Opinion

By Adamu Usman Garko

By Barrister Nura Sunusi

For some misguided individuals and those who consume everything online hook, line and sinker, David Hundeyin’s ‘Cornflakes for Jihad: The Origin of Boko Haram Story’, which he and his cohorts call ‘investigation’, would have been left to die a natural death like many before it. However, if allowed unchallenged, lies may be sold as truth, and the world will be blind. And those who know will not allow this. Besides, Hundeyin’s story is packed with journalistic chicanery of epic proportion.

Hundeyin’s sole aim was to push the lies he concocted down the throat of his readers/audiences. This is my concern. It is for this, I believe, such intellectual dishonesty has to be stamped out completely.

One cannot give what they do not have. Before I go far, Hundeyin deserves some quick bath; then let me stripe him naked first.

An Annang Christian ‘journalist’ from Akwa Ibom State in the South-South, Hundeyin is utterly ignorant of the vast northern region and its intentional predicates: background, history, language, culture, religion, etc. At this point, it is instructive to note that Hundeyin is not a lone walker in the use of this pure sophistry. There are some people in our midst toeing this path.

Izala, particularly Alhaji Shahru, Sheikh Yakubu Musa, Isa Pantami and other personalities belonging to the religious body, have been a target of a sustained campaign of calumny for its ability to bestride the earthly and heavenly with such ease. Of particular is a Nigerian ‘historian’, mind the quotation marks, who teaches at an American University.

This confused dude like Hundeyin has been at the forefront of this campaign for some time. Had he been allowed, he would have formed an empire, which modus operandi is to silence and blackmail the most peaceful, 40-year-old registered religious organization in Nigeria. About two years ago, perhaps long before that, the said ‘historian’ raised a finger in this corridor, and some intelligently educated youths called his bluff. He left mentally wounded.

I have learnt that Hundeyin’s hit-and-run piece has struck the ‘historian’, who has been mum all this while like a spent horse, as an energizer.

My perception of this saga is this: since those folks had test-flied this campaign severally and woefully failed, now Hundeyin is hired to try his luck and dead is his attempt on arrival.

That notwithstanding, to set the record straight, Hundeyin‘s piece deserves some response, which I give below, stitching facts and figures. Then let us take it one at a time.

Nomenclature of terrorism

First, the blurry line demarcating what terrorism is and what it is not, who is a terrorist and who is not is, is one of the factors breathing life into liars like David Hundeyin.

Although I intend to restrict this piece to Alhaji Shahru Haruna’s side of the argument, I will touch on some of the issues Hundeyin raised in his article to unravel the intricacies involved.

Hundeyin is overzealously blind in the sense that every passing picture of Islam or a Muslim forms in his mind a mental image of what he calls terrorism or terrorist. No wonder! Nigeria is full of academically certified but ignorant people. We will see this in the subsequent paragraphs.

Nigeria is not an opponent of GSPC

GSPC stands for “Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat” (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat). According to Wikipedia, GSPC was an armed Islamic group UNTIL 2004!

The group had only one opponent, which was not Nigeria, but Algeria. Therefore, how did Alhaji Shahru Haruna or Sheikh Yakubu Musa become the GSPC’s agents?

Politics of origin

The moment he tried to conjecture up a triangular of Izala, terrorism, which he barely understands, and finance, Hundeyin shot himself in the foot. His is a weak argument full of lacunas, fabricated evidence, and disjointed analogies. Is there anything hatred cannot drive one to do?

From Sheikh Abubakar Gumi to Alhaji Shahru Haruna, Sheikh Yakubu Musa to Isa Aliyu Pantami, the current minister of Communications and digital economy and others, Hundeyin has failed to come up with even a single irrefutable proof linking any of them with terrorism. Instead, his submission heavily relied on hearsay, including social media posts.

First, Izala’s deeply established manifestoes/objectives to non-politically strive and promote the pure teaching of Islam and proselytizing, which is acknowledged even by non-Muslims in the West, is for anyone to see.

Second, Izala’s leading figure, Sheihk Abubakar Gumi, the Grand Khadi of the Northern region of Nigeria between 1962 and 1967, was a champion of democracy. He encouraged Islamic and Western educations; and associated with upright political figures like Aminu Kano, Sa’adu Zungur and Sardauna of Sokoto.

Moreover, Izala is a progressive organization. It has established schools, libraries, hospitals, Islamic centres, and satellite TV stations, and now Assalam Global University in Jigawa is in the pipeline. Unlike its nemesis, its members participate in political activities, and they vote and are voted for into political offices. In addition, they are into academia and civil service.

In contrast, Boko Haram, which is the opposite, is an insurgent group engaged in continued rebellion against the constituted authority. The insurgent group ideology is rooted in a gross misinterpretation of Sunni and Salafi Islam, and it primarily attracts poorly educated and overzealous youths that lack even basic Islamic knowledge.

Where is the link?

