Peace and Quiet in Northern Nigeria over Jerusalem? Why? How?

by Eze Eluchie, 

When United States President, Donald Trump, announced a dramatic and expected change in US policy to now recognize the ancient biblical city of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, there had been expectation in several quarters in Nigeria that the unfolding spate of violent riots/demonstrations across the Middle East and Muslim-majority countries of Central Asia, against the US policy shift would be replicated in several cities in Nigeria’s Northern regions. 

The expectation of the replication of the mindless violence and hateful riots in Nigeria was rooted in the reality that on several occasions when similar pro-Islam riots had broken out in the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Asia had resulted in near-spontaneous outbreak of orgies of senseless violence in such Nigerian cities as Kano, Kaduna, Katsina, Minna and at more subtle, though equally intimidating processions in areas such as Sokoto, Maidugri and Gusau.

Earlier instances when reaction by Islamists in foreign climes had been replicated in Nigeria include the riots against the publication by Thisday newspapers in Nigeria of a story deemed blasphemous of the Prophet and the issuance of a Fatwa (death sentence) on the author of the said piece in 2002; the publication of cartoons featuring Prophet Muhammed by a Dutch newspaper (Jyllands Posten) in September 2005, which led to widespread destruction, burning of churches and the death of over 100 persons in resulting riots across several cities of Northern Nigeria; the commencement of the various Intafada between the Israeli’s and their Palestine neighbours have also been replicated across Nigeria with violent protests in our northern fringes.

There had been palpable apprehension on the first Friday after President Trump’s groundbreaking policy change that after Friday prayers, people should generally steer clear from streets, particularly the areas around major mosques in such cities as Kano, Kaduna, Bauchi and Zaria. The streets had indeed been quiet. Oddly however, nothing - no violence, no skirmish, no burning of churches, no beheadings of innocent bystanders, absolutely no violence occurred. As the continuing violent riots and demonstrations against the recognition of the Israeli capital by the US continued on a daily basis, not a whimper whatsoever was heard from the often vociferous Nigeria-based Islamists and Ulama’s who in prior times had cried more than the bereaved, causing far more destructions, mayhem, killings and murders in Nigeria than would be occasioned to the territories where the initial harms/issues were domiciled.

What is the secret for the new found peace and quiet in Nigeria after US recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel? Had the umbilical cord which linked violent extremism with Islamists across the Sahara desert been cut? Were the youngsters used to perpetuate pro-Islamist violence in Nigeria over issues that happened so far away from our shores now suddenly wiser and less violent? Or do the characters who instigated and orchestrated earlier copy-cat Islamist-related violence feel that there was presently no need to disturb the polity since they were presently in control of the reins of power? Did someone in Nigeria’s seat of power not want to risk upsetting US interests by allowing urchins to go about burning churches, killing, looting and causing carnage (erstwhile useful tools to discredit earlier regimes) over the issue of Jerusalem?

Whatsoever is the reason for the peace and quiet being experienced in Northern Nigeria over the issue of Jerusalem whilst violence rages across Gaza, the West Bank and much of the Middle East, let the peace and quiet be maintained. Let it also be realized that previous acts of pro-Islamist mass mayhem which had earlier been thought to be spontaneous and ‘free-will’ were certainly centrally organized, premeditated, well planned and executed acts of intimidation and terror geared towards attaining political and socio-economic advantages.

The fact that no one, not any single person, has been tried and found guilty or in any way held accountable for previous acts of religion-based violent crimes in Nigeria, gives life to the theory that powerful interest blocks orchestrate and give cover to the use of religion as an instrument to perpetuate violence in Northern Nigeria. The fact that a man, Muhammadu Buhari, who had severally championed the cause of extremist Islamist philosophies currently occupies the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and would not ordinarily want to attract greater undue US attention, is certainly a factor in the non-replication of Islamist riots over the issue of Jerusalem in Northern Nigeria. Without doubt, at other times, perhaps when other persons mount the saddle of rulership over the Nigerian State, the spectre of pro-Islamist violence remain a ready tool to attain political goals.

Picture: Likely news that would have emanated from Nigeria over US recognition of Jerusalem – avoided by those who instigated previous fatalistic and violent riots

Freedom and Democracy: Catalan Puts Europe on Trial

by Eze Eluchie,

It is always easier to talk about virtues in the abstract or when it relates to others in distant climes. When, however, one is forced to confront issues surrounding such virtues at close quarters, stoic silence where possible in expectation that such issues will disappear of own accord and or subtle, but quite effective, acts to scuttle the realization, at close quarters or within one’s own domain, of previously extolled virtues, are set in motion under various spurious premises.

