Connect with us

Opinion

Should FG Grant Amnesty To Boko Haram Members?

Published

on

For sometimes now, there has been a divergent views over the call by the northern leaders to grant amnesty to Boko Haram insurgents. While some people considered it as the best option to restore peace and order in the country, many others regarded it as a dangerous omen. In the midst of this confusion, the Federal Government, last week appeared to have succumbed to the pressure of the Northern leaders by showing its readiness to grant amnesty to this sect of terrorists. Our correspondent, Calista Ezeaku and photographer, Dele Obinna sought the opinions of Nigerians on the issue. Excerpts.

 

Mr. Kogbara Princewill Lebua – Business Man

I don’t think it is necessary.  What is the basis? There is no basis for that. If you want to look at it from the angle of the Niger Delta militants, there was a cause for their militancy. It was because the Niger Delta people felt marginalised, after all the wealth the government had taken from the Niger Delta region, there is no development. There is nothing to show for it. So, the Niger Delta militants tried in their own way for their voice to be heard.

What are Boko Haram members fighting for. What is the cause of their actions?  And you hardly see the Niger Delta militants killing innocent people or burning churches. But Boko Haram is known for that.

So in my own opinion, for the Federal Government to even create a room for discussion with Boko Haram  members, Let alone grant them amnesty is not necessary.

I expected the government to approach the issue from the angle of being government that should be able to tell the people look this is wrong, this is right. You can’t do this. If you don’t have this, you can’t get this. Giving Amnesty to Boko Haram members may prompt another group to form another kind of thing, just to make money from government.

But the case of the Niger Delta militants is clear. You will see by yourself that the Niger Delta people are suffering. We are not getting the benefit of our resources. Things are not going on well. If you get to the Niger Delta environment now, the fishermen are no longer fishing, farmers are no longer farming. So the Niger Delta militants were just a group of people that put themselves together as a way of expressing their feelings for the whole world to understand what they were passing through. So what is Boko Haram agitating for? What is their problem? What is that thing that government has not done for them? Look at  what happened in the National Assembly, recently, when it was disclosed that the northerners have over 83 per cent oil blocs in this country. So, you will now see reason with the Niger Delta militants.

So, let’s call a spade a spade. Let the leaders of the north call themselves together and discuss with their boys and their people. They should do that first. But I will not encourage government to declare amnesty for Boko Haram members unless they open up and tell the public what they are agitating for, I have not been able to identify what prompted them to kill innocent people, burn churches, up to the extent that they killed health officers. It is un-called for.

 

Mr Kurotamunonye George – A Tutor

Well, I think  it’s right for amnesty to be granted them. They’ve done that for the Niger Delta militants, so they can as well do that for Boko Haram members since they are fighting for their own right. That will balance the equation. Government should find out what is their problem. They cannot just come out to start bombing and start doing all sought of things without having a purpose. They have a reason for doing that, so government should know their reasons and grant them amnesty. That is, if what they are fighting for is anything that has to do with resource control or true federalism. But they can’t fight for their own selfish interest and expect the government to give them amnesty. Amnesty should be given to them if they are fighting for true federalism, their own fundamental rights, not for their own selfish interest or for religion.

But I strongly believe that government knows the best way to handle Boko Haram  issue. Government has all it takes. Government knows the people behind this, they know how to go about it. The security agencies are there to curb this menace. But if they say that they want to grant them amnesty for the purpose of true federalism, it’s ok, irrespective of how many people they’ve killed, what they’ve destroyed and all that.

 

Mr. Ikechukwu Ojukwu – Student

I am not in support of the view that Federal Government should give amnesty to Boko Haram  members considering their actions in the country, lives that have been terminated, and properties that have been lost and wasted. People engaged in these acts are against the progress and unity of a corporate entity called Nigeria.

You cannot compare them to the Niger Delta militants. The aim of the Niger Delta militants was quite different from that of Boko Haram. Boko Haram  is a terrorist group and they shouldn’t give them anything like amnesty. You know this issue of amnesty for Boko Haram came as a result of the Mali crisis. Prior to this time, there was no cry for amnesty. Since they scattered their camps in Mali, they are now coming back home to demand for amnesty.

So, I think the Federal Government should come to terms with Boko Haram,  not granting them amnesty. By this, I mean the government should dialogue with them, let them give up their arms and come out. Right now, we don’t  know them in person. They are still faceless and I wonder how we can be talking of granting amnesty to a faceless people. Let us know who they are, what their problem  is and know how to handle  them.

 

Mr.  Iheanyi Ezinwo – Publisher

First of all, I want to commend the northern leaders for making that call. I say this not because I support amnesty for Boko Haram people but the fact  that they are thinking of a way out of the quagmire, as it were. What they suggested is just one of the ways  out of the problem.

