We may be in trouble and we don’t seem to know or how to avert the disaster or a costly repeat of of the same. To worsen matters, those elected to constantly steer us away from such risk don’t seem capable of discharging that onerous obligation. This has become obvious from the the limited awareness shown by National Assembly members probing the new Riot Act (being) proposed to guide the conduct and performance of those foreigners privileged by modern technology to spread their products to Nigeria, among other nations.
It is, therefore, ridiculous to notice, from the proceedings of the National Assembly, unnecessary priority being placed on freedom of the press and/or individual rights. These two exist initially only where a country is not in anarchy or on fire. In other words, where are free press and individual freedom in an atmosphere of total breakdown of law and order triggered by social media? We may excuse (any) ignorant members of National Assembly, but it is impossible to overlook those who know and yet are unwilling or unable to learn from the past.
Whether incited or spontaneous (none of which was excusable), inter-ethnic strife eventually led to unforeseen consequences, and to which we would once again allow loose media to drag this country. If we can help, we must remind the National Assembly that during the public protest calling for the scrapping of Special Anti-Robbery Squad, those with vested interests hired thugs to infiltrate the protesters, causing destruction and attributing the violence to ethnic hatred or inter-tribal hostility of one major group against another. That rumour of one group against another was illogical for the task of getting SARS operators disbanded. There was no distinction in the ethnic identity of the fatal victims of SARS. But genuine efforts were made by good-spirited Nigerians against that rumour.
Otherwise, the history of the SARS protests might have been worse than it recorded. And then, while still basking in the glory of succeeding in averting that proposed bloodshed, a crank from his sanctuary outside Nigeria planted an incitement for inter-tribal war in Lagos, to the effect that Igbos should commence attacking and destroying property and premises owned by Yorubas in Lagos. Should such violence commence in Lagos and from our past experience leading to the civil war, violent attacks between the two groups would quickly spread to other parts of the country where both are heavily concentrated, Ibadan, Kano, Kaduna and, of course, Abuja.
In the event of such violence, a major and easy attraction for the rioters would be the National Assembly. The fate of members in that situation is unknown. In the name of press freedom and constitutional right, is that what National Assembly wants? Should the the Federal Government remain unconcerned and create room for social media to set Nigeria ablaze? And to see this same National Assembly, rightly too, blaming Federal Government for insecurity in Nigeria? National Assembly should shine its eyes and see ahead. That is what members are paid to do on behalf of their entire respective constituents. The danger posed by social media to Nigeria is better pre-empted by the Federal Government.
The good ones did their best to prevent the inter-tribal mayhem planned for Lagos through the reckless social media. Outstanding among them was the new Ohanaeze leader, Ambassador George Obiozor, who, in that capacity, rushed to Lagos to assure the authorities against any possible clash between the two ethnic groups. That action was a master stroke. If the incitement for inter-ethnic violence in Lagos had not been neutralised by the Ohanaeze leader, who would have suffered more? Or what would have been the dimension? A repeat of the traumatic experience between May and September in 1966 Nigeria would have been too frightening to contemplate. That was the overall national interest to knock sense into social media, for which efforts should be appreciated by National Assembly.
One aspect of this row is the bogus posture of social media as if the profession is totally helpless as the culprit. Would social media carry any item, by whosoever, inciting blacks to kill whites in United States? Would social media display incitement of Americans, whites or blacks, to commence burning property and premises owned by Jews? What is responsible for social media never to carry any item inciting Asians to commence destroying property owned by full-blooded Britons in their country? Even if such items were carried without approval, no effort would be spared by the social media authorities to delete and, for future purposes, ban such items.
Unfortunately, in Nigeria’s case, such is the contempt in which the country is held by the social media to carry anything, no matter how derisive of the country and its leaders.
Nnamdi Kanu’s plight
Nigerian media can occasionally introduce some humour to douse tension in the country. Lately, there were widespread reports on the return of self-styled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to Nigeria. Reports that Kanu was arrested could be true. After all, he violated bail from his on-going trial for various criminal offences related to his politics.
However, despite various reports that he was arrested in Nairobi, Kenya, he might also have been kidnapped. In which case, was he kidnapped or arrested? If he was arrested, Kanu might have required a court order or deportation order to legitimise his flight to Nigeria for his trial.
Also, much is being made of unnecessary query on whether a Nigerian holding two nationalities could seek legal assistance of the second country or even escape trial completely on account of being a citizen of the other country. In Kanu’s case, he is a Nigerian Briton entitled to the passport of his second country. However, anybody holding the passport of a second country is made aware that, in the event of any encounter with the law, petty crime or military draft, such fellow is answerable to the prosecuting country, all on his own.
What is more, in Kanu’s case, was he even whisked back to Nigeria on his Nigerian or British passport? In his present particular case, after his arrest or kidnap in Kenya, was he flown to Abuja on his Nigerian passport? Even if he flew on British passport, such would not be of any assistance in the trial for possession of arms or even the fresh trial for jumping bail.
A Sudanese leader had to rush out of South Africa at midnight to escape arrest and handover to International Criminal Court, The Hague, Netherlands, to be tried for crimes against humanity. Kanu should have known better that, as a Nigerian, he was more vulnerable to be returned by any African country to Abuja. He is paying for his safari in Kenya.
Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe is, even if consciously, making a name for himself. He stood surety for Kanu’s bail at a whopping sum of N100 million. The accused jumped bail and Abaribe forfeited his money. Any man in Abaribe’s position would be upset. Yet, on the return of Kanu to Nigeria to face his trial, Senator Abaribe was kind enough to insist that Kanu must be given his full rights. Abaribe must have a large heart.
If Kanu could be traced all over the world and was returned to face trial, Federal Government should similarly intensify efforts to ensure the arrest of looters of Nigerian treasury who sought bail only to abscond abroad.