Consequently, that in 2011 bombs went up at St. Theresa Catholic Church, Madalla, a fringe of Abuja and Gadaka in Damaturu; and during the trial of one Kabiru Sokoto, a ‘masked’ witness testified that an Islamist group in Algeria provided funding and support worth N40,000,000 ($250,000 at the time) to carry out the attacks, is not enough reason to inculpate either Sheikh Abubakar Gumi, Shahru Haruna, Yakubu Musa or other Izala personalities, is it?

Let’s try this formula to see if it works this way: on October 1, 2010, bombs went off, killing 15 people during Nigeria’s fiftieth anniversary. An ex-MEND leader, Henry Okah and one Nwabueze were convicted of terrorism.

If Kabiru Sokoto or attacks by Boko Haram insurgents were to be linked to Izala and Alhaji Shahru for a simple reason that Izala is an Islamic organization and Shahru is a Muslim and a member, as Hundeyin would have us believe, who sponsored Henry Okah and his accomplice?  Hundeyin, who is also an overzealous Christian and a southerner?

From the inception of Boko Haram to date, Izala, as against other violent religious movements, has never been on the same wavelength with any insurgent group.

Facts speak for themselves, they say. Had Izala clerics been complicit in the activities of the insurgents, Boko Haram leadership would never have called for the heads of Pantami, Sheikh Jaafar Mahmud Adam or Sheikh Muhammad Auwal Adam Albaniy Zaria.

It seems those who planted the piece have not briefed Hundeyin of the fate of the two fiercest critics of Boko Haram in the Izala cycle: Albaniy Zaria and Ja’afar. Boko Haram murdered both in an attempt to silence the persistent voice that had been voicing the irreligiosity of Boko Haram and insurgency of any type.

One does not need to strain himself. Videos showing Izala Ulama in a heated debate with the Boko Haram founder, Muhammad Yusuf, are on YouTube. An example is that of Sheikh Pantami.

Journalist or religious bigot

Nigeria’s media space is saturated with ethnic and religious bigots, and David Hundeyin happens to be one of them.

He quickly cited that ‘the scholar(s) states that Muslims should never accept a non-Muslim as ruler, which can be interpreted as a call for insurrection against a Christian Nigerian President’. However, he could not tell his readers how pastors ascended the pulpit of churches and made similar calls, which can also be interpreted as another call for insurrection against a Muslim Nigerian President as we see today?

Ideology of Finance

Who deceives who? If there is anything Hundeyin succeeded in linking Alhaji Shahru Haruna to is his tie with Izala and his being an owner of legitimate businesses – nothing more.

Citing CBN Governor Godwin Emefiele’s argument that BDC operators sell dollars to some people ‘to go and buy arms and ammunitions to come back to hurt us’ is no clear-cut evidence to implicate Alhaji Haruna.

A call to CBN

It is high time for CBN to furnish the public with the reason for its instruction to banks to block bank accounts of some entities such as Zahraddeen Shahru Haruna’s (Alhaji Shahru Haruna’s son).

I believe that the failure of the apex bank to provide the information is one of the chief reasons behind Hundeyin’s evil pen attempt to link the Zaharaddin’s account blockage to terrorism.

Shahru’s media trial

Shahru Haruna’s media trial began sometime in 2004. And to understand this better, I will refer the reader to a defunct Weekly Trust newspaper front cover story in 2004 titled ‘Detention Without Trial’.

The paper narrated a sympathetic story of how Alhaji Shahru Haruna was arrested and detained by DSS without trial for six consecutive months.

However, the interesting part of the story is how the secret police discharged him unconditionally. Since then, there has been no re-arrest by the DSS or any other relevant security agency. What does that imply?

My conclusive argument is that Hundeyin of Akwa Ibom’s piece is yet another failed smear campaign against Alhaji Shahru Haruna, Sheikh Yakubu Musa, Izala and some of its personalities. It is another mischief that has its sponsors.

Barrister Nura Sunusi writes from Kano. He can be reached via nurasunusi6@gmail.com.

By Abdelghaffar Abdelmalik Amoka

The presence of ETF and later TETFund became more visible after the suspension of the 2009 ASUU strike in October 2009, thanks to the ASUU strike. You enter the campus of some universities, especially the state government-owned universities and it appears as if TETFund is the only funder of the infrastructures in the universities. No wonder Professor Mahmood Yakubu’s NEEDS Assessment committee referred to them as “TETFund universities”.

The intervention from TETFund did not end on infrastructures and other physical projects but also on training. Quite a number of University academic staff obtained their PhD abroad, thanks to the TETFund Academic Staff Training and Development Intervention and ASUU. That ASUU’s achievement has increased the number of quality PhDs across the departments in our universities. About 6 colleagues in my department are beneficiaries of the TETFund PhD grant.

It did not stop at that. TETFund has also established research grants. The TETFund Institutional Based Research (IBR) grant for basic research and the TETFund National Research Fund for developmental research.

