|
2007 Presidential Campaign and National Politics: Leave Religion Out Of It ! By Chudi Ikwueze, PhD
This piece comes on the heels of the recent reports on the Punch, Tribune, as well as Daily Sun newspapers online editions, regarding concern about Islamic extremist ties of Umaru Yaradua and Muhammed Buhari, both of whom are presidential candidates of PDP and ANPP in the 2007 elections respectively. According to the report, the concern about both men in the United States and other major capital cities hinges on whether these men are Islamists or have Islamic extremist ties, as being claimed in some quarters. Suffice it to say that although Muhammed Buhari is equally being alleged/accused of having questionable Islamic extremist ties, the concern about Umaru Yaradua’s Islamic extremist ties is the one that is attracting more widespread media coverage, at least on the Internet.
In fact, critics have blatantly claimed that Katsina state has become much more Islamized than hitherto, under Umaru Yaradua. They point to the fact that Umaru Yaradua’s Katsina state is one of only ten Northern states where Sharia law has been introduced lately. To further support this claim, these people list a couple of events that have occurred in the state under his leadership. Among events often mentioned include the introduction of Sharia law, the killing of innocent Nigerians during “Danish-cartoon” religious riot in the state, the plan to relocate churches to same part of town, and also the infamous Amina Lawal’s death sentencing incident. Amina Lawal it would be recalled was the lady whose case made national and international news when a Sharia court in Katsina state sentenced her to death by stoning for committing adultery. The verdict was however overturned mainly due to the enormous outcry and pressure generated both nationally and internationally, against her sentencing.
Agreeably, there is no denial of the fact that these events did occur under Umaru Yaradua’s leadership. However it is simply preposterous on the part of anyone or group to suggest that this man is Islamist just because the events occurred when he was governor of katsina state. And so, unless there are prosecutable evidence to prove that citizens especially non-Moslem’s religious freedom was very seriously compromised in a systematic fashion, and/or that he clearly supported, sponsored or participated in any acts of religious extremism, this claim of Katsina state being more Islamic under Umaru Yaradua or that he is an Islamist is untrue; and should be seen only as an attempt at discrediting the man’s reputation.
So far, in the last one month, on two different articles that appeared on Gamji.com and kwenu.com I have made a case that these people or groups who go about alleging or accusing others of having Islamic extremist ties only represent their self serving interests, not that of any segment of Nigeria as they explicitly and/or implicitly claim. And that Nigerians and others must see them for whom they really are: mischievous, irresponsible and self serving people. The critical points made in both articles are for well meaning Nigerians to repudiate those who make such unsubstantiated religious accusation against both presidential candidates; and also, that this issue must not be allowed to become a defining one in the up coming 2007 presidential election.
As we all know, Nigeria is a very complex/complicated country faced with enormous challenges in almost every area of our national lives. Religious matter being one of them, and usually a highly volatile area, has to be handled very, very cautiously by all concerned. Because of this high volatility, Nigerians should never forget that religious discords sowed now, will most likely remain with our peoples for a long time, regardless of whether the border shifts or not. That is why it is in everyone’s interest not to allow those who spread this unsubstantiated religious accusation against notable presidential contenders to succeed in their desperate quest to making it a defining issue in this election cycle.
Nigeria is better off as a secular country where Christians, Moslems and others are encouraged to live and enjoy religious freedom. That is why the right to religious freedom is enshrined in the constitution, so that no Nigerian of any creed could be forced into a religion or adversely affected by a religion he or she does not desire, without recourse. In view, in a secular Nigeria, Moslems should be encouraged to introduce and live by Sharia law if they so desired; provided that the state guarantees that non-Moslems are not adversely affected by the religious code. Obligatorily, the Federal Government of Nigeria must guarantee that non-Moslems are NOT, NEVER subjected to the Sharia religious code or adversely affected by it, without a commensurate recourse to them. So because Nigeria is organized as a secular country, and by the constitution, every state and the Federal government have by law implicitly guaranteed that non-Moslems are not going to be affected or subjected to the code. Why then should people accuse Umaru Yaradua of islamization of Katsina state or having Islamic extremist tendencies just because Sharia law was introduced under his regime?
