Efio-Ita Nyok|27 September 2016
Ocherome Nnanna, a renowned columnist has rationalised recently how the actions and inactions of Nigeria's president, Mr Muhammadu Buhari has resulted in escalated insecurity across the country. Despite the fact that it is reported in mainstream media that the insurgency in the north of the country has been profoundly crusaded against, the fact still remains that there have been pockets of security threats across the country which wasn't the case before Buhari's advent in Aso Rock.
Columnist Nnanna has explained how President Muhammadu Buhari's now in famous 97%:5% polarisation thesis constituted the bedrock for the evolution of insecurity in other parts of the federation apart from Boko Haram.
Nnanna begins his statement by categorically submitting that, 'Buhari did not realise the harm he was inflicting on the psyche of the nation when he propounded his “97%/5%” formula, which went against the Federal Character principle in the constitution'.
'He used it to divide the country along political party, religious, regional, ethnic and sectional lines, favouring his kinsmen and supporters while neglecting those who did not support him', Nnanna explained.
'Not only that, he mobilised the agencies of state security to go after his perceived opponents in a one-sided anti-corruption war which only emphasised the return of allegedly looted funds. He did not make it a holistic affair', the said columnist continued.
Nnanna now proceeds to delineate the revival of militancy in the Niger Delta region of the country thus, 'Some individuals who felt the system was blindly and vengefully after them returned to militancy and plunged the economy deeper into recession'. It is important to stress that Buhari seem to accept this fact when in his address to the General Assembly of the 71st UNGA session admitted that those behind militancy are those afraid of his 'fight against corruption'. However, the president didn't mention selective/biased fight against corruption.
'Security threats expanded, from Boko Haram alone in 2015 to new fronts (the Niger Delta Avengers, armed Fulani herdsmen, Indigenous People’s of Biafra/MASSOB protests, and the Shiites uprising in Kaduna)'.
'If Buhari had, on assuming office, called Nigerians together, told them to forget about the bruising transitional politicking and work together to rescue the nation from the imminent economic doom, there would be no other security challenge except Boko Haram'.
'If he had dealt with the armed herdsmen to protect the people, formed an inclusive government based on constitutional provisions and brought in the best hands without looking at their political affiliations, religious backgrounds and ethno-regional roots, we would be fighting the economic problems as a united front'.
If the primary responsibility of any government is security of lives and properties, and President Muhammadu Buhari is culpable according to Ocherome Nnanna's assertion, and whereas security is critical to economic development does it suffice to say that Buhari has done a great disservice to Nigeria than he meant good? Would it be fallacious to submit that the present economic recession the nation is facing isn't unconnected to the activities/policies of the incumbent government at the centre?
Efio-Ita Nyok
Is a Blogger & the Editor of NegroidHaven.org