When TETFund announced the call for the 2016 National Research Fund (NRF) grant proposal submission, I got it forwarded to me by several people that knew I was passionately looking for research grants to set up my lab since my return from Europe to ABU in September 2015. I was excited with the call for proposals and I prepared my proposal and submitted it with others. It was well coordinated by the university, thanks to the efforts of Prof. Husseina Makun and the Directorate of Academic Planning and Monitoring of my university.

Not long after then, there was a change in the leadership of the agency and I never get to hear anything about that submission to date. My guess was that the usual Nigerian factor may have played a role and you possibly need to know somebody that knows another body that knows someone that can help facilitate it.

The call for the submission of a “concept note” for the 2019 NRF grant after your return did not excite me. I was informed by several people but I ignored it. I was like this is a repeat of what I called the “2016 call for grant proposal scam”. But few days to the expiration of the call, I decided to make a submission, after all the application doesn’t cost anything. It will only cost my time and effort. I was actually not expecting a response like it happened in 2016, but a few weeks later, you “shocked” me as I received an email requesting to submit the full proposal. I did, and a few weeks later I got an invitation to Abuja to defend the proposal. In January 2020, the grant award letter was issued.

That was the first very transparent exercise I have participated in in Nigeria in recent times. No personal contact. All correspondence was through email and you don’t have to wet anybody’s palm. Unbelievable! That exercise gave me a renewed hope that with responsible leadership, we can make every unit work as it should and the sum will make Nigeria work. Sir, you renewed my hope that Nigeria is going to work and we can regain the lost glory in academia.

TETFund is making a lot of impact in public universities even though some universities may not get the true value of the allocated funds due to several reasons including the possible manipulation of the procurement process. TETFund is also doing a lot to build research capacity in our universities and over the last 10 years, the number of quality PhDs has increased. But my worry is that these researchers may end up being more frustrated if they get back without the necessary research facilities and incentives to give back to the system.

The TETFund PhD training scheme is a train-the-trainers program but there seems to be no preparation to utilize the knowledge acquired by these scholars on their return. We seem to be just training without any provision for their return. The scholars were sent for training as researchers but returned to meet little or no improvement on research facilities. So, how do we intend to utilize these well-trained scholars that have returned?

Their research work seems not to be well coordinated, unlike the NRF grants. They are mostly not towards the critical needs of the country. Some of the scholars who have got no idea of what to work on may sometimes end up using our fund to implement the supervisor’s idea. The idea may not be something that is of very importance to our country. Going abroad for quality research in that state-of-the-art laboratory but on research that does not tend towards our national need and without adequate provision for their return will make them more frustrated on their return.

Quite a number of PhDs in our universities, colleges of education, and polytechnics trained over the last 10 years are TETFund Scholars. Thanks to the overseas training scheme. The question then is; What is the strategic plan for the scheme? How long is the scheme meant to last? When is it going to end? What are the exit plans?

A lesson from other countries.

During my PhD, I met a number of Malaysians doing PhD at the University of Southampton. One of those Malaysians was on 3 months research visit to the lab I did my PhD. They were all on a Malaysian government scholarship. They have all returned to their respective universities in Malaysia with well-established laboratories and access to funds for research. Most of the funds for PhD training are in Malaysian universities.

Malaysia now earn foreign exchange from international students, especially Nigeria students. These my colleagues and contemporaries in the UK universities are among the researchers/Lecturers training my Nigerian university colleagues that have gone to Malaysia to study. What is the difference between us and them? They return to a functional lab but we returned to an empty space and we are struggling to build a lab. Our situations are different because their training and return were well planned out. What are the plans for our trained colleagues?

It is possibly time to re-channel the funds for overseas scholarships to funded PhDs in our universities.

South Africa has National Research Foundation (NRF) that gives grants for research PhD training in South African universities. NRF is so well established that they are collaborating with DAAD in Germany for a funded PhD in South Africa. There is also the TWAS-NRF funded PhD but in South African university. We can take a lesson from that

The Research Council of Norway usually contributes 50% of research project funds while the other 50% is from industrial partners, but the condition on the government 50% is to train a PhD or postdoc in Norwegian university. Norwegian universities are tuition-free like Nigerian universities. The grant covers living costs, travel, conference attendance anywhere in the world, etc.

There is the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), that provides UK universities with grants – awarded through a competitive process – to cover the fees and living costs of postgraduate students. Each place a university offers as a result of this funding is called a studentship. Application for the studentship is done through the university you want to study.

These countries would not have being able to comfortably execute research and training without capacity building. We surely need capacity building scheme and TETFund and PTDF have done great in that respect. But the scheme should have a well-defined timeline. At the expiration of the timeline, the overseas scholarship should be converted to full national scholarships for the trained scholars to train PhDs in funded laboratories in our universities. Forex is already becoming a big challenge. The funds are then domicile here rather than shipping the fund out.

TETFund may need to produce a database of their scholars in the various tertiary institutions in Nigeria and even the ones that have refused to return to the country. There should also be a database for successfully completed TETFund NRF projects and their Principal Investigators. The TETFund Academic staff training and development intervention can then be converted to Nigeria’s university-based training. Scholars are only sent abroad for subjects that we lack expertise in Nigeria.