The twin virtues of Freedom and Democracy have in keeping with a new global order, become pedestals upon which states are rated as either ‘developing’ or ‘developed’; ‘1^st World’, ‘2^nd World’ or ‘3^rd World’; ‘Democratic’ or ‘Totalitarian’; ‘axis of evil’ or ‘champions of freedom’, and so on. In some instances, the level of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ a state is deemed to accord its nationals have served as rationale for some states to impose crippling economic, social and political sanctions on other states. A state perceived as denying its peoples freedom and democratic practices is at every given opportunity, lampooned and cajoled until it is falls in line – until it is ‘certified’ as allowing its peoples freedom to choose their leaders, the right to self determination and generally other fundamental rights encapsulated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and various other international instruments and recognized norms.

Worldwide, Western countries, particularly the United States and the European Union, have over the course of time, positioned themselves as custodians of the twin virtues of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, defining the twin terms in accord with their own peculiarities and determining which state/territory observes freedoms and democratic practices and following up with apportioning kudos and sanctions as they have deemed deserving. The European Union, through a plethora of its institutions and funding mechanisms amongst which includes its ‘election observer missions’, has become a recurring and perennial decimal in democratic processes across the globe.

From Zimbabwe, to Russia, to Myanmar, to Nigeria, to Kenya, to China, the EU has become a loud voice in the advancement of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, championing the need for respect of peoples quest for freedoms and democracy.

Recent events, in Europe itself, have placed huge question marks on the sincerity of the European Union’s passion to advance the universal rights of self-determination, freedoms and democratic precepts. The first of such events was the vocal and strident opposition by the European Union and its various institutions towards efforts by the Scot to secede from the United Kingdom. EU institutions threatened the Scots with catastrophic consequences in the event that they opted to secede, threats which no doubt served to tilt the votes in a direction preferred by the EU irrespective of the desire for freedom and democracy by the Scots. 

The preferences exhibited by the EU establishment and their combative responses to the outcome of democratic elections in the United States and the BREXIT votes further served to expose the fact that ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ were concepts which had very subjective definitions and if the outcomes of these virtues were not in conformity with the developmental aspirations and expectations of those who have positioned themselves as custodians of the EU establishment, then ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ were distractions and should be curtailed.

The evolving situation in the Catalan region of Spain is providing a closer-to-home opportunity to appraise the EU stance and perception of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. The Catalans, a distinct nation within the Spanish state, has in furtherance of their age-long desire for freedom and an independent state, conducted a peaceful referendum which showed an overwhelming support for independence from Spain. The EU establishment, fearful of the implications of freedom and democracy, particularly if more ethnic nationalities across Europe begin to exercise their rights to freedom and democracy and tow similar lines, fell back to usual antics of threats of economic doom, sanctions and isolation of whatsoever the Catalans might come up with as their own country.  The issues being prioritized in arguments in EU circles surrounding the Catalan vote for independence is strangely, neither the wishes of the people of the Catalan region, nor their freedom to choose and right to self determination or nor even the promotion of democratic practice which the which the independence vote extolled; rather such technicalities as what becomes of the EU Charter and technical balderdash and legalese surrounding the quest for freedom and democracy by the Catalans. The haste with which the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany expressed dissatisfaction with the Catalan declaration of independence was to say the least appalling – what had suddenly become wrong with a people striving to assert independence and their freedoms, particularly when such is being conducted in a peaceful noon-obstructive manner?

The reality is that the people of the Catalan region have in a very peaceful and democratic manner, exercised the universally recognized and acknowledged right to self determination by voting for their independence from Spain. The world will be watching over the next few days/weeks, taking in every step Spain and the EU establishment will adopt as they seek to upturn the Catalans exercise of freedoms and democracy. Will Spanish soldiers or security personnel be sent to arrest, incarcerate or bludgeon those Catalans who dared to aspire for freedom and democracy? Will economic and social strangulation be deployed to weaken the resolve of those who dares for freedom and democracy? How will the EU react to quest for freedom and democracy within the EU territories?

The answers to the above questions will go a long way to determining how EU interventions in issues of freedoms and democracy and good governance in other parts of the world will be tolerated and perceived. Regarding freedoms and democracy, the Catalan situation has put the European Union on trial. We are watching.....

.

Picture: Catalans celebrate independence declaration in Barcelona on Friday 27^th October 2017.