Having said that, I want to say  that amnesty has some precedents that can make it possible. First,  the people must be identifiable. In the days of the Niger Delta militancy, Asari was known, people could call their leaders and talk with them. But now, we don’t  even know the characters behind the Boko Haram. Before you talk of amnesty, amnesty has to do with somebody say, ok, I want to lay down my arms on the condition that the Federal Government will forgive me for all I have  done. Now, what are the issues? We don’t  know. Already,  they have told the world that certain conditions must be fulfilled for them to seize fire and those conditions are not acceptable. Now, if Federal Government  is to grant them amnesty, on what condition will she do that?

So, there are certain grey areas that  need to be cleared before we can talk about granting them amnesty. As far as I am concerned, I don’t  think it is a big deal for President Jonathan to grant them amnesty but certain things have to be cleared to  be sure that if the amnesty is granted then, we can  have peace in this country. So, things have to be clarified and agreement  reached between Boko Haram members and the Federal Government  before we can talk about amnesty.

But for now, things are not clear. We are in a world where peace is gradually becoming history. All over the world, there is no peace because of the activities of terrorists and when you are dealing with terrorists, I don’t  think that the solution is to go and make  peace. Terrorism is an advance form of violence that experts, the soldiers, the security officers are in a better position to know how to deal with.

What is going on in Borno State and some parts of the north is different from what happened in the Niger Delta. Ours was a very clear case of marginalisation and when the Federal Government promised to address, our boys  laid down their arms and the amnesty is on course. I don’t think that amnesty is the solution to the problem in the North.

 

Mr. Nengisa Egerton – Banker

For me, I don’t buy the idea of granting   them amnesty. The actions of Niger Delta militants affected the production of crude oil, so to some extent, the amnesty was  a way of calming them down which worked out. At least, it led to an improvement on production capacity.

So for me, I will even advise  that they should even stop the amnesty. At least, they have  achieved  their aim for now because there are  better ways  of addressing issues not  necessarily amnesty. Are they encouraging  every other youth to take up  arm before they will know that they are in need of some things?

So, I don’t support amnesty for Boko Haram. I don’t see any need  for that. If they end up granting them amnesty,  tomorrow, another set of violent group may come up in any other part of the country and still demand for amnesty.

So, I think to solve this problem, and bring about lasting peace in this country, government should come up with poverty alleviation and other measures that will alleviate  the sufferings of the general masses.

 

Mrs Glory  Ezenjoku – Public Servant.

Granting amnesty to Boko Haram will not be  good enough because it will be a way of encouraging  militancy in Nigeria.

However, for peace to reign in the country,  they should go ahead and grant them amnesty because Boko Haram people have taken lot of lives and if granting  them amnesty will make them stop this wicked   act and bring peace to the country, they should go ahead and do that. From all indications, it’s like this Boko Haram sect is above the rule of law. It seems the Federal Government cannot get them controlled. Now, they are asking the Federal Government to grant them amnesty. That is to say that they are above the rule of law. I think it’s not good enough. Everybody is subject to the rule of law. They are citizens of this country. I don’t really buy that idea, but for peace to reign  in Nigeria, they should grant them amnesty.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Trans-Kalabari  Road:  Work In Progress 