So what do we do?

We can adopt the German model. To get a DAAD-funded PhD training in Germany, you must first get a supervisor in a German university that is willing to work with you. With the consent of the supervisor, you can then apply and the application is endorsed by the supervisor.

In our case, the prospective TETFund PhD scholar will first get a supervisor from TETFund recognized researchers/Professors. Application is then made through the university and endorsed by the prospective supervisor. If the scholarship grant is like 20 million naira, for example, up to 10 million naira can be mandated for laboratory equipment, the rest will be used for living expenses for the scholar, International conference participation, purchase of consumables, etc.

You can imagine the value Dr. Mansurah Abdulazeez will add to the existing facilities for Cancer research in their Biotech lab in BUK if they are awarded the 20 million naira by TETFund to train 1 TETFund scholar each year for the next 10 years. That will be another investment of about 200 million naira in our university that would have being taking out.

Just a little effort and we got the Materials Physics Research lab. Imagine getting 10 TETfund scholars to train over the next 10 years in high voltage materials engineering and 50% (about 100 million naira) of the PhD grant is approved for research facilities. Unlike the PhD done abroad, the facilities procured during the PhD will remain in the Nigerian university for others to use after the PhD. Just imagine how the lab will be in the next few years.

I was at the Biotech lab at IAR, ABU Zaria last year, I saw the IAEA-funded research facilities, and I was like wow! Just imagine the steady growth of the lab, research output, and visibility if Prof Husseina Makun for example, gets the funded PhD scholars to work with instead of taking the money to universities abroad. We have quite a number of serious-minded researchers among senior colleagues across our university and a large number of bright and exposed early career researchers.

We have trained enough PhDs abroad over the last 15 years through PTDF, TETFund, NITDA, etc that are back and capable. Some of them are not doing badly even with all the challenges as they have been able to publish quality papers in indexed journals. I want to believe that we can give quality training to PhD scholars in Nigeria.

We have several challenges in Nigeria that the universities can develop solutions for. But personally funded PhDs cannot give that quality PhD research to achieve that. I advertised 2 research topics on my Facebook page recently and I got responses from prospective research students. But the question they were asking was; is it funded? Some of the people that responded are students that received their MSc abroad.

A timeline should be rolled out on when to end the overseas scholarships and focus on using the fund meant for that to further develop the research capacity of our universities to make them attractive to foreign students. It is time to keep the money at home to develop our research and development capacity and use PhD programs to find solutions to our numerous problems.

Abdelghaffar Abdelmalik Amoka

Ahmadu Shehu, PhD.

As we continue the inconvenient conversation on Biafra and what it portends for the Southeast and our country, I find the need to clarify some insinuations raised in the troupes of comments and rejoinders that trailed my previous articles. But, before proceeding, I must commend many southeasterners for their dispassionate contributions and insightful perspectives.

However, although critical, some of the comments have missed salient truths that need further explanation. This will help our generation avoid past mistakes committed mostly by overzealous politicians, leading to avoidable wars and near-disintegration of our dear country.

There is this illusion that conflates southern Nigeria, particularly the Niger Delta, with the Southeast or “Biafra”. The truth is that the people of the Niger Delta region (let alone the southwest) do not align with the Southeast in politics and administration. For the information of our youth, the first secessionist war in Nigeria was fought between Niger Delta activists under the leadership of Isaac Adaka Boro and the Nigerian forces led by Chumeka Ojukwu, who later became a secessionist himself.

The three phases of Ojukwu’s career: from a defender of Nigeria’s unity at the battlefield to a rebel against his own country and later a senator and presidential candidate for the very country he fought to disintegrate should tell discerning minds that there are many faces to the idea of Biafra, none of which is the common interest of the Igbo people.

Please permit me to be blunter here. As far as our contemporary political and economic realities are concerned, the Southeast is only hiding behind the shadows of other regions in the south to claim prosperity. In other words, when our Igbo brothers call the northerners parasites, lazy or Abuja-dependent, they are actually borrowing the glory of the Niger Delta, and probably Lagos State, to abuse others. Because in reality, the contributions of the Southeast in the so-called feeding the nation is not as significant as they may like us to believe.

If you doubt this, let’s ask a few questions on the most critical sectors of the Nigerian economy. Since 90% of Nigeria’s foreign income depends on crude oil, what is the contribution of the Southeast in the two million barrels Nigeria makes per day? Very little is the answer. For, out of the nine oil-bearing states in Nigeria, Imo and Abia are the only southeastern states, accounting for an abysmal 1.6% and 0.68% of the total crude oil produced in the country. This is very negligible, as far as the numbers in this sector are concerned.

The Nigerian GDP, which is the bedrock of the economy and the source of non-oil revenue, primarily comes from agriculture. What is the contribution of the Southeast to agricultural production? The numbers are even more insignificant here. It is unfortunate that except for the oil-spilt Ogoni land, the Southeast is Nigeria’s least agriculturally viable region. Most states and local councils in the Southeast are not food sufficient.