Tragedy Looms as Multi-Religious Nigeria is Touted as an Islamic Republic....

by Eze Eluchie,

The document which is commonly referred to as the ‘1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’, though in reality merely the appendix to a Military decree, upon which the Nigeria state is predicated and governed, proclaims unequivocally, the secular status of the Nigerian federation. With the litany of ethno-sectarian conflicts which have led to the deaths of countless thousands, particularly in Nigeria’s northern region, the palpable heightened degree of sensitivity and apprehension amongst Nigerians regarding any actions by government to tilt the polity towards any of the two main religious bodies should suffice to curb any intentions at creating a semblance of foisting a State Religion on Nigerians or nuances that may create the impression of domination by one religion over the other.

When however, a subsisting regime, enmeshed in an aura of self-created invincibility, all-knowing and we-have-them-by-the-balls mindset, deliberately acts in manners that projects a secular state as being a one-religion state or ‘dominated’ by one religion, it is only a matter of time before the veil that has been so craftfully woven over the eyes of some who ostensibly for lucre and positions held, are willing to allow the macabre unconstitutional dance towards a mono-religion state. Then the agitations will overwhelm the already weakened contraption.

The irony inherent in the deliberate perpetuation of a falsehood that a secular state is ‘Islamic’ or ‘Muslim-majority’ is that, resulting from the absence of genuine theocratic structures and institutions, the State and those who decide to propagate and project such falsehood are perceived and treated as fraudulent by the wider international community. This is in addition to the fact that the basic expectations, from a religious perspective, of an ‘Islamic’ or ‘Muslim majority’ state will be absent.

In the instant case of Nigeria, the reality that a sizable percentage of national income is derived from Value Added Tax (VAT) levied on breweries for alcoholic products and to a smaller extent livestock (including pork meat) – sources considered as forbidden under Islamic tenets, and that such VAT proceeds are lumped into a national treasury which then gets ‘shared’ amongst Nigeria’s constituent levels of governments (Federal, States and Local Governments), questions the legitimacy, under Islamic teachings of deploying such public funds to Shari’a-compliant ventures, as would be expected of ‘Islamic’ or ‘Muslim majority’ States.

Under the ruling administration in Nigeria headed by a man, Muhammadu Buhari, who had severally professed a desire to ensure the application of Shari’a laws across a secular Nigeria, there have been brash efforts to position and posture Nigeria as an Islamic state. One of such brash actions has been the involvement of the Federal Government in promoting, championing and facilitating the SUKUK (Shari’a-compliant) Bonds, an unconstitutional move in itself since the Federal Government was deploying state resources in a discriminatory manner towards the promotion and elevation of a religious faith contrary to the provisions of Nigeria’s constitution.

Spurious and tenuous efforts have been made by Buhari’s government to douse the implications of the Federal Government involvement in a strictly religious financial instrument, such as the cosmetic positioning of the Governor of Nigeria’s Central Bank, Godwin Emefiele (a Christian) as the Chairman of the International Islamic Liquidity Management Corporation (IILMC).   Most such diversionary acts amount to naught – as the ludicrous nature of such farce would have been laughable if not for the dire potent implications if the continuing religious slant the Nigerian polity is being forced to digress towards is not hastily corrected.  

Not done with floating and dealing in the SUKUK Bonds, in yet another to-hell-with-you-guys stance, the occupant of the Office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria opted to attend a meeting of a so-called ‘D-8 Organization for Economic Cooperation’, a group comprised of the following Islamic countries: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, Malaysia and Pakistan and, you guessed right, Nigeria.

How and when did Nigeria get into this D-8 group, which in its website affirms that the ‘idea of cooperation among major Muslim developing countries was mooted by Prof. Dr. Necmettin Erbakan, former Prime Minister of Turkey”? From what sources does the membership fees for such religion-based organizations emanate in a secular Nigeria?

When the above is juxtaposed alongside a very striking religion-based slant in leadership of state institutions and coming on the heels of Nigeria’s continuing membership of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), it will take a spectacularly blind mind not to discern a worrisome pattern that if not stemmed early enough, portends dire outcomes.

There is nothing wrong with a people hobnobbing with whosoever they so desire to be with. When however an entire multi-ethnic and multi-religious contraption is by deceit, subterfuge, sleuth and all manners of vague posturing ensnared into being perceived, seen or become a religious state, a transgenerational catastrophe would have been ignited.

A holistic restructuring and renegotiation of the Nigerian contraption will spare all and sundry this looming tragedy.

D-8 website: http://www.developing8.org/

Appointment of Nigeria’s Christian Central Bank Governor as Chairman of Islamic Institution:  https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2016/12/17/emefiele-appointed-chairman-islamic-management-corporation-board/

Picture: Logo of the D-8 group.