Gen.
Paul Ufuoma Omu (rtd), Chairman of the National Institute for Policy
and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, and former military administrator
fields questions from ANOTE AJELUOROU on the daunting challenges of
governance, and the threat of insecurity in the country.
WHAT would you say about ongoing constitutional efforts to address some of the issues plaguing the country?
If you ask me, I’d say there is nothing wrong with the federal system of government. A federal system of government is ideal for a plural country like we have. But we are not even running a federal system today in Nigeria. What we are running is a sort of centrist government system. Only a few controls everything and the others run to them, cap in hand, to collect tokens. There’s no fiscal federalism.
In a federal system, you should control what you have, what you produce. Where you generate funds or natural resources, you pay tax to the centre. Look at the argument that anything below the surface of the soil belongs to the Federal Government; that is absurd! If you interpret it correctly, even the gravel or sand in the ground belongs to government. If you bury your mother or father too deep, it belongs to the Federal Government.
People are saying it’s the fault of the militarisation of governance by the military. To some extent, I agree. The idea of running a central government by the military is what has bastardised the system of government. But as the constitution amendment and debates are going on, I think we have to rethink them.
Take the local government, for instance. How can the Federal Government be distributing money to local governments? It’s the responsibility of states governments. The constitution is very vague, very contradictory on things like this. The Lagos State Government tried to do something about it during the time of Ahmed Tinubu, but the Federal Government tried to use all its federal might to descend on them, but they resisted.
In other words, what the state did was right. Create these local governments as you can afford in order to get government closer to the people and to make administration of the state easy. The Federal Government can’t divide 44 local government councils for Kano and 20 for Lagos; that is absurd.
These things have to be corrected. If you remove that element of the money they collect from the Federal Government, ask them to go and run the local governments on their own, you will find that all this agitation will cease.
How can the constitutional amendment rescue Nigeria from the ‘Failed State’ tag dogging its heels?
Nigeria is really not a Failed State. You talk of a failed state where everything has collapsed and there is no recognised government. We still have recognised tiers of government functioning.
What will make nonsense of the proposed amendment are vested interests; the legislators have vested interests. Look at the local government creation, for instance; the man representing Kano on the National Assembly will not vote for devolution of power straight to the states to administer. They simply cannot sustain the 44 local governments in that state on their own without funding from the Federal Government.
The man from Lagos will vote for it because that is what suits them. I think other states that are a little viable will vote for it, but most of the states are not viable. So, they will cling on to centralising power, centralising control of resources at the Federal Government. These vested interests will make the amendment difficult to pass through.
It was the military, during the Civil War that made the central government popular: ‘We’re fighting a war; let’s put all the resources in one purse to prosecute it.’ And the war finished and we failed to return the fiscal structure to what it was. It suits some people; it doesn’t suit others. And if the people it suits are in the majority — and this is a democracy, the majority may have it. But we will see how it goes.
Even the derivation formula is being threatened. The law says not less than 13 per cent; actually, it should be more than that. To get it up more than that — even to 14 — elicits a lot of hue and cry. Even now, some states are saying the 13 per cent is too much. Then some are asking, ‘What do you contribute to that fund you’re arguing against? The Federation Account is money collectable from productive states; what does your state contribute to this distributable pool? Absolutely nothing!’
Or, for instance, in a recent argument, money charged on tobacco or alcohol as excise duty is put in the distributable pool and you’re sharing it. States that say such money is corrupt or is bad money are also sharing from it. Sharia state like Zamfara takes the alcohol money as share from the federal allocation!
The argument was; let only states that drink beer share money from the beer pool and states that ban beer should not share from it. But those who don’t drink beer still want to share from it. So, this is the irony of the whole thing. But the debate goes on; one day, we will get there and get things right. I’m an optimist, and we need optimism to forge ahead.
WHAT would you say is the genesis of the security challenges in the country and what appropriate responses would you recommend?
It’s very difficult to trace the genesis or the cause of all these security challenges facing the country. When I was in service, we had what we called internal security operations and the way we were taught by the British was that any act of terrorism or militancy develops from stage to stage — at a stage, it is peaceful demonstration before it goes to outright violence and militancy and terrorism.