By the nature of its geography, the Southeast sits on one of the country’s most infertile, erosion-prone lands. It is also the smallest and most overpopulated region leading to congestion and resource scarcity. It is no coincidence, therefore, that no one buys farm produce from there. Conversely, we see tons of raw food and livestock being transported daily to feed the region.

Some people may argue that the economic strength of the Southeast lies in its profoundly robust revenue base generated from industries and MSEs. They further postulate that the region contributes the most to the Nigerian revenue basket, albeit without evidence. Well, all the regions of the federation contribute their fair share to the federation tax revenue. However, the evidence available proves that the Southeast is neither the highest contributor nor is it self-reliant.

According to the National Bureau of Statistics, Southwest and South-South have the highest IGR per capita, and the Southeast is at par with North-Central, followed by Northwest and Northeast. None of the five southeastern states appears close to the top ten high revenue-generating states. Like any other northern state, none of the southeastern states – despite the 12% derivation funds – is wealthy enough to pay salaries without the federation account. Thus, one may ask: what kind of entrepreneurship and economic prosperity we are talking about here?

The fallacy behind the overestimated economic contribution of the Southeast is just one of the many problems. For instance, more than once, our country’s unity and cohesion are put on dangerous edges, thanks to the secessionist tendencies of the Southeast. Instead of forging ahead and pursuing alliances and friendships countrywide, the region and some of its people have continued on the path of division and segregation. The hatred propagated against anything and anyone perceived to be anti-Biafra has been phenomenal.

Furthermore, the Southeast is the main culprit in destroying Nigeria’s image and dignity in the international community. The Nigerian passport, which commanded respect a few decades ago, has become a suspect document worldwide. This unfortunate degradation of national identity and pride is the handwork of Nigerian drug pushers, physical and internet scammers, illegal migrants and human traffickers, most of whom are known to be southeasterners.

The same people are dealers and distributors of fake, contraband medications and drugs in all the nooks and crannies of this country, particularly in the North. This has always been an open secret and has been made even more vividly evident by the recent successes of the Nigerian Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA). The dangers these portend to our national development and global recognition is unquantifiable.

Therefore, if the above is true, claiming that the North is a mere burden on the Nigerian federation is absurd. For some, this might be based on ignorance, while for others, it is a deliberate attempt to malign and stereotype the region for reasons best known to the perpetrators of these dangerous narratives. But, whatever the motive is, we must recognize that all the federating units cause shared burdens to our national growth and development.

Since the North’s limitations and other regions have been overstretched in our national discourse, I believe it is equally important to remind our brothers in the Southeast that they are no less a burden than the other regions. As Nigerians, we should prepare to share both the positive and negative consequences of the actions and inactions of our fellow citizens. But, this is only possible when all parties acknowledge their limitations and are ready to embrace one another. Nigerians are siblings of a single family that are more alike than different. The earlier we accept this truth, the better.

Dr Ahmadu Shehu is a nomad cum herdsman, an Assistant Professor at the American University of Nigeria, Yola, and is passionate about the Nigerian project.

By Salisu Uba Kofar-Wambai

By Mohammed Zayyad

The debate that the presidency moves to the South in 2023 has gained momentum. Also, presidential hopefuls from the North, like Atiku Abukar, Sule Lamido, Senator Bala Mohammed, Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, are also effectively playing their games.

The calls for power to shift to the South have further triggered permutations and realignments in the polity. Both the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressive Congress (APC) have strong candidates from the South. But these candidates have their respective baggage, and the parties have internal squabbles that must be resolved.

The APC has its stronghold in the Northwest, Southwest, Northeast and Northcentral – four of the nation’s six geopolitical zones. The PDP has strong structures in the six zones with a stronghold in the Southeast and Southsouth. However, the APC has moved into the Southeast in full force. Before the 2015 elections, nobody had ever thought that the APC would someday have even a ward councillor in the Southeast. But, today, the party has two state governors, senators, House of Representatives members, state house of assembly members, local council chairmen, councillors and formidable party structures in all the five southeastern states.

Come 2023, the APC has no reasons to retain power in the North, but there is strong politicking by some governors and other bigwigs to maintain power. This will mean the APC contravening the unwritten agreement between the North and the South on power rotation. In any case, the APC does not have a strong presidential candidate from the North. This is a big plus to the presidential hopefuls from the South, or Southeast, in particular. Furthermore, the Southeast has a strong case to present based on a plank that the Southeast is the only geopolitical zone in the South that has not produced a President or vice president on any political party platform since 1999.

If APC picks its presidential candidate from the South, especially Southwest, the PDP may attempt to outwit this by looking to the North for its presidential candidate. This, as well, will put the  PDP in a catch-22 situation on how to explain this to the South, especially the Southeast and the South-South, why the North again, after eight years of the North being in power.

