubts that the plausible chances of the Shi’ites giving
up their leader for any such questioning could come any easy –but, it was worth
a trial –considering the circumstances.
Now worries are that
the Boko Haram insurgency started as such and people are thinking perhaps if
the Shi’a leader is indeed injured as they say he is, then the Shi’ites might
decide to call for a retaliation. Rumors are that a wife and a son of Ibrahim
el-Zakzaky were amongst the victims found dead after the shootings, yet the
army denies any such speculations –What would come of that after?
We recall that in July
last year, three of El-Zakzaky’s sons were shot dead (amongst others) by the
army. Although the leader collected a Presidential apology, he was not shown much
sympathy by the army. Here one sees reasons with those whom fear for the ends
of what went December the 12th in Zaria.
The Governing
administration had branded itself with a slogan, ‘Change’, which entails a
Government that has come to end the corruption, misrule, looting and sufferings
of the common man. The Buhari administration also promised that the war against
Boko Haram will be victorious by this year’s ends; although one must admit that
significant and considerable advances have been made, the realistic would
submit that a definite coup de grace
is yet to be established.
Since assumption of power,
this administration has toiled from this issue to that problem. It is worth
recording that within six months of just-rule the Buhari administration has
come to about a point of proving who Boko Harams’ sponsors may be –though, not
precisely, yet, but it has dug to surface those who withheld the funds that
were suppose to equip the Nigeria military forces with adequate and appropriate
arms.
Here one must ask the
obliging rational civil questions. With the looters of the security funds at
hand, the sponsors of Boko Haram on the brinks to becoming exposed; Dasuki and
his accomplices scrutinizing every due course out of their mess; the Boko Haram
fighting fiercely to their last stands for knowing that there is (and will be)
no mercy in the war against them; and now the Shi’ites… What could be the
chances that these nuisances would not find the grounds to merge and make
strong allies of one another for a better chance of disrupting this Government?
What if the looters collide with the sponsors (that is if ‘they’ are not
already), and/or the Shi’ites team up with the Boko Haram to making a stronger
hold against the government? I vie that won’t be a fair tussle for the
Government.
Thomas Paine averred that
“even parties directly opposite in principle will sometimes concur in pushing
forward the same movement with very different views, and with the hopes of its
producing very different consequences”. The Buhari administration must hereby
be warned; the plunder, rot and terror they inherited from the past Government
is enough work to keep them busy for the rest of their stay in power. They must
learn to employ the use of diplomacy in whatever it is they do –henceforth.
“I know the state of
our economy is a source of concern for many. This has been further worsened by
the unbridled corruption and security challenges we have faced in the last few
years… to the people in North East whose families and businesses were destroyed
by insurgents, this has been a difficult period in our nation’s history; lessons
that we must not forget or ignore, as we plan for the future.” –President
Muhammadu Buhari (2016 Budget address)