Then, we had what we called ‘disperse or we fire,’ which was the sole responsibility of the police designed for internal security. The military was for external and territorial integrity of the country. When the police are unable to cope with security, then they call for military assistance.
And the populace knows that the army does not shoot to maim or throw teargas. We were trained those days to use the megaphone to announce to the rioters, ‘In the name of the Queen, I order you to disperse.’ You announce it three times. If they don’t disperse, you aim at the leader of the gang or demonstrators. And you don’t fire to maim him; you fire him done.
But what is happening now is evolution of dissent; it isn’t the way we were taught. In other words, it doesn’t start from peaceful demonstration and progresses to violent demonstrations. Now, you just find that there is a riot and immediately people are dead! There’s a riot today and before you know it, so many policemen are dead, so many civilians are dead and soldiers are called in and people are dead. So, the pattern is completely different.
From your analysis, how do we look at the evolution of Boko Haram?
It’s not an agitation against unemployment or poverty per se. If what they are doing in the North is really an anti-social dissident group, you can’t be talking of burning schools; in fact, they have destroyed many primary and secondary schools. How do you classify that? They attack police stations, customs stations and recreation centres and outright bombing of worship places in session. Now, it’s difficult to place.
They say Islamic religion is a non-violent one, but you can place your fingers anywhere in the world and see Islamic fundamentalists. Why must they go by that name? So, Boko Haram has some religious connotations whether they like it or not. Whether they deny it or not, it has some religious connotations because the Christian doctrine is non-violence and that is why Christians have not retaliated, and yet, they keep bombing churches.
It beats my imagination and that is why I bring it down to evolution and nobody knows why it’s growing like that. You know of the Maitatsine uprising in Kano in the 1980s. Luckily, I was abroad and when I came back, I took over the command of 3 Brigade in Kano.
The Maitatsine had nearly been routed. Now, a year after, it reared its ugly head again in Maiduguri and they were wiped out. The leader then was said to be a Camerounian. Maitatsine was also anti-social; they didn’t want anything modern — that is Western-oriented.
Ironically, they use Western tools to facilitate their nefarious activities…
Unfortunately, they use Western-made bombs, guns and instruments like Internet and all that to carry out their attacks even as they reject Western ways of life! Their leaders drive Jeeps. They use the Internet. That is why I say it beats my imagination.
They are blowing up communication masts and schools whereas Islam itself lays so much emphasis on education and learning, on the acquisition of knowledge. Now, health workers are being killed. Why? So, I’m yet to understand what this sect is really out to achieve.
How does the government go about negotiating with these people, as it did with the Niger Delta militants?
I can’t say how government can negotiate with them. Should government close down schools to soothe them? What are they out to achieve? If it’s political, it’s being hidden. What are the issues to negotiate?
Now, the militancy in the South! Although they got too violent at a stage, but their violence was restricted to the oil-producing companies because the companies had defaulted in so many ways. I mean, take this Igbide community, for instance; there is nothing to write home about. If a foreigner comes here and you tell him the community has been producing oil for 45 years, he will say, ‘how?’
And the same goes for the other communities in Isoko and Urhobo in Delta State and the entire Niger Delta — absolutely nothing to show for the huge oil resources that have been exploited in these areas!
So, militancy here was a sort of bottled-up anger; people were fed up with what the companies were doing. And we, the leaders in these communities, the educated elite, including myself, had lost all credibility among the young ones, who began to ask questions: ‘What did you do when so much was being taken from our land and nothing being given back — no roads, no water, no jobs for the youths, no amenities of any sort?’
But you have to blame the government also because the oil companies will tell you, ‘we are operating according to the laws of the land, with government that says it owns the land.’
The Federal Government says it owns the oil; so, it dictates. Government has the largest equity shares, 51 per cent of the oil being produced. Thus, Shell will say, ‘look, we’re partners with the government; to execute any programme, we have to take permission from the majority shareholder.’ To a great extent, the oil companies were manipulating under the cover of weak government regulations.