PDP has good candidates in their own ‘rights’ from the Southeast and South-South. Enugu State Governor Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, Peter Obi from Southeast and Governor Nyesom Wike from the South-South. Obi does not have friends in the North and has never tried to pull an appeal from the region, directly or by proxy.  His deportation of other Nigerians to their states when he was governor of Anambra state was used against him in the North during the 2019 campaign, and it worked.

For Wike, his words, ‘Rivers is a Christian state’ will be used against him in the North like Governor El-Rufai’s Muslim-Muslim ticket in Kaduna can be used against him (El-Rufai). This is how local politics impact a candidate’s wider political opportunities. Some young people in the north are also campaigning for  Enugu State Governor Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi. Still, the IPOB issue will be a significant hindrance in the North, but it is not insurmountable. Advocates of secession appear not to understand Nigeria. There are massive inter-marriage, friendships, business links and political alliances, among other ties, between many northerners and many Igbos.

Some nationalistic politicians from the Southeast have started to convince other Nigerians to support the region to produce the Nigeria president of Southeast extraction in 2023.  The bigwigs’ forefront presidential hopefuls are Governor David Umahi,  Orji Uzor Kalu, Governor Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, Rochas Okorocha, Chris Baywood Ibe, Ken Nnamani, Minister of State for Education, Dr Chinedu Nwajiuba, Sen Osita Izunaso and many others. Of course, these politicians have their political baggage and controversies. However, people like Chris Baywood Ibe are new faces without any political baggage and controversy-free.

A thorough understanding of how Nigerian politics works is paramount in achieving the political goals of a group, a region, or individuals. There are so many conflicting interests in Nigeria. Still, there are always windows for alliances, give-and-take, a hand of friendship, and convincing others to support a particular political cause or an individual’s.

For the 2023 presidency, the Southeast should present a candidate with a new face, no controversies, no political baggage and who has friends and is well-known across the Niger. For both the APC and the PDP, it will be an opportunity to reunite Nigeria and rekindle the historical political alliance between the north and the southeast while maintaining the partys’ current national. The Igbo presidency is possible through the spirit of one Nigeria.

Zayyad I. Muhammad writes from Abuja. He can be reached via zaymohd@yahoo.com.

By Aminu Nuru

 “The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted”. – George Lichtenberg

It is not uncommon that some public commentators and analysts could be mischievously deceptive in their narratives and analyses of history to accomplish an end. They could quote historical facts, mix them with fiction, and frame narratives to promote a single story. In some cases, they deliberately relegate and ignore some significant events or points to suit the writer’s bias. Recent writings on the origin and rise of Boko Haram demonstrate how some writers distort facts to frame narrative and promote bigotry.

For instance, if one can closely study the framing of Boko Haram and how it is brazenly becoming one-sided, then one can say that the whole history is rewritten to massage and satisfy the ego of some group’s bigotry. It is not farfetched to say that some of these bigots will soon claim that the generality of the Muslim North endorsed and supported Boko Haram and Nigerian Christians were the only targets and victims of the group’s deadly attacks. Why would I make such a sweeping projection with every sense of finality? To respond to this question, let’s go back to 2013.

While speaking at the 14th meeting of the Honorary International Investor Council (HIIC) held at the Banquet Hall of the Presidential Villa on June 22, 2013, former Nigeria’s President, Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian, disclosed that the Boko Haram sect had killed more Muslims than Christians in Nigeria. This is not just hearsay but a verifiable fact that is naked in vision to people that are not be-clothed with hatred, ethnic and religious jingoism.

However, the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) couldn’t swallow this fact and, therefore, issued a statement to disagree with him vehemently. In a press statement credited to the Northern chapter spokesperson, Elder Sunday Oibe, CAN said that Jonathan’s assertion was “misleading and unacceptable”. They further stated that,

“We want to believe that the president was misquoted; we don’t want to believe that with the security apparatus and report from security intelligence network at his disposal, he made this assertion. If it is true that Mr President actually made this assertion, then, we are highly disappointed and sad at this veiled attempt to distort the fact as it concerns the activities of the Boko Haram sect. The purported statement by the President is highly disappointing considering the facts that Christians, churches and their businesses have been the major targets of Boko Haram” (Sahara Reporters, June 23, 2013. http://saharareporters.com/2013/06/23/northern-can-disagrees-jonathan-says-boko-haram-has-killed-more-christians-muslims)

For CAN, the Boko Haram crisis was/is “religious by nature” – the familiar we-versus-them religious clashes and conflicts in Nigeria, although in different outlooks and techniques; it is a plot by some Muslims to reduce the populations of Christians in Nigeria and crackdown their businesses. Since then, CAN sympathisers subsequently frame their narrative of Boko Haram from this angle. An article titled “Cornflakes for Jihad: The Boko Haram Origin Story” by David Hundeyin, widely shared on social media in the last few days, aimed to promote this kind of narrative. Unfortunately, the author skillfully filled the article with half-truths and a mixture of facts and fiction to push the CAN’s sentiment. Hundeyin is practically siding with his former religion.

