Politics
Boko Haram: Beyond The Amnesty Rejection
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.
The state chairman of the party, Dr Babandi Gumel, disclosed this in a statement signed and made available to journalists on Saturday.
According to the statement, the Jigawa PDP received news of Alhaji Lamido’s suspension with “profound shock and disappointment”.
The statement added that the suspension, which was reportedly based on allegations that Alhaji Lamido attended meetings capable of undermining party unity, amounts to an affront to justice, internal democracy and the reconciliation efforts recently championed by the PDP leadership.
The party stressed that the exercise of legal and constitutional rights within the party should not be interpreted as an act of disunity. It recalled that Alhaji Lamido approached the court after he was allegedly denied the opportunity to purchase a nomination form to contest the position of National Chairman of the PDP.
The statement further noted that the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, ruled in Alhaji Lamido’s favour by restraining the PDP from proceeding with its national convention until his right to contest was determined.
The Jigawa PDP argued that the suspension appeared to be a punitive action against Alhaji Lamido for seeking judicial redress over an issue on which the court had already found merit.
The party also faulted the decision of the BoT for contradicting recent public statements by its chairman, Senator Adolphus Wabara, who had emphasised reconciliation within the party, admitted past mistakes and appealed to aggrieved members to return fully to the PDP fold.
However, it maintained that suspending a founding member who sought justice through legal means runs contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and healing publicly advocated by the party leadership.
The chairman said the suspension was premature and prejudicial, as the matter remains before the courts. He also described Alhaji Lamido as one of the few founding fathers of the PDP who has remained loyal to the party without defecting, warning that punishing such loyalty sends a negative signal to other committed members.
The party further argued that the action undermines party unity at a time when the PDP requires cohesion to effectively challenge the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). It also insisted that there is no provision in the PDP constitution that allows for the suspension of a “life member”.
The party called on the BoT to immediately and unconditionally withdraw the suspension of Alhaji Lamido.
It also demanded that the BoT publicly affirm the right of all party members to aspire to leadership positions in line with the party’s constitution and the laws of the country, without fear of victimisation.
It further urged the BoT to retrace its steps, align its actions with its reconciliation agenda, and tender an apology to Alhaji Lamido.
The Jigawa PDP reaffirmed its commitment to a united, democratic and law-abiding Party.
In a statement signed by its Executive Director, Comrade Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, CISLAC warned that if proven, such actions would amount to a serious breach of constitutional order, legislative integrity, and public trust.
The organisation noted that Nigeria’s law-making process is clearly defined by the Constitution, stressing that any alteration of a bill after parliamentary passage undermines democratic governance and the principle of separation of powers.
CISLAC further emphasised that taxation has direct implications for citizens, businesses, sub-national governments, and the overall economy. It stated that uncertainty or a lack of transparency in tax legislation could erode investor confidence and raise concerns about accountability and the possible abuse of executive power.
The organisation described the situation as particularly troubling given the rare inclusive, and thorough public consultation that shaped the law’s final provisions prior to its passage.
“This process brought together taxpayers, civil society groups, professional organisations, the private sector, labour unions, local governments, and technical experts, ensuring that diverse viewpoints were considered and carefully balanced.
“Any unilateral changes to these agreed-upon provisions, made outside the established legislative process and without renewed public engagement, not only breach public trust but also violate the fundamental tax principle of representation, which holds that citizens must have a meaningful voice in shaping the laws that govern how they are taxed. Such actions undermine democratic accountability, weaken the legitimacy of the tax system, and risk eroding public confidence”, it noted.
CISLAC expressed particular concern that uncertainty surrounding the authenticity of the tax law, coming at a time when a new tax regime is expected to take effect, could exacerbate the economic hardship already faced by many Nigerians.
It observed that citizens are contending with rising living costs, inflationary pressures, declining purchasing power, and reduced access to basic services, warning that implementing a disputed tax framework under such conditions, risks deepening inequality, discouraging compliance, and fuelling public resentment.
The organisation stressed that tax reforms must be anchored in clarity, legality, fairness, and social sensitivity, cautioning that any tax system introduced without full transparency, adequate public communication, and legislative certainty undermines voluntary compliance and weakens the social contract between the state and its citizens.
As part of its recommendations, CISLAC called on the Presidency to urgently publish the exact version of the tax law assented to, alongside the authenticated copy passed by the National Assembly, to allow for public and institutional verification.
It also urged the leadership of the National Assembly to promptly exercise its oversight powers to determine whether the assented law reflects the will of the legislature, including a review of the enrolled bill process.
The organisation maintained that any discrepancy discovered should be treated as unconstitutional and addressed through lawful means, such as the re-transmission of the correct bill or judicial interpretation where necessary. It further called for an independent review of the process by relevant institutions, including the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and, where required, the judiciary, to establish the facts and assign responsibility.
CISLAC noted that the controversy highlights the urgent need to strengthen safeguards at the legislative and executive interface. It recommended measures such as digital tracking of bills, public access to enrolled legislation, and more transparent assent procedures.
CISLAC emphasised that the issue is not about partisan politics but about safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. It warned that allowing any arm of government to unilaterally alter laws passed by another sets a dangerous precedent and weakens constitutional democracy.
The organisation urged all parties involved to act with restraint, openness, and fidelity to the Constitution, noting that Nigerians deserve laws that reflect due process, the public interest, and the collective decisions of their elected representatives.
CISLAC added that it will continue to monitor developments and engage relevant stakeholders to promote accountability, transparency, and the rule of law in Nigeria’s governance processes.