The problem, it seems, is that many non-Moslems seem to be flatly against the introduction of Sharia law, just for the sake of it. Those against Sharia law often claim that although the architects of Sharia law and state governments always promise that non-Moslems would not be adversely affected or forced to live by the law, that in practice, ample evidence point to the fact that the implementation of the law usually would inevitably, adversely affect non-Moslems.
As it is true in the enforcement of any law at all, it must be realized that the implementation of Sharia law as well may not always be perfect. Therefore, unless there is a clear-cut, conscious and proof of a systematic design to undermine the religious freedom of non-Moslems, any adverse effects on non-Moslems due to Sharia law ought be seen in the context of law enforcement gone awry, an isolated incident. Such adverse effects should not be interpreted to mean a conscious effort to abuse peoples religious freedom. But of course, always, those adversely affected by Sharia law, whether conscious or by omission must be compensated. The Federal Government of Nigeria must periodically review the extent at which religious freedom is respected in the states. Whenever violations occur or becomes systematic, it is her obligation to defend the constitution by defending her citizens. After all, all other laws in Nigeria sharia law inclusive, are subservient to the Nigerian constitution.
When it comes to officials or individuals serving under state or Federal government who may have aided or played role in violating the religious freedom of others or could be accused of being Islamists or whatever, such accusation leveled against individuals must be based on prosecutable evidence. After all, no person deserves to pay any penalties just because of being accused of something without any evidence to prove it. To try to do so in Nigeria would amount to resorting to “jungle law” or vigilante law, if you like. That is not the type of law that operates in Nigeria. That is why , it is weird for anyone to begin to accuse or allege that Umaru Yaradua and Muhammadu Buhari have questionable Islamic extremist ties, without providing us with evidence to support it. The outcome of the up coming election must not be allowed to be defined by the spread of such unsubstantiated religious falsehood against these men.
Nigerians should be wary of these people who spread this falsehood, and demand of them to come up with evidence that suggest that Umaru Yaradua and/or Mohammadu Buhari directly abused and/or aided in the abuse of the rights of non-Moslem, in any capacity. Quite frankly, I would like to learn about any evidence of any Islamic extremist ties they may have, different from the baseless ones being peddled in the press, and I am sure Nigerians would want to know, as well. In absence of such evidence, then, these people must be responsible enough to desist from further spreading of this mischievous religious falsehood.
Interestingly enough, each of the publishers that have covered this story has referenced Dr. Eddy Oparaoji and cohorts as the key source of this campaign of religious falsehood amongst Nigerian political group in the United States. According to people familiar with him, the sentiments that drive fellow Nigerians towards negative religious politics may not be unconnected with the way and manner in which Northern politicians have become more insensitive to the political, cultural and religious freedom/values of fellow Nigerians.
The case being advanced by these people is that, in terms of citizen’s cultural and religious rights, Nigerian government officials especially those from the Northern states, at various levels of government have abused and have continued to abuse the privileges that come with unchecked, unaccountable political power, over the last thirty-six years. They point to the fact that Nigerians of different religious and nationalistic affiliations, especially those of Igbo origin in the North, have been direct recipients of this unfavorable, anti-citizen’s political landscape in existence in Nigeria. So this urge to characterize every Northern politician as Islamist is connected with these strong feelings of unaccounted for atrocities committed in the North, during religious riots, against people of other religions and nationalities. Truth be told, these people may well be right as there are ample evidence to prove that this strong feeling about lack of religious freedom in the North is justified.