Published

on

Quote:”This Dream project  is one of  the best things that have happened  to the people and residents of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas in recent times.”
This is the concluding part of this story featured in our last edition.
Good road network helps farmers to convey their agro-allied products to  commercial hubs where buyers and sellers meet periodically to transact business. Road network engineers and motivates people resident in unfriendly geographical terrains, like riverine areas,  to own property and shuttle home with ease. Some people will prefer living in their own houses in a more serene and nature-blessed communities to living in the city that is fraught with  pollution, and other environmental, social and economic hazards. Prior to the cult epidemic that ravaged parts of Rivers State, the Emohuas, Elemes, Ogonis, and Etches were known for rural dwelling. Most public servants from these areas do their official and private transactions from  their villages. For them it was comparatively easier to live in the village and engage in a diversified economic endeavours through farming, fishing or other lucrative business without outrageous charges and embarrassment associated with doing business in Port Harcourt, where land is as scarce as the traditional needle.
That is why the decision to construct the Trans-Kalabari Road by the administration of Dr. Peter Odili was one of the best decisions that administration took. When Dr. Odili vacated office as the Rivers State Governor, Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi took over and awarded contracts for continuation of the road project which in my considered view is the felt need of  the people of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas. Unfortunately, Rt. Hon. Amaechi’s efforts to drive the project was sabotaged by some contractors some of whom are Kalabari people. The main  Trans-Kalabari Road is one project that is dear to the people and residents of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas of Rivers State. This is because through the road commuters can easily access several communities in the three local government areas. For instance, the road when completed will enable access to eight of the ten communities in Degema Local Government Area,  namely: Bukuma, Tombia,  Bakana, Oguruama, Obuama, Usokun, Degema town  and the Degema Consulate. It will also link 15 of the 16 communities in Asari Toru Local Government Area. The communities are: Buguma, the local government headquarters, Ido, Abalama, Tema, Sama, Okpo, Ilelema, Ifoko, Tema, Sangama, Krakrama, Omekwe-Ama, Angulama. The road will also connect  14  of 17 wards in Akuku Toru Local Government Area, and other settlements. It is interesting to note that It is faster,  and far more convenient and economical for the catchment Communities on the Trans-Kalabari Road network to go to the State Capital than the East West Road.  The people of the three local government areas will prefer  to work or do their transactions in Port Harcourt from their respective communities to staying in Port Harcourt where the house rent and the general cost of living is astronomically high.
 Consequently, development will seamlessly spread to the 28 out of 34 communities of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas. The only Communities that are not linked by the road project are Oporoama in Asari Toru,  the Ke and  Bille Communities in Degema Local Government Area and the “Oceania” communities of Abissa, Kula, Soku, Idama, Elem Sangama of Akuku Toru Local Government Area. But because of the economic value of the unlinked Communities to Nigeria, (they produce substantial oil and gas in the area), the Federal, State Governments and the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), can extend the road network to those areas just as Bonny is linked to Port Harcourt and the Lagos Mainland Bridge is connecting several towns in Lagos and neighbouring States.Kudos to previous administrations who  had constructed the Central Group axis.
 However, what is said to be the First Phase of the Trans-Kalabari Road project is actually a linkage of the “Central Group” Communities which consists of Krakrama, Angulama, Omekwe. Ama, Omekwe Tari Ama, Ifoko, Tema, Sangama. It is the peripheral of the Trans-Kalabari Road. The completion of the  Main Trans Kalabari project will free Port Harcourt and Obio/Akpor areas from congestion. It will motivate residents and people of the three local areas to contribute to the development of their Communities. If the Ogonis, Etches, Emohuas, Oyigbos, Okrikas, Elemes can feel comfortable doing business in Port Harcourt from home, residents and people whose communities are linked to Port Harcourt through the Trans-Kalabari Road will no doubt, do likewise. The vast arable virgin land of the Bukuma people can be open for development and sustainable agricultural ventures by Local, State and Federal Government.
It is necessary to recall that the Bukuma community was host to the Federal Government’s Graduate Farmers’ Scheme and the Rivers State Government moribund School-to-Land Scheme under Governor Fidelis Oyakhilome. Bukuma was the only community in Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas that has the capacity to carry those agricultural programmes. However the lack of road to transport farm produce to Port Harcourt and facilitate the movement of the beneficiaries of the scheme who lived in the community which is several miles away from the farms, hampered the sustainability of the programme. The main Trans-Kalabari Road remains the best gift to the people of Degema, Asari Toru, and Akuku-Toru Local Government Areas. Kudos to Sir Siminilayi Fubara.
By: Igbiki Benibo
Continue Reading

Opinion

That  U.S. Capture of Maduro

Published

on

Quote:”Strategic convenience does not nullify sovereignty. Political frustration does not authorise military abduction.”
The first part of this story was published in our last edition.
 
