Nigeria Times

By Richard Murphy

As a first, Nigeria is not a banana republic where everything goes. There are laid down rules and regulations. There is a Constitution that also guides our actions and inactions, just like in the majority of the world where there is a democracy.
The piece by Bertrand Perrochet, the director of operations of Medecins sans Frontiers (Doctors without Borders) titled “Is Counter-Terrorism killing Humanitarian action in Nigeria,” portrays a picture of a deliberate attempt by the military authorities to deprive victims of the Boko Haram war in North-East Nigeria access to Medicare.
Could that be true? And if yes, what purpose would it serve? These are some of the questions that ran through my mind when I laid my hands on the article. However, after reading, I was genuinely disappointed that such contradictions and half-truths could emanate from the stable of such an organization that should know better about the great efforts that have gone into humanitarian efforts by the relevant authorities in Nigeria.
I can bet that Bertrand Perrochet was misled by his lieutenants supposedly on the ground in North-East Nigeria. And he acted erroneously too. Or just maybe he is acting out a script, with his French connection. Be that as it may, it is inexcusable for such half-truths to be peddled before the international community. This is my grouse with the write-up.
In counter-terrorism operations, the number one rule is restriction and access only for medical aids as when necessary. But again, such access could be denied when there is a propensity for harm to come the way of humanitarian workers. We are witnesses to instances where humanitarian workers are abducted and in some killed by belligerent members of terrorist groups. Nigeria has had its fair share of it. And this is in line with one of the pillars of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy that stipulates “addressing the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism.
You would agree with me that unhindered access is a conducive condition to the spread of terrorism. Back to Bertrand, the military authorities had denied access to towns outside their control called “Garrison,” and there are many children in those enclaves in dire need of medical attention. As a first, that is not a statement of fact as it was not backed with any empirical evidence. I thought that before such postulations could be made, there ought to be in the least, first-hand information, and not assumptions. They ought to know better that people could see through such propaganda easily.
Secondly, the military authorities would not endanger the lives of humanitarian workers by granting access to areas not safe by all ramifications. Don’t forget that the lives of these humanitarian workers are as well important. For example, it is common knowledge that the remnants of Boko Haram fighters are littered around the fringes of the Lake Chad region. So would it make sense for the military authorities to grant access to Bertrand and his lieutenants? They would be probably be killed or abducted for ransom.
Ironically, this much he alluded to. But he again contradicted himself by stating that “doctors should not be forced to make judgments on who is a good patient or bad patient.” I am not sure there is any such classification in the theatre of operations. Maybe he is talking about rendering medical services to wounded terrorists, who, in his words, do not want to have any form of interaction with humanitarian workers. “We are faced with fragmented armed groups that don’t want to talk to us, have indiscriminately assaulted civilians, attacked health structures, and kidnapped and killed aid workers.”
If this is the case, there is a justification for some of the actions taken by the military authorities to preserve human life because it is only the living that can render humanitarian services.
I am of the candid opinion that Bertrand wanted a situation where his team would go into the trenches and render humanitarian services like Father Christmas. If that is what he is canvassing, I am afraid that is the height of ignorance. And he must also understand that in counter-terrorism operations, and concerning Nigeria, humanitarian services have been one of the foundations on which the counter-terrorism strategy was built.
There are no forms of discrimination, as he claimed. Maybe he is unaware of the various search and rescue operations carried out by the military authorities in the region. And the result has seen to the rescue of hundreds of women and children, mostly malnourished and in dire need of medical attention. These women and children are attended to by military medical personnel and subsequently taken to safety where access to robust medical services can be availed. And this is where Doctors without Borders and other humanitarian organizations come in.
Lest I forget, this is a war situation and not a medical outreach. These are two different things and Bertrand, and his lieutenants must realize that taking back the “steering wheel of the ambulance” is a process and not an event because the ambulance had been hijacked by terrorist groups when they took up arms and killed and maimed unarmed innocent women and children. And that is why the military authorities are bent on reclaiming the hijacked ambulance so that Doctors can reach women and children without hinder.
Counter-terrorism cannot kill humanitarian action in Nigeria even though there have been established cases of international humanitarian organizations, mostly of French origin, providing covet logistic support to Boko Haram terrorists in North-East Nigeria. Bertrand and his lieutenants must understand the true meaning of humanitarianism in the context of a war situation. It is not a cinema where Doctors without Borders would be seen manoeuvring dangerous terrains in return for a standing ovation.
Tremendous successes are being recorded daily, and no amount of blackmail can deter the fighting troops. Like I said earlier, Nigeria is not a banana republic. There are laid down rules and regulations. And this French obsession with Nigeria’s counter-terrorism efforts must stop.