After all, Nigerians are quite familiar with the strong feelings of frustration that accompany them, days and evenings, after every religious riots in the North, where mostly Ndiigbo pay the ultimate price, without recourse from such a state government or Federal government, for that matter. We have all witnessed the usual inactions and indifferent attitude of key officials, at all levels of government, following almost every religious riot in Nigeria. Nigerians are disgusted to say the least with the usual excuses made to rationalize the inability of appropriate governmental agencies to identify, arrest and prosecute the key sponsors/perpetrators and killers of innocent, unarmed Nigerians, during riots of all kinds. One needs not be a rocket scientist to figure out that this lackadaisical attitude of governments at all levels, only have emboldened the Islamic extremists and leaves them with one clear message; which is that government at all levels support you whenever you kill fellow Nigerians.
So, by characterizing virtually every presidential candidate as Islamist, and given the strong feelings harbored by these people against the unaccounted for atrocities that have happened in the North during religious riots, those who spread this religious falsehood against Northern presidential contenders assume, implicitly, the existence of collateral guilt due that the North have not done enough or nothing at all, to protect Nigerians with different religious and cultural. That is probably why they make this accusation, and still feel vindicated, even when there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim.
Needless to say that it is wrong and counter-productive to take to characterizing every Northern Moslem politician as Islamist or having Islamic extremist ties, when there is no evidence to prove it. To do that means that the people spreading such falsehood fail to recognize the fact that there are millions of Northerners as well, and those are in majority, who genuinely despise the occurrence of religious riots in the North. And that these Northerners recognize clearly that the attendant destruction of innocent lives and properties due to these riots can no longer be ignored, nor can it be sustained further, without catastrophic consequences, in this day and age. As already pointed out, elsewhere, Nigerians must handle religious issues very cautiously. It is highly volatile and must be understood as such.
Frankly, the continuous killing of fellow unarmed innocent citizens by Islamic extremists in the North ought to be of greatest concern to governments, at all levels. This issue, surely, can not be allowed to be cheaply politicized in the manner in which Dr. Eddy Oparaoji and cohorts are trying to go about it. In fact, it is the height of irresponsibility for governments and all to continue to dismiss/disregard the strong feelings being expressed by fellow citizens, in this matter. Governments at all levels and well meaning Nigerians especially Northerners must step up and show leadership. It is in their interest to do so.
In my opinion, the effective way to go about settling this matter is for governments at all levels to begin to collaborate with well meaning individuals, groups and non-governmental organizations to address this area of our national lives, before it spins out of control. Interested Nigerians must establish networks of national and international nongovernmental organizations (which would work in liaison with local, state, and federal government) to increase the likelihood of tracking those who sponsor and/or kill innocent fellow Nigerians en masse during religious riots. Everyone must join hands to put to a stop the continuous occurrence of religious extremism in Nigeria. If they are genuinely interested, as they want us to believe, Dr. Eddy Oparaoji and cohorts should join hands with others to establish the kinds of organizations suggested here so as to forestall the occurrence of religious riots in the North.
They must henceforth refrain from further spread of irresponsible, mischievous and unsubstantiated religious falsehood against Umaru Yaradua and Muhammed Buhari, in the name of politics, for whatever reason. Their approach is definitely a wrong way to go about this issue and it will worsen everyone’s lot, than solve anything, if followed. There are numerous other ways to go about solving or achieving our national objectives, without resorting to the kind of religious bigotry in question. The problem is that these people do not think some of their actions through.
I am not surprise therefore that attempts to bring these people’s attention to the danger of spreading religious falsehood have fallen on deaf ears. Certainly, the fact that this issue re-appeared a few days ago on Punch, Tribune and even Daily Sun tabloid Online Editions demonstrates that they are desperate to elevate this issue to the center stage of 2007 presidential politics. They would not succeed, in so far as Nigerians understand why it would not be in anyone’s interest, to allow such false accusation against these men to become a defining issue in 2007 presidential election cycle.
Chudi Ikwueze, PhD
|