The Boko Haram insurgence in Nigeria is gradually but steadily taking its toll. From when the sect made itself known in the mid nineties, to when it started bombings in the late nineties, the group has no doubt proved to be second to none in terms of wanton destruction of human lives and properties.

It has murdered in cold blood an estimated 3000 people, including helpless women, children and the aged. Some of the sect’s victims were foreigners.

How to end these senseless and gruesome killings has been a thorn in the flesh of the Federal Government, a situation which compelled the Presidency to reluctantly accept to grant members of the sect amnesty.

President Goodluck Jonathan came under intense pressure over the amensty issue with politicians from the violence-torn north, including Nigeria’s highest Muslim spiritual figure, the Sultan of Sokoto, Mohammed Sa’ad Abubakar III, calling for the amnesty.

The initial response from the President was that the shadowy group remains faceless, hence amnesty could not be granted to ghosts. Members of the sect obviously saw being declared a ghost as a slight, saying that even if they are ghosts, the ghost is real and continues to haunt Nigeria with devastating effects.

At the end, the Federal Government declared amnesty for the terrorist Islamist group, only to be stunned last Thursday by the declaration of their perceived leader, Abubakar Shekau, that the group was not interested in the offer of amnesty.

In rejecting the offer via a recording translated by AFP, a voice believed to be that of Shekau, said “Surprisingly, the Nigerian government is talking about granting us amnesty. What wrong have we done? It is we that should grant you Federal Government pardon for your atrocities against us.”

It will be recalled that Boko Haram had rejected a similar amnesty offer in 2011 from Kashim Shettima, then governor-elect of Borno state, on the grounds that the group did not recognise the Nigerian constitution, that it recognises only the laws of Allah.

This latest rejection, against the background of the numerous mindless killings and terror unleashed by the group on innocent citizens, has widely been seen as an act of condemnable and unacceptable brigandage and blustering, that needs to be put under check promptly.

There is no doubt that, for no cognisable reason, Boko Haram has visited untold agony on the body and soul of Nigeria, and currently threatens the nation’s life. But their rejection of the amnesty amounts to an outright provocation and an insult on the collective sensibility of Nigerians.

It is proof that Boko Haram is unrepentant and incorrigible in its wrong-doing. It, therefore, behoves those who clamoured and pressured the President to grant the amnesty to bring pressure to bear on the sect to accept the amnesty or face the wrath of the law against terrorism.

On its own, the act is an insight into the level of levity with which members of Boko Haram trivialises their despicable criminality. Placed side-by-side with the aspirations of Nigeria’s leadership to keep as one the country’s multi-lingual, traditional and socio-cultural entities, the sect seem to have not only esoterically but unequivocally called off the bluff of the government, as it were, but has also challenged the government to do its worst.

To say the least, it underscores the hidden agenda of the group to disrupt governance and ultimately destabilize the country.

When compared with the ultimatum given the then Niger Delta militants to either accept the amnesty or face the full might of the Federal Government, President Jonathan may at this point need to bite the bullet and face down the terrorists, even as he keeps all windows of opportunity for dialogue open.

This is in appreciation of the idea behind the amnesty programme, which was mooted to encourage the group to halt the on-going insurgency and save the country and Nigerians the recurring agony of insecurity that has virtually taken over the north, and threatening the rest of the country.

Beyond this, the act has also called to serious question the sincerity and respect of the acclaimed Nigeria’s highest Muslim spiritual figure, the Sultan of Sokoto, Mohammed Sa’ad Abubakar III in his call for amnesty. It also calls to question, the role northerners, particularly respected leaders among them, should play to end the insurgency.

Though they have not given reason for backing out of the amnesty, however justified their grievances may be, it is unacceptable for them to reject dialogue. The only deducible reason is ignorance about their ability to achieve their goals through violence.

This ignorance is thus what the northern leadership should focus on before any further consideration of amnesty can conveniently take place. While this is going on, the possibility of constitutionally using the Federal might should not be ruled out as it could be the only way to instill necessary discipline and orderliness in Nigeria’s body polity.