Murphy is a security expert and wrote this piece from Calabar.

By Babatunde Ajayi

Foreign powers have sustained diabolic political and economic hold on African nations, even with the flag independence the 54 countries on the continent savour, or granted since the early 50s and 60s. Of late, Nigeria, with its status as the most populous and richly endowed black nation on earth has come under immense pressures of plots by the external destabilizing forces.

And because of the slavish submit of Africa leaders to the dictates of Western powers, exploiting the political cum economic resources of African nations, it has been pretty easy. Western powers set us against ourselves; they set the stage for us to bitterly scramble for the political power under a concept of democracy defined in their own terms, to the extent of inducing internal conflicts, crisis and violence, which tend to consume us.

A varsity don and anti-corruption evangelist, Prof. PLO Lumumba has been traversing Africa, trenchantly reawakening our consciousness to this reality and the imperative to carve a trajectory for a new dawn on the African continent. But often times, Western powers use some African leaders as repellants and instruments of attacks and embarrassments to Prof. Lumumba for a raising a voice.

But Lumumba has remained undeterred. We cannot be fooled anymore that African leadership is not doing enough yet, towards a genuine or total political and economic liberation of Africa from the stranglehold of the West. African leaders and some of its conspiratorial and unconscionable elites still posture as vessels in the hands of foreign powers.

I was again reminded pungently, in a glittering anniversary article on Berlin conference of 1884, just yesterday, by Patrick Gathara. It was titled, “Berlin 1884: Remembering the conference that divided Africa,” published online by Aljazeera, November 15, 2019.

The author meticulously recounted the issues parceled by the partition of African colonies on November 15, 1884 by European powers. The rules for partitioning of Africa were set and endorsed at an international conference presided over by the German Chancellor, Auto Von Bismarck at his official residence on Wilhelmstrasse in Berlin.

Gathara disclosed that the 104 days Berlin conference had all European representatives, with the exception of America, Switzerland and the Ottoman Empire. But Africa whose soul and future were to be decided was deliberately not invited to the conference and had no single representative.

“It was no accident that there were no Africans at the table-their opinions were not considered necessary,” says Gathara, for a conference Bismarck declared to delegates in his opening remarks as convoked “to discuss matters of sovereignty either of African states or of the European powers in African.”

Like Lumumba has always asserted everywhere, we have sadly donated our economic power to Western interests to date. However, what has remained a profound dream of foreign interests is to recapture through the backdoor, the political power they rashly conceded to Africans, perhaps, too early in their estimation. So, several tricks are employed to create an unstable political climate to remote-control African nations.

It is unfortunate to say, we have lived under this yoke and bug imposed on us by Western powers for almost a century. And we seem unprepared to free ourselves from this entanglement. There is a long history of externally-induced rebellions or revolts against our people in Africa.

Let me say, in Nigeria, there is a consistent pattern used by external forces to cause disaffection, disunity and instigate violence that could precipitate a possible break-up of the country. Predictions of Nigeria’s disintegration have failed in the past. But I sensed the undertakers have not let it go. They are more emboldened now, as more internal conspirators are recruited into the fold.

Today, we are confronted with the furore over the lawful detention of the #RevolutionNowProtests convener, Mr. Omoyele Sowore and his co-accused, Olawale Bakare over charges of treasonable felony and allied count allegations. He is in lawful detention in the facility of the Department of State Security Service (DSS). Justice Ijuoma Ojukwu has granted Sowore and his comrade in arms bail.

But instead of approaching the bail diligently by meeting the conditions as stipulated by the court or complying with the operational procedures of the DSS for Sowore’s release, we are playing to the gallery, as usual with impunity because there is a leader to blame.

