By Paul Onomuakpokpo
Despite the nation’s
attempts to remain oblivious of being a pastiche of unresolved contradictions,
it is often confronted with the stark reminders that it cannot keep forging
ahead until it decisively launches itself on the path of enduring stability.
Such cohesion would continue to elude the nation in so far as tepid
efforts are only made to identify what gnaws at its well-being at
those moments that there are threats to the interests of those who consider the
country as their exclusive patrimony.
If the victims of Fulani’s antediluvian
practices of herding livestock had not demonstrated a clear resolve to shake
off their ogre, a disposition vitalised by national outrage, we would not spare
a thought for those whose farmlands and other means of livelihood are
being decimated by the business interests of others. But as has been shown in
the herdsmen-farmers’ crisis and other crises in the past, the state’s
intervention rather provokes the aggrieved citizens’ animus against it.
The citizens are reminded of the state’s smug indisposition to
appropriately provide the right answers to the questions they have raised about
what should be done to guarantee their existence as eligible stakeholders
in the polity. When this is the situation, aggrieved
citizens feel more alienated and driven to resorting to self-help.
It is the
same way that the state has responded to the question of socio-economic
injustice in the Niger Delta. Whenever the indigenes of the region
lament that their major means of livelihood, farming and fishing,
have been destroyed by oil pollution , a situation aggravated by a
dearth of commensurate compensation, the rest of the citizens who largely
benefit from the resources of the region often dismiss them as a people
who are never appreciative of what the state has done for them. Thus
if the citizens now resort to self-help, the state does not see the need
to consider the merit of their case in the first place. Its response brims with
hubris and hauteur as expressed in the immediate deployment of its
might to squelch any protest.
To be
sure, while the attacks on oil facilities in the Niger Delta have drawn
attention to the problems of the area, continuing to take up arms against the
state is not the best strategy by the indigenes of the region. Such a
strategy benefits only a very negligible number of people who are invited
by the state to negotiate some selfish terms of peace. Such
deals have transformed those previously marooned in the creeks
as agitators into billionaires. They now possess the financial sinews to
bulldoze their way into public offices or as king makers in
the political arena, and to set up universities and other big
businesses. It is because such a strategy of selective state beneficence
does not improve the lot of the majority of the people that there is a
ceaseless replication of the tactic of threatening oil production in the Niger
Delta.
Outraged
at a seeming disparagement of its goodwill, the state normally responds to
agitations in the Niger Delta with violence. It was such indiscriminate
response that led to the massacre of Odi. Where was the sense of justice on the
part of the state when the culpable and the innocent were all lumped up in the
cauldron of guilt and violently punished? By doing this, was the state
not betraying itself as only protecting the interest of few persons whose
billions are dependent on the oil resources from the Niger
Delta? Now, riding roughshod, oblivious of the futility of its
accustomed response, the state is set again to punish the guilty and the
innocent by sending troops to Opozo.
If
an intelligence report indicated that members of the National
Delta Avengers (NDA) are in Opozo, they should be
professionally ferreted out and duly punished. Any attempt to kill the
innocent residents of Opozo and destroy their property would only provoke
further attacks on the interests of the state. We must be aware of the logic
that just as we would not kill any Fulani on the street because some
Fulani herdsmen are murderers and rapists, so we must not destroy the
indigenes of Niger Delta communities and their property simply
because some people from those areas have become threats to
the national economy.
But why
the strategy of NDA is condemnable, we must acknowledge that some of the
recommendations they have made, which other discerning citizens have often
articulated, are what would bring lasting peace to the Niger Delta.
The state must go beyond the deployment of
stopgap measures and seriously consider some of these measures.
For instance, the NDA has demanded that the national conference report in
which answers are provided to some burning issues of socio-economic and
political injustice be implemented. Like other aggrieved citizens, the members
of the NDA are not oblivious of the fact that the state does not mean
well for them. Or why should the state not be enthusiastic about
implementing the strategies the citizens agreed on to forge a
stronger national unity devoid of its debilitating injustices? And since
the citizens have also agreed that the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) is a
major strategy for peace and equitable distribution of the wealth of the
region, why must the state avoid implementing it?
If we were sincere in solving
the problem in the Niger Delta, we would by all means avoid latching on to the
excuse that since former President Goodluck Jonathan who is from the region did
not show interest in some parts of the report which he could have
implemented, his successor, President Muhammadu Buhari should not be bothered
about the report. After all, Jonathan took the initiative of preparing the
ground for the existence of the report and it is incumbent on his
successor to take off from where his predecessor stopped. And as NDA
has proposed, the region that has been environmentally degraded should equally
be cleaned up. The residents whose fish ponds and farmlands have been
pulverised must be given the right environment to resume their means of
economic sustenance.
Indeed,
since the Niger Delta is the economic artery of the nation, the state
should take more interest in the welfare of the indigenes of the region.
Such an interest should go beyond just allocating more funds to the governors
of the region. They would only end up stealing the money to marry more
wives and buy property all over the world. There should be an effective
mechanism for checking the excesses of the leaders of the
region with whom are entrusted the resources to improve the lot of the
indigenes. Besides, there should be genuine federal presence in the region that
would economically empower the indigenes. If the indigenes of the region
benefit from the oil facilities in their region, it is not likely that they
would destroy their own means of livelihood.
*Dr.
Onomuakpokpo is on the Editorial Board of The
Guardian
"We must be aware of the logic that just as we would not kill any Fulani on the street because some Fulani herdsmen are murderers and rapists, so we must not destroy the indigenes of Niger Delta communities and their property simply because some people from those areas have become threats to the national economy."
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that editor thought through the above statement. If the Editor did, he/she would have realized that the Fulani herdsmen are of more threat to the national economy than the Niger Delta Avengers. The Fulani herdsmen kill famers and their families that were not able to escape, some escape with injuries, they burn their property, destroy farmer’s farms crops on daily basis. Calculate the economic cost of the wicked and genocidal actions of the Fulani herdsmen.