In an attempt to bring an end to insecurity, the Kaduna State Government recently engaged the bandits terrorising parts of the state in negotiation. In this interview with Weekend Trust, a security reform expert, Chukwuma Ume, x-rayed the pros and cons of negotiating with bandits. Saying that the government has failed in its responsibilities, he advised those in power to address the socioeconomic challenges facing the country.
The Kaduna State Government recently negotiated with bandits. Having happened in Zamfara and Katsina with no positive result. Can we say it is a good approach towards achieving the needed security in Kaduna?
It is. The only problem with this strategy is that it is oftentimes very abrupt; not people-oriented. It has always been a vehicle for the government people to try to overdo themselves. It is something that should be done incrementally and consciously over a period of time.
The government has a big role to play in managing security; and that is the much talked about non-kinetic approach. So, entering into a peace deal with bandits is good as bullets cannot silence them. But it should go beyond signing the deals to ensuring that some of those grievances are systematically addressed.
- Ajaokuta project too big to be handled by government — Alhaji Magaji Inuwa, former CEO
- Inside Kaduna’s peace deal with bandits
If the government was seen to be doing what it is supposed to do, some of these problems wouldn’t have manifested. And even when they manifest, the government can fall back to its already established routes and channels of communication to address the issues. But what we see is often a political ceremony, where they will go and carry a crossbow and take photographs with politicians and a huge amount of money signed off to exchange hands. They should have established a structure to relate with members of the community that feel aggrieved.
Won’t it have any implication on other states?
It will not. There is no state in this country that has a social welfare package, that is taking care of those who are on the hinterlands. Where are these bandits coming from? They are not coming from the metropoles. They are coming from places where there have been less involvement in governance, less participation and high level of exclusion.
What is the general implication of negotiating peace with bandits now?
Everywhere in the world, all wars end in negotiation. There is no war that has been resolved with bullets. So, there is no implication. But what we are asking for is that the negotiation be structured; it should not be ad hoc. Let the negotiation not be politically driven. Let it start from the basic provision of good governance. That is why we have the Niger Delta Development Commission. That is the basic principle behind that. It simply means that the government needs to reach out to members of the community, particularly those who are excluded from the centre of things, and begin to engage them by way of empowerment, provision of all forms of education and accessibility to the allocation of resources.
All these things need to be consciously pursued. And they should become part of our development plan. You can only put a man down for a while because you that is holding him will also get tired.
The use of force has been argued several times not to be the silver bullet or panacea to ending insecurity in the country. The First World War ended in negotiation, even the Second World War, so the situation in Nigeria cannot be an exception. There must be negotiation. If you like, you can develop a complementary approach. While there is deployment of a kinetic force, that is the use of the military, you should also consciously develop the non-kinetic approach. You need to provide programmes to de-radicalise people; provide opportunities for them to be included in the discussion of the ongoing reallocation of resources. All these things will take people away from terrorism or banditry. So, there is no implication for the agreements or negotiations.
When these bandits realise that the negotiations are not thorough and there is no sincerity of purpose on the part of the government, they will renege on the so-called negotiations. But if it is transparent, people will fall in line.
Considering their criminal background, can they be trusted to keep the peace deal?
Yes, they are seen to be involved in criminal activities, but until a court of law duly prosecutes them, we cannot very well say that they are criminals. That aside, they are first human beings before they became criminals. The question is: What are the fundamentals – those predisposing factors that make people become criminals? How much has the government also fulfilled on its own part of the contract in ensuring that there is dialogue and equitable distribution of resources to the hinterlands, which are often arid and desolate? How often has government’s presence been felt? These bandits move into places we have now labelled ungoverned spaces and take over, provide some sort of informal governance or organisation and people follow them.
Why is it that when the military chase them, nobody is willing to come out and give information? Is it because there is disconnect between the government and the people. So the government needs to step up. While they are buying platforms, fighter jets, arms and ammunition, they should also step up in terms of socioeconomic provision, basically good governance for the people
I think that without fear of contradiction, those negotiations, treaties and agreements are avenues to bring people to the table and ask their grievances. That’s how all conflicts are resolved all over the world. You must sit down and dialogue.
The government itself has also failed. And when I mean government, I don’t mean just the federal level government; even state and local governments have also failed when it comes to accountability. We hear the budget released every month to grassroots governance, which is local government, but how much of the resources are being turned back to good governance? These are the fundamental things.
I think it is good; it should be balanced, structured and purposeful.
Some people believe the government should go all out to crush them since they are taking arms against the state. What is your view on this?
Yar’Adua’s approach remains the best. If you recall, people were asked to come, embrace amnesty and lay down their weapons and work. Those who didn’t lay down their weapons, after the window of opportunity, were deemed criminals and dealt with. The argument is that you cannot win a war through bullets against people who have already lost everything.
If you continue to use force, you only make people become more determined and hardened to take up arms against the government.
If the peace deal is achieved, what is the best way to go about it to ensure that it doesn’t collapse?
It is a development plan, so it is something the government should consciously pursue. It is not grandstanding or playing in the gallery. Beyond signing the agreement, they should be specific on their grievances and how to go about solving them.
I am not saying their ideology is correct, but has the government also provided them with an enabling environment for engagement? What is the National Orientation Agency doing? There are instruments of the government that are more or less moribund and we need to ask questions. There is a deep-rooted decay in the society. There is hunger and poverty; and people are disconnected from the government. So, the government should do more to engage them and set up an agenda, form credible commissions or committees of citizens with credible integrity and support them with resources so that they can drive programmes and initiatives that will make people take less arms and begin to engage more constructively with the government.
Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.