In Africa and the Middle East, regime change—whether by invasion, proxy warfare, or sanctions—has often left behind fractured states, weakened institutions, and prolonged instability. Washington’s motivations in Venezuela are widely understood: vast oil reserves, alliances with U.S. rivals, and symbolic defiance of American influence in the Western Hemisphere. But none of these reasons confer legal or moral legitimacy. Strategic convenience does not nullify sovereignty. Political frustration does not authorise military abduction. If every powerful nation acted on its grievances in this manner, global chaos would inevitably follow. International law provides mechanisms for accountability. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), individuals accused of crimes against humanity or other grave offences are subject to investigation and prosecution through judicial processes.
Likewise, extradition treaties, mutual legal assistance agreements, and Interpol mechanisms exist to ensure accountability while respecting due process. These frameworks were designed precisely to prevent unilateral enforcement of “justice” by military force. The most profound consequence of America’s action may not be in Caracas, but in the precedent it sets. If the world accepts that a superpower can unilaterally depose another country’s president, then the foundation of the international system is weakened. Sovereignty becomes conditional—no longer a right, but a privilege tolerated at the discretion of the powerful. Going forward, if another country invades its neighbour, will the United States retain the moral authority to impose sanctions or demand restraint? Some analysts already warn that parallels between Russia’s actions in Ukraine and America’s conduct in Venezuela risk further eroding global norms. Selective adherence to international law breeds cynicism and accelerates the drift toward a world governed by force rather than rules.
Power—military, economic, or political—should serve human progress and collective well-being, not domination and destruction. For African nations, many of which emerged from colonial rule through bitter struggle, this precedent is especially alarming. Sovereignty is not an abstract legal concept; it is a hard-won shield against external domination. Any erosion of that principle anywhere weakens it everywhere. Africa’s painful history of foreign interference makes this lesson especially urgent.  For me, the real issue is not whether Nicolás Maduro is a good or bad leader. That judgment belongs, first and foremost, to the Venezuelan people. The larger issue is whether the international system still operates on law—or has quietly reverted to hierarchy. If America insists it is defending global order, it must ask itself a difficult question: can an order survive when its most powerful guardian feels entitled to violate it? Until that question is answered honestly, the capture of a foreign president will remain not a triumph of justice, but a troubling symbol of a world drifting from law toward force.
If the United States felt so strongly about the allegations of terrorism, drug trafficking  against Maduro, were there no other lawful options? Judicial accountability, diplomacy, regional mediation, and multilateral pressure may be slow and imperfect, but they reflect respect for international law and sovereign equality. Military seizure is a blunt instrument. It humiliates institutions, radicalizes populations, and hardens resistance. It may remove a leader, but it rarely resolves the underlying crisis. History teaches that military interventions seldom result in stable democratic outcomes. More often, they breed resentment, resistance, and long-term instability. For the sake of global order and the rule of law, the United States should reconsider this path and recommit to diplomacy, legal cooperation, and respect for the sovereign equality of states. Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly described the invasion of Venezuela as “unlawful and unwise,” warning that such actions “do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable.” Her words reflect a growing recognition, even within the United States, that force without legitimacy undermines both moral authority and global stability.
Should what happened in Venezuela serve as a wake-up call for corrupt African leaders who undermine the people’s right to choose their leaders? The answer is yes. The capture of Maduro should alarm African leaders who manipulate elections, weaken institutions, suppress opposition, undermine citizens’ rights, or cling to power at all costs. Venezuela faced widespread criticism over disputed elections and repression long before this episode, and that context shaped how the world reacted. This does not justify foreign military intervention, but it highlights an uncomfortable truth: prolonged democratic decay isolates nations and invites external pressure—from sanctions to diplomatic censure. Global opinion matters, and legitimacy at home strengthens sovereignty abroad. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and several African leaders have rightly condemned the events in Venezuela, invoking the principles of sovereignty and non-interference enshrined in international and regional law.
Beyond condemnation, however, African leaders must look inward. The continent’s future cannot be built on repression, constitutional manipulation, and personal greed. Leadership must reflect the will of the people, not desperation for power. Two days ago, a social commentator on a radio station argued that Trump’s action—though condemnable—demonstrates how far a leader can go for his country’s interest. According to this view, he did not intervene in Venezuela for personal enrichment, but to strengthen his nation. In stark contrast, many African leaders plunder their own countries. They siphon public resources, impose crushing taxes and harmful policies, and leave their citizens poorer—all for selfish gain. That contradiction is the deeper lesson Africa must confront.True sovereignty is protected not only by international law, but by accountable leadership at home.
 By:  Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading

Opinion

Kudos  Gov Fubara

Published

on

Please permit me to use this medium to appreciate our able governor, Siminalayi Fubara for the inauguration of the 14.2-kilometre Obodhi–Ozochi Road in Ahoada-East Local Government Area.  This inauguration marks a significant milestone in the history of our communities and deserves commendation. We, the people of Ozochi, are particularly happy because this project has brought long-awaited relief after years of isolation and hardship.
The expression of our traditional ruler, His Royal Highness, Eze Prince Ike Ehie, JP, during the inauguration captured the joy of our people.  He said, “our isolation is over.”  That reflects the profound impact of this road on daily life, economic activities, and social integration of the people of Ozochi and other neighbouring communities. The road will no doubt ease transportation, improve access to markets and healthcare, and strengthen links between Ahoada, Omoku, and other parts of Rivers State.
The people of Ahoada, Omoku, and indeed Rivers State as a whole are grateful to our dear governor for this laudable achievement and wish him many more successful years in office. We pray that God endows him with more wisdom and strength to continue to pilot the affairs of the state for the benefit of all. As citizens, we should rally behind the governor and support his development agenda. Our politicians and stakeholders should embrace peace and cooperation, as no meaningful progress can be achieved in an atmosphere of conflict. Sustainable development in the state can only thrive where peace prevails.
Samuel Ebiye
Continue Reading

Trending