Even Sowore’s lead counsel, a famous human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana has surprisingly enlisted into the clan of confusionists and rouble rousers over Sowore’s release. His actions hints me that he is more interested in currying public sympathy and support to portray the Government of President Muhammadu Buhari, as unjustly holding Sowore, a pro-democracy activist and presidential candidate in Nigeria’s 2019 general elections.

Quite unfortunately, some Nigerians, including intellectuals are brainwashed into believing their schemes. For instance, a few days ago, a group of 11 Nigerian academics, lawyers and journalists in diaspora, led by Ebenezer Obadare of University of Kansas, USA issued a joint public statement calling for the release of Sowore and Bakare and blaming Buhari for his woes.

The statement partly said, “The continued detention of both human rights advocates is an egregious injustice and a travesty of the rule of law.” Even the somewhat dubious rejigging of the motive by these intellectuals from the illegal clamour for a revolution or dethronement of a legitimate democratic government as advocated by Sowore and other accusers to a human rights agenda bespeaks of our dilemma.

We must recognize that Sowore is a mere addition to the flock of externally influenced conspirators, very determined to push the country into extinct. Before him, there was Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB).

Kanu assembled all manner of criminals and hoodlums in the Southeast; armed them to hold the entire region hostage in molestations, intimidations, harassments, torture and extra-judicial killings of Nigerians, who denounced their violent ideology of secession. Kanu is allegedly backed by external forces and when he was arrested to account for his enterprise in a lawful court, he secured a bail, violated all conditions of the bail and finally jetted abroad where he is taking protective refuge.

But we all know how a genuine aspiration for self-determination is anchored, as against the aberrational brand served us by Kanu and his gangsters, who illegally declared a republic within the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

There is yet another potent agent of Nigeria’s destabilization, with external sponsorship. The leader of Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) or simply, the Shiites in Nigeria, Sheik Ibraheem El-Zakzaky has been a torn in the flesh of Northern Nigeria. The sect members freely instigate unprovoked violence and killings, all too frequently to overlook by any government.

With incensed members, always armed with guns and other dangerous weapons in the guise of religious worship, the Shiites impudently committed killings of Nigerians and security agents, flouted laws of the land with impunity. El-Zakzaky has been arrested and undergoing trial on various charges.

But as characteristic of some Nigerians, we are inexplicably crucifying the Buhari Presidency for “illegal” detention of El-Zakzaky, even after the IMN publicly pledged allegiance to the Republic of Iran, a terrorists nation in the Middle East. Like IPOB’s Kanu, we cannot deny the very dubious attempts by El-Zakzaky to escape justice in Nigeria into the warm embrace of his sponsors in Iran and elsewhere, when he feigned ill-health and was granted bail for treatment abroad. So, while Nnamd Kanu brands his own as secession; El-Zakzaky hides under an Islamic movement.

Lest we forget, Nigeria is not the only African country under this spell or targeted for dismemberment by external forces. And the target is on African nations with enormous naturally endowed wealth and where there is bright prospect for prosperity.

There is the Somalian case of a war raging over 20 years. But let’s ask ourselves where is democracy in the oil-rich Libya now, after external forces influenced and instigated a masses popular revolt, exploiting the platform of the February 2011 Arab spring? It led to the ouster and death of Libyan strongman, Col. Maummar Gadaffi.

Of course, like former Zimbwawe’s leader, Robert Mugabe, we are conversant with Gadaffi’s hardline postures over policies and actions of powerful Western nations. Both vehemently challenged these obnoxious and discriminatory policies even in the General Assembly of United Nations (UN). It’s not a hidden fact.

The former Libyan dictator was ousted seven months into the Arab spring and killed by opposition rebels; “with the help of the larger international community,” writes Babjee Pothuraju. It’s something, which has stabbed me in the heart and has continued to occupy my psyche over a long time.

Libya was officially declared liberated on October 23 by a provisional government, tagged National Transition Council (NTC) led by Abdel Rahim el-Keeb as interim Prime Minister.

Because Gadaffi was a military dictator, the rebellious militias external forces inspired and armed against his government were simply known as “Libyan Rebel forces.” The dummy sold to these rebels was that Libya needed democracy and they must oust the dictator Gadaffi.

So, the rebel forces also recruited a handful of compatriots, convinced about fighting for democracy and with mouth-watering sums in foreign sponsorship, the rebels trudged on and on, until Gadaffi was dethroned and killed in his local village of Sirte. But where is Libya today and where is the democracy in that North African country?