Firstly, Hundeyin makes an effort to link Sheikh Abubakar Mahmoud Gumi with the origin of Boko Haram. Many people think that Hundeyin’s “Cornflakes for Jihad” is the first futile effort by an “investigative” journalist, analyst, historian or whatever to make this manipulative effort. However, Andrew Walker’s thesis, “Eat the Heart of the Infidels: The Harrowing of Nigeria and the Rise of Boko Haram” (Oxford University Press, 2016), preceded it in that exercise. Therefore, it is not likely to be a false accusation if it is argued that Hundeyin copied the idea of featuring Gumi in discussing Boko Haram, almost verbatim, from Walker. From the arguments of Sheikh Gumi’s “influence” in the “political” realm of Nigeria to his “friendship with Ahmadu Bello”, to pioneering the “propagation of Wahabism” in post-independent Nigeria, to his contribution in the creation of Izala and his “Saudi connection” are equally and loudly echoed in Walker’s thesis.

For both Walker and Hundeyin, Sheikh Abubakar Mahmoud Gumi championed the Sunni/Salafi/Izala movement in Nigeria. Therefore, any account of the origin and rise of Boko Haram – a so-called Sunni/Salafi-fundamentalist terrorist group – must be traced back to him. Albeit impliedly, their submissions suggest that there would be no Boko Haram if Gumi did not “disrupt” the Sufi order and influence of Qadiriyya and Tijjaniya in Northern Nigeria. They claim that Gumi’s campaign of a corrupt-free practice of Islam inevitably gave birth to the radical movements in Northern Nigeria. This is to say, although without explicitly stating it in their works, every Sunni/Salafi-based movement in Nigeria, whether moderate or violent, must have had their inspirational source from Gumi. On the link between Boko Haram founder, Muhammed Yusuf, and Sheikh Gumi, Walker writes: “The title of Yusuf’s book deliberately echoes the titles of similar treatises by Sunni preachers, like Sheikh Gumi’s “The Right Faith According to the Sharia”, perhaps in order to lend his ideas credence…the two clerics share a revulsion for secularism..” (Walker, 2016:144).

This line of argument is even less faulty in logic and spirit of “balanced story” than what Hundeyin further orchestrated in his article. According to Hundeyin, Sheikh Gumi admonished Muslims, particularly his Sunni/Salafi followers, to reject a non-Muslim as a leader and advocated “for insurrection against a Christian Nigerian President” and, of course, his Christian followers. In the successive paragraphs that supported this claim, Hundeyin apprises his readers on the “consequence” of Gumi’s propagation; he states that after Gumi’s death, a Sunni/Salafi-indoctrinated group, which bears the name “Boko Haram”, toed to the path of his admonishment to carry weapons against Nigerian Christians, killing and bombing them in their churches. He wittingly makes reference to the bomb blast at “St. Theresa Catholic Church”, Madalla that “killed 37 people”, and other subsequent “killings of Christians” in Jos and Damaturu.

The implication of this narrative on an outsider, who does not know the context of Boko Haram terrorism in Nigeria, is that s/he would begin to see Sheikh Gumi as “problematic” and a source of Boko Haram’s inspiration and violent extremism. Secondly, a non-pragmatic reader may also assume that the group only targets Nigerian Christians in their series of attacks in the country. Hundeyin’s article aims to peddle that twisted narrative for no reason other than the writer’s hatred for the Muslim North (Arewa) and their Islamic culture. In one of his previous tweets, he heedlessly says that: “The world will be a significantly better place when Arewa culture completely dies off and is replaced with something fit for human civilisation” (David Hundeyin/Twitter, November 29, 2020).

In the spirit of fair analysis, it is expected that an impartial analyst would compare the socio-religious ideas Gumi propagated in his lifetime and the ideologies of Boko Haram. But this would not sell out Hundeyin’s bigotry, and so he ignored that vital aspect. The core centre of Boko Haram dogmatic tenets is a war against “western-styled” education, democracy and civil service. On the other hand, Sheikh Gumi was both a product and proponent of western-styled education; he worked with the government as a civil servant and received salaries from the state resources. As he proudly opined in his autobiography, “among [his] children were army officers, civil servants, medical doctors, an engineer…lawyers, teachers and workers in finance houses and private businesses. There was hardly any profession in which [he] did not have representation from [his] family” (Gumi with Tsiga, 1991:202).

Gumi was also pro-democrat, as evidence from his recorded preaching suggested so. He is famously quoted to have said, “siyasa tafi sallah”, which could loosely mean “politics is more significant than prayers”. This was the extent Gumi had gone to support democracy in Nigeria, and believe me, Shekau would not hesitate to call him “taghut” – an idolatrous tyrant. He had also worked closely with the Christian Head of States. They had a cordial relationship and respect for each other: Ironsi invited him to lead a delegation to North Africa and the Middle East to carry goodwill messages of his new regime; Gowon appointed him Chairman of the Nigerian Pilgrims Board and gave him “all the necessary support, although he himself was a Christian”; with Obasanjo, he could “freely talk” and express his mind on relevant socio-political issues (Gumi with Tsiga, 1991:203).  However, Hundeyin willfully refuses to draw this analogy to give a sense of what Achebe called “a balanced story”. Instead, he purposely portrays Sheikh Gumi on the wrong page in the book of terrorist origin in Nigeria.

