Comparing Niger Delta militants with Boko Haram is insulting, primitive —CLO director

WHAT will be the implication for the nation’s justice system when a bill to rehabilitate terrorists who waged war on the nation, killed people and occupied territories becomes law?

The implication would be that the security agencies and the judiciary would be overwhelmed by the dubious activities of these terrorists, and rather than dispense justice judiciously and without fear or favour, judicial officers would be doing so in fear for their lives and those of their families, loved ones and property. Giving amnesty to terrorists who took up arms against the state and its citizens without provocation is dangerous and an invitation to bigger threat to security and the citizens. It would aggravate the already ugly security situation in the country.

What will happen to the victims of their terrorism, the dead, orphans and the displaced? Have they been properly taken care of?

This second question links us with the first and further provokes discussions on the fate of the victims of this terrorism, namely those who were killed, maimed, raped and whose hard-acquired properties were destroyed, including their homes. You know that since the inception of Boko Haram insurgency, some victims whose homes were devastated and razed down have been living in internally displaced persons’ camps. Some have died of diseases, hunger and destitution there and some have been infected with communicable diseases who are still in pains. There are families that have been left without fathers or mothers or without kids that they hitherto had as a result of this unprovoked terror. Seeing the perpetrators of these heinous crimes pardoned without any form of justice extended to them (the victims) will worsen the bad conditions of the victims. For us in CLO, rather than settling these terrorists,  we would propose that government uses the resources for doing so to rehabilitate the victims and cause them to begin to reintegrate into the society.

The Boko Haram insurgents, according to our findings,  do not live outside comfortable homes as the public have been deceived to believe that they live in the forest. They live in comfortable places in the cities from where they retire to the bushes or forests where they operate, unleashing mayhem on the unsuspecting publics and thereafter, returning to their plush homes. So, why are they being settled, or rehabilitated? To pay them for killing, maiming and raping the people and destroying their societies?

We are vehemently opposed to this criminal settlement of evil people who have turned our society upside down. The debate about this doesn›t worth it and goes further to tell the character of both our rulers and the primitive government they run.

The president once said the Boko Haram and herdsmen are not Nigerians, so why is the government now planning to create agency and spend the people›s resources on them?

If this government and their handlers have respect for human rights and the sanctity of the human lives, they would have been discussing modalities for  taking care of the victims of terrorism and not thinking of providing amnesty and protection for the perpetrators. The efforts to protect people who Mr. President had dismissed as non-Nigerians leaves us wondering which type of government that we run. This is very unfortunate and misleading. It is, indeed, worrisome.

Is the argument linking Boko Haram terrorists who want to occupy Nigeria  and Niger Delta militants fighting the government to get attention to the despoliation of their environment correct?

No. no. No. The argument is absolutely wrong, insulting and primitive. How can anyone compare the case of former Niger Delta militants whose issues are very clear and that of Boko Haram that is clearly an act of terrorism, insurrection and unprovoked war. It is clearly missing the issue by doing so. The former Niger Delta militants fought a judicious and ideological struggle against their oppressors and

looters of their God-given resources. Their point of disagreement with the Nigerian State is obvious and understandable, but not that of Boko Haram. The two are diametrically opposed and cannot be measured on the same scale at all. The Niger Delta issues are tangible, noticed, felt and seeable and can in no way be said to be same as that of Boko Haram.