Indeed, Pothuraju wrote in 2016 that whatever pretenses to democracy which was sold to Libyans never worked after the ouster of Gadaffi. The foreign sponsorship of rebels also ceased. In its place, violence among rebel groups, tribal and regional warriors took center stage and ensured Libya remains perpetually destabilized and possibly break-up.

Pothuraju tacitly warned Africa; “Libya is divided on regional, factional, and tribal lines, with members of each faction supporting their respective leaders. However, there is no coordination among these political factions and movements, which is very essential given the multi-dimensional aspects of the transition. It has resulted in the sidelining of pressing issues that otherwise might have been appreciated by the public. For example, Libya’s civil war hugely disrupted the economic activity by reducing oil output, which is the primary source of revenue.”

It’s the same trick these foreign forces are applying on Nigeria today. The likes of Sowore, Kanu, El-Zakzaky and hordes of other accomplices have been allegedly recruited to spearhead the struggle for Nigeria’s break-up, through carefully instigated internal crisis. So, lawyers, academics and journalists have keyed into this agenda too, relentlessly pulling the strings. The invisible drummer is elsewhere beating the drums, but those dancing on the stage knows the source of the rhythms.

The DSS has made a simple request in conformity with their operational etiquettes. It unambiguously said, those who signed for Sowore’s bail bond, should also appreciate the office to take him on bail. Why is compliance so difficult? Falana has been threatening since the last eight working days to institute contempt charge on the DSS. But he has not done so. He rather prefers to unofficially engage the DSS-DG on phone calls.

Why? Because as senior lawyer, he knows the procedures of release of any detainee arrested by the state and granted bail by courts. Yet, he is not prepared to follow due process, but in its stead, he follows the herds instincts of those who mobilized and invaded DSS office to forcefully “take away” Sowore. Who would be held responsible if Sowore fails to appear in court on the scheduled date? Like in the case of Kanu, they would be the same characters claiming President Buhari has killed and buried Sowore in DSS detention facility.

I align absolutely with the response of Ms. Lauretta Onochie, Special aide to President Buhari on social media, after she gave a thumps up to DSS boss, Mr. Yusuf Bichi for refusing to pick Falana’s calls.

She tweeted last Friday In a tweet in Friday, “Good job DG Bichi. DSS means Department of State Services NOT Department of Sowore Services. The demands of the DSS are unambiguous, clear and straightforward. Tell the Sureties to go and sign him out.” Nigerian compatriots, is this too difficult an assignment to accomplish?

I stand with her position completely. Anyone under the fake illusion that the ongoing trial of Sowore is between the Buhari administration and the self-acclaimed activist, which are dozens on the streets of Nigeria, must have his head re-examined for mental disorder.

We cannot flinch on this fight between the truth that we must know and the external forces after the soul of Nigeria. I mean those forces who want to disintegrate the country at all cost, using our own compatriots. We don’t want the Libyan experience, so the DSS must stand firm to resist this nonsense!

The manner we appreciate national security threats, obviously backed by foreign forces, very soon, we shall rally support for Boko Haram factional leader, Abubakar Shekau, if he is given a second chance. Shekau would call his own plot by a moniker that will hide the real motive from the rest of us.

Shekau would probably call his own version as “North East emancipation Agenda.” So, expectedly, lawyers, academics, journalists and so forth will stand to defend him so boldly, citing laws, they also flout.

Meanwhile I have never read a Nigerian journalist who has undertaken and published a detailed report on Shekau’s cord with terror groups in Iran and the Middle East. It will be a breaking story on any tabloid.

In essence, whatever name the internal agents hired for the break-up of Nigeria, decide to adopt, whether in English or any vernacular as may be handed to them by their paymasters, all we know is that they will never and should not be allowed to break up Nigeria. It is my message to them now.

Sowore is by every nuance, an inconsequential detainee to President Buhari as a person. Each one of us must be vigilante now because I suspect many more Sowores will still bounce on the stage. No foreign force should use the cloak of street activism to veil and blur our eyes. Nigeria must remain united and continue to move forward in the #NextLevel under President Buhari #.

Ajayi wrote this piece from Ibadan