Contrary to the insinuation of Hundeyin moreover, the truth of the story is that Boko Haram did/do not target Christians only. In fact. Nigerian Muslims suffer(ed) more causalities than Christians in the Boko Haram conflict. Hundeyin refuses to mention the main enclaves of Boko Haram activities and the population ratio of Muslims and Christians there. Stating this factual data will indeed not favour his intended, warped story. The reality is that Muslims have the predominant population in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa States. Arguably, the cumulative of all Boko Haram killings of innocent people would show nothing less than 70% of Muslim casualties.

On a specific, direct attack on religions, Hundeyin only mentions the bomb blast at St. Theresa Catholic Church, ignoring similar incidents on August 11, 2013, at a mosque in Konduga where 44 people were killed and on November 28, 2014, at the central mosque in Kano where 120 people were killed (BBC Hausa, 2013, 2014). It is understandable if Hundeyin re-echoes the bomb blast at St. Theresa Catholic Church in his article; it is a show of solidarity to his ex-religion. However, what is faulty and even worrisome is the selective exemplification of the direct attacks on religions by the Boko Haram insurgents. A reader who is unacquainted with the details of Boko Haram attacks on places of public worship would feel that churches and Christians were the only victims.

To further promote this half-truth, Hundeyin moves on to tell us how a Salafi/Sunni preacher was directly linked with the funding of Boko Haram. I will neither attempt to exonerate Sheikh Yakubu Musa nor believe those serious allegations in toto without reading or hearing the Sheikh’s version of the story. However, my problem here is with Hundeyin’s failure, which is intentional, to mention the Salafi/Sunni preachers that fought Boko Haram vehemently and even paid the ultimate price with their lives. It is on record that at the early stage of the Boko Haram crusade, Salafi scholars debated Mohammed Yusuf. In Bauchi, for instance, Ustaz Idris Abdulaziz Dutsen-Tanshi, a Salafist to the core, invited and challenged Muhammed Yusuf at his mosque and in the presence of his followers; so also a young Isa Ali Pantami – the then Imam of ATBU Juma’at mosque.

These Salafists continued to be critical of Muhammed Yusuf and his sect. They consistently delivered lectures to denounce his fatwa. Sheikh Ja’afar Mahmoud Adam, an unapologetic Salafist, was particularly vocal in his public censure and condemnation of Boko Haram. Unlike Hundeyin, Walker states this fact in his book:

“In 2007, Yusuf ’s former teacher, Sheikh Ja’afar Mahmud Adam, himself an ardent Salafist, had gone on record to denounce the group and warn that these ideologues were heading for a violent confrontation with the state” (Walker, 2016:148).

For many, Sheikh Ja’afar was the spiritual successor of Sheikh Abubakar Mahmoud Gumi. Some influential people requested and later attempted to transfer his annual Ramadan Tafseer to Gumi’s preaching base, Sultan Bello Mosque, Kaduna. He conducted his annual Ramadan Tafseer in Maiduguri, the early and central territory of Boko Haram terrorism. During his Tafseer sessions, Sheikh Ja’afar was not reluctant to criticise Yusuf and his new sect. On April 13, 2007, a day to general elections in Nigeria, and barely 48 hours after delivering a talk in Bauchi on Islamic views on thuggery, violence and widespread killing of innocent souls, Sheikh Ja’afar was murdered in Kano while observing Subh prayer and “it is thought to be members of Yusuf’s sect” (Walker, 2016:148).

Another prominent voice among Salafists in the fight against Boko Haram was Sheikh Muhammad Auwal Albani, Zaria. But, unfortunately, he was also killed in cold blood. In a video released to the public, Muhammed Yusuf successor, Abubakar Shekau, took responsibility for the assassination (Sahara Reporters, February 20, 2014, http://saharareporters.com/2014/02/20/bo-haram-leader-claims-responsibity-killing-kaduna-cleric-sheikh-albani-threatens).

Hundeyin has ignored all these facts about Salafi preachers in Northern Nigeria but brought a single dubious claim to frame a narrative that would deceive an uncritical, vulnerable audience. His motive is clear: he wants to rebrand the entire population of Salaaf and the Muslim North as pro-terrorist, supporting the killings of Christians in Nigeria. It is rather unfortunate that this is where the discussion is heading, and it is a wake-up call to those of us that witnessed and had a first-hand experience of the Boko Haram crisis to begin to write our counter-narrative. If we don’t write it, others will write for us. And before we retrieve our consciousness, we will be afloat in a sea of half-truths and stereotypes on Boko Haram, Islam and the North.

Aminu Nuru wrote from Bauchi. He can be contacted via aminuahmednuru@gmail.com.