So, the militancy in the Niger Delta was completely different from what is happening in the North. When the militants were agitating, they were not burning down police stations or churches or mosques or schools because they knew they needed the schools.
Has government acted correctly, satisfactorily on the Boko Haram issue even as the bombings continue?
You know this is purely a national security matter. You and I are laypersons, as far as the nitty-gritty of what national security is all about. What I’m trying to say is that there are so many things that are still top secret, which we don’t know. I think the government has done so well.
On the issues of negotiations, what are the points to negotiate upon? The points are not clarified. In the case of the Niger Delta, the issues were known. People were bold enough to say, ‘Ok, Wole Soyinka, negotiate with government.’ They named people to represent them. But in the case of Boko Haram, they name people and the people will dodge. I think the people are ashamed to be associated with the organisation or the way they are operating.
In international warfare, there is a ceasefire before peace talks are held. In other words, stop firing, put down the guns and let’s talk because you cannot be talking to a man who is firing at you.
So, government is doing its best. There certainly has to be a change of mind on the part of the leaders of Boko Haram; otherwise, it will be difficult to deal with them.
Would you say there was intelligence failure on the part of security operatives, leading to ascendancy and impunity of this sect?
All over the world, there is usually intelligence gap or intelligence failure, not that it’s a failure. But we are human beings. Look at the Irish Republican Army in the U.K; they infiltrated London. With the security sophistication of the U.S, Osama Bin Laden was able to surprise America.
In fact, what they (terrorists) did to the U.S was a big disgrace to their security. The World Trade Centre was the heart of the capitalist system, and they hit it. And they also hit the Pentagon, which is the power of the U.S military and they almost hit the White House.
So, you can never tell. You see, security is there but you can never tell with human beings. As I’m talking to you now, you don’t know what is on my mind; whether I mean what I’m talking to you now or not, you don’t know. Whether I’m even a Boko Haram man they plant in Igbide here to carry out attacks in another 10 years, you wouldn’t know. That is the problem with dealing with human beings. So, there are lapses, but it’s not a failure in intelligence. It happens everywhere.
WHAT would you say about ongoing constitutional efforts to address some of the issues plaguing the country?
If you ask me, I’d say there is nothing wrong with the federal system of government. A federal system of government is ideal for a plural country like we have. But we are not even running a federal system today in Nigeria. What we are running is a sort of centrist government system. Only a few controls everything and the others run to them, cap in hand, to collect tokens. There’s no fiscal federalism.
In a federal system, you should control what you have, what you produce. Where you generate funds or natural resources, you pay tax to the centre. Look at the argument that anything below the surface of the soil belongs to the Federal Government; that is absurd! If you interpret it correctly, even the gravel or sand in the ground belongs to government. If you bury your mother or father too deep, it belongs to the Federal Government.
People are saying it’s the fault of the militarisation of governance by the military. To some extent, I agree. The idea of running a central government by the military is what has bastardised the system of government. But as the constitution amendment and debates are going on, I think we have to rethink them.
Take the local government, for instance. How can the Federal Government be distributing money to local governments? It’s the responsibility of states governments. The constitution is very vague, very contradictory on things like this. The Lagos State Government tried to do something about it during the time of Ahmed Tinubu, but the Federal Government tried to use all its federal might to descend on them, but they resisted.
In other words, what the state did was right. Create these local governments as you can afford in order to get government closer to the people and to make administration of the state easy. The Federal Government can’t divide 44 local government councils for Kano and 20 for Lagos; that is absurd.
These things have to be corrected. If you remove that element of the money they collect from the Federal Government, ask them to go and run the local governments on their own, you will find that all this agitation will cease.
How can the constitutional amendment rescue Nigeria from the ‘Failed State’ tag dogging its heels?
Nigeria is really not a Failed State. You talk of a failed state where everything has collapsed and there is no recognised government. We still have recognised tiers of government functioning.
