By Rotimi Fasan
This column last week supported the overwhelming views of Nigerians that the Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration should have nothing to do with any kind of direct military intervention in the affairs of Niger under the Abdourahamane Tchiani-led junta. That rejection of force in the restoration of democratic order in Niger was based on the pragmatic reason that Nigeria has more than enough of her own internal crises to contend with, and that adding the political crisis in Niger to all of these is the least of our problems, more so as Nigeria would likely bear the bulk of the financial burden that would come from the deployment of troops.
Since that time, enough had happened to make one have a slight but fundamental shift of position, all owing to the attitude of the junta in Niger and the manner some players and commentators in the Nigerian political space have chosen to misrepresent the crisis in Niger while attacking Abuja. But first before any elaboration of my adjusted take on Nigeria’s position in the Nigerien crisis, let’s turn attention to Nigeria’s critics of the supposed position of Abuja, which is the position of the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, in the matter.
It’s clear that Nigerians opposed to their country’s
involvement in military intervention in Niger can be put in two groups, namely:
those genuinely worried about the aftermath of such intervention on existing
relations between Nigerians and Nigeriens, people whose lives intersect along
the nearly 2,000 kilometres land border between the two countries. These are
relations, in fact, cousins that have lived together in harmony for centuries
along their shared borders. As I made clear last week, Niger could very well
have been a part of Nigeria given the shared cultural and religious experiences
of citizens of the two countries but for the sheer caprice of European policy
makers who as conquerors and colonialists ran an arbitrary-cum-artificial line
of separation that divided the people into two countries under the control of three
different colonial masters.
That group of Nigerians opposed
to Nigeria being part of any use of force in ousting the junta in Niamey are
represented mostly by the Northern political and religious establishment who
have expressed genuine fears about their situation and about their kith and kin
on both sides of the borders between Niger and Nigeria. Their opposition had
been loud in the National Assembly and was very audible in the rejection of the
request that came from the executive seeking approval for Nigeria’s involvement
in a regional military operation in Niger. These are legitimate concerns that
should not be ignored. They articulate the anxieties and fears of a people
watching as the life they have always known gradually slips away from them. A responsible
government and leader ought to listen to the worried voices of such
people.
The other tendency in the
opposition to Nigeria’s military joining the proposed coalition to dislodge the
usurpers in Niger is a mask for malcontents smarting under the pain of one
grievance or another against the government of Tinubu, if not Tinubu himself.
They, like the Nigerien junta, have been rigid in their attempt to paint the
political crisis that followed the coup in Niger as a standoff solely between
Niger and Nigeria. This is not only a misrepresentation of the reality of the
crisis in Niger and the relations between both countries, it is also a
bare-faced lie that should be exposed for what it is along with those vending
it.
As the Yoruba would say, the products these critics carry on their heads are not what they are hawking before the buying populace.
A close look at many of them reveal one thing: they
are mostly people long soured on President Tinubu and the government he leads
simply on account of his winning the last presidential election. This point is
not as simplistic as it may seem to the cursory observer of Nigerian politics,
especially since the campaigns for the last elections, the results of many of
which are still being contested in courts and tribunals across the country.
These individuals and groups would catch at any straw for as long as it
provides them an opportunity to hit the government of the day. Just about
anything and everything is grist to their critical mill of Tinubu and the All
Progressives Congress-led government.
Once this critical section of
Nigeria’s involvement in Niger is identified, it is easy to know where its
spokespersons are coming from and with that knowledge comes some understanding
of their attacks on Abuja. It also goes without saying, and this should be of
no surprise, that a majority of these critics are members of a particular
party, indeed, an uncouth and cantankerous tendency in that party that has
appropriated to itself the right to criticise and attack anything Nigerian and
about Nigeria. The irony then that the same group masquerading as genuine
patriots has been loud in its claim, not backed with proof, that it won the
last election.
Their spokespersons, either in
their journalism and public commentary, have been quick to conflate different
issues in order to sustain their attack on Abuja (read President Bola Tinubu),
in its present stand with ECOWAS on the situation in Niger. They are closet
members of the party I referred to above. When they hear Nigerians complain of
the hike in the price of petrol, they jump on it to attack Tinubu or the APC as
they do when the national mood is against the inter-agency rivalry such as the
one that led to the ugly fight between personnel of the Department of State
Services and the Correctional Service over Godwin Emefiele.
Should someone question the
motive of the coupists in Niger, they demand with barely concealed innuendo to
know why ECOWAS has said nothing about so-called civilian coupists, slyly
suggesting thereby that Tinubu is one while issuing subtle invitation to the
Nigerian military to intervene. There is a constant attempt to link Tinubu’s
two-month old government to any identifiable problem in Nigeria of today. The
point, however, has to be repeated time and again that it’s not Nigeria but
ECOWAS that has issues with the Nigerien junta as opposed to the Nigerien
people as a whole. The ECOWAS regional force is not the same as the Nigerian
Army.
Beyond all of this is the fact
that the present stand of the junta in Niger, its determination to make Nigeria
its target of attack makes Niger a dangerous neighbour that could open its
borders to forces hostile to Nigeria’s interest. What with the open invitation
to mercenary forces? To this extent, Nigeria owes it to herself to take a
serious view of developments in Niger.
*Fasan
is a commentator on public issues
No comments:
Post a Comment