What will make nonsense of the proposed amendment are vested interests; the legislators have vested interests. Look at the local government creation, for instance; the man representing Kano on the National Assembly will not vote for devolution of power straight to the states to administer. They simply cannot sustain the 44 local governments in that state on their own without funding from the Federal Government.
The man from Lagos will vote for it because that is what suits them. I think other states that are a little viable will vote for it, but most of the states are not viable. So, they will cling on to centralising power, centralising control of resources at the Federal Government. These vested interests will make the amendment difficult to pass through.
It was the military, during the Civil War that made the central government popular: ‘We’re fighting a war; let’s put all the resources in one purse to prosecute it.’ And the war finished and we failed to return the fiscal structure to what it was. It suits some people; it doesn’t suit others. And if the people it suits are in the majority — and this is a democracy, the majority may have it. But we will see how it goes.
Even the derivation formula is being threatened. The law says not less than 13 per cent; actually, it should be more than that. To get it up more than that — even to 14 — elicits a lot of hue and cry. Even now, some states are saying the 13 per cent is too much. Then some are asking, ‘What do you contribute to that fund you’re arguing against? The Federation Account is money collectable from productive states; what does your state contribute to this distributable pool? Absolutely nothing!’
Or, for instance, in a recent argument, money charged on tobacco or alcohol as excise duty is put in the distributable pool and you’re sharing it. States that say such money is corrupt or is bad money are also sharing from it. Sharia state like Zamfara takes the alcohol money as share from the federal allocation!
The argument was; let only states that drink beer share money from the beer pool and states that ban beer should not share from it. But those who don’t drink beer still want to share from it. So, this is the irony of the whole thing. But the debate goes on; one day, we will get there and get things right. I’m an optimist, and we need optimism to forge ahead.
WHAT would you say is the genesis of the security challenges in the country and what appropriate responses would you recommend?
It’s very difficult to trace the genesis or the cause of all these security challenges facing the country. When I was in service, we had what we called internal security operations and the way we were taught by the British was that any act of terrorism or militancy develops from stage to stage — at a stage, it is peaceful demonstration before it goes to outright violence and militancy and terrorism.
Then, we had what we called ‘disperse or we fire,’ which was the sole responsibility of the police designed for internal security. The military was for external and territorial integrity of the country. When the police are unable to cope with security, then they call for military assistance.
And the populace knows that the army does not shoot to maim or throw teargas. We were trained those days to use the megaphone to announce to the rioters, ‘In the name of the Queen, I order you to disperse.’ You announce it three times. If they don’t disperse, you aim at the leader of the gang or demonstrators. And you don’t fire to maim him; you fire him done.
But what is happening now is evolution of dissent; it isn’t the way we were taught. In other words, it doesn’t start from peaceful demonstration and progresses to violent demonstrations. Now, you just find that there is a riot and immediately people are dead! There’s a riot today and before you know it, so many policemen are dead, so many civilians are dead and soldiers are called in and people are dead. So, the pattern is completely different.
From your analysis, how do we look at the evolution of Boko Haram?
It’s not an agitation against unemployment or poverty per se. If what they are doing in the North is really an anti-social dissident group, you can’t be talking of burning schools; in fact, they have destroyed many primary and secondary schools. How do you classify that? They attack police stations, customs stations and recreation centres and outright bombing of worship places in session. Now, it’s difficult to place.
They say Islamic religion is a non-violent one, but you can place your fingers anywhere in the world and see Islamic fundamentalists. Why must they go by that name? So, Boko Haram has some religious connotations whether they like it or not. Whether they deny it or not, it has some religious connotations because the Christian doctrine is non-violence and that is why Christians have not retaliated, and yet, they keep bombing churches.
It beats my imagination and that is why I bring it down to evolution and nobody knows why it’s growing like that. You know of the Maitatsine uprising in Kano in the 1980s. Luckily, I was abroad and when I came back, I took over the command of 3 Brigade in Kano.
The Maitatsine had nearly been routed. Now, a year after, it reared its ugly head again in Maiduguri and they were wiped out. The leader then was said to be a Camerounian. Maitatsine was also anti-social; they didn’t want anything modern — that is Western-oriented.
Ironically, they use Western tools to facilitate their nefarious activities…
Unfortunately, they use Western-made bombs, guns and instruments like Internet and all that to carry out their attacks even as they reject Western ways of life! Their leaders drive Jeeps. They use the Internet. That is why I say it beats my imagination.
They are blowing up communication masts and schools whereas Islam itself lays so much emphasis on education and learning, on the acquisition of knowledge. Now, health workers are being killed. Why? So, I’m yet to understand what this sect is really out to achieve.
How does the government go about negotiating with these people, as it did with the Niger Delta militants?
I can’t say how government can negotiate with them. Should government close down schools to soothe them? What are they out to achieve? If it’s political, it’s being hidden. What are the issues to negotiate?
Now, the militancy in the South! Although they got too violent at a stage, but their violence was restricted to the oil-producing companies because the companies had defaulted in so many ways. I mean, take this Igbide community, for instance; there is nothing to write home about. If a foreigner comes here and you tell him the community has been producing oil for 45 years, he will say, ‘how?’
And the same goes for the other communities in Isoko and Urhobo in Delta State and the entire Niger Delta — absolutely nothing to show for the huge oil resources that have been exploited in these areas!
So, militancy here was a sort of bottled-up anger; people were fed up with what the companies were doing. And we, the leaders in these communities, the educated elite, including myself, had lost all credibility among the young ones, who began to ask questions: ‘What did you do when so much was being taken from our land and nothing being given back — no roads, no water, no jobs for the youths, no amenities of any sort?’
But you have to blame the government also because the oil companies will tell you, ‘we are operating according to the laws of the land, with government that says it owns the land.’
The Federal Government says it owns the oil; so, it dictates. Government has the largest equity shares, 51 per cent of the oil being produced. Thus, Shell will say, ‘look, we’re partners with the government; to execute any programme, we have to take permission from the majority shareholder.’ To a great extent, the oil companies were manipulating under the cover of weak government regulations.
So, the militancy in the Niger Delta was completely different from what is happening in the North. When the militants were agitating, they were not burning down police stations or churches or mosques or schools because they knew they needed the schools.
Has government acted correctly, satisfactorily on the Boko Haram issue even as the bombings continue?
You know this is purely a national security matter. You and I are laypersons, as far as the nitty-gritty of what national security is all about. What I’m trying to say is that there are so many things that are still top secret, which we don’t know. I think the government has done so well.
On the issues of negotiations, what are the points to negotiate upon? The points are not clarified. In the case of the Niger Delta, the issues were known. People were bold enough to say, ‘Ok, Wole Soyinka, negotiate with government.’ They named people to represent them. But in the case of Boko Haram, they name people and the people will dodge. I think the people are ashamed to be associated with the organisation or the way they are operating.
In international warfare, there is a ceasefire before peace talks are held. In other words, stop firing, put down the guns and let’s talk because you cannot be talking to a man who is firing at you.
So, government is doing its best. There certainly has to be a change of mind on the part of the leaders of Boko Haram; otherwise, it will be difficult to deal with them.
Would you say there was intelligence failure on the part of security operatives, leading to ascendancy and impunity of this sect?
All over the world, there is usually intelligence gap or intelligence failure, not that it’s a failure. But we are human beings. Look at the Irish Republican Army in the U.K; they infiltrated London. With the security sophistication of the U.S, Osama Bin Laden was able to surprise America.
In fact, what they (terrorists) did to the U.S was a big disgrace to their security. The World Trade Centre was the heart of the capitalist system, and they hit it. And they also hit the Pentagon, which is the power of the U.S military and they almost hit the White House.
So, you can never tell. You see, security is there but you can never tell with human beings. As I’m talking to you now, you don’t know what is on my mind; whether I mean what I’m talking to you now or not, you don’t know. Whether I’m even a Boko Haram man they plant in Igbide here to carry out attacks in another 10 years, you wouldn’t know. That is the problem with dealing with human beings. So, there are lapses, but it’s not a failure in intelligence. It happens everywhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment