These are troubling times. In such situations, shock and disbelief exhume from all quarters but the clergy always stand out for hope, reasoning and moderation. If politicians, as a matter of convenience resort to opportunism or temporary advantage, the clergy embrace the downtrodden or the underdog, and more remarkably sue for peace.

For some years, there have been violent and occasionally criminal agitation for adequate development of Niger Delta areas of the country. The agitation is for obvious and tenable reasons. Niger Delta provides virtually Nigeria’s national revenue. It is, therefore, not out of place for that part of the country (Niger Delta) to agitate for commensurate development to keep up with national pace.

By the way, violence, when misapplied in such agitations, is deplorable. Otherwise, governments all over the world, by their very nature, experience some violence to yield necessary attention to the aggrieved.

In Niger Delta, we are still far away from events leading to Russian revolution of 1917, Belgian revolt of 1830, French revolution of 1848 or the collapse of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia a few decades ago. But one possible way of avoiding similar catastrophe is not to indulge in provocative utterances which can only inflame the situation.

To bring the message home, here is the concern recently expressed by Chief S.B. Falegan on the tense situation in Ekiti, who he is, except that Aso Rock must recognize Chief Falegan as a distinguished public figure with excellent services to the country.

If anybody thinks that in solving political/structural differences in Nigeria, any might is right, then we should take note of Chief Falegan’s warning that “in this era of murderous politics, the fear of death is certainly not for me (Falegan) at 76 years of age. But let it be said that in Nigeria, we are sitting on a keg of gun powder. The French revolution started from Toulouse, about 200 kilometres from Paris. Who says a revolution in Nigeria cannot start from Ado-Ekiti?”
As Chief Falegan observed on Ekiti, so we can view the deteriorating if intermittent violence in Niger Delta where it is even more worrying. Still not helping the situation are media reports, so far undenied, quoting Father Matthew Kukah’s right-wing views that the Federal Government should no longer continue any dialogue with the Niger Delta militants.

In the absence of any dialogue with the militants or even the criminals among them, it is doubtful if Matthew Kukah realizes his option, perhaps unintended is a policy of “quick kill.” Whatever happened to his erstwhile stand against death penalty.

We must never forget that in Niger Delta, the militants are fellow Nigerians. Matthew Kukah’s idea of calling off further dialogue and implied call for “quick kill” is colonial in content and origin and therefore unacceptable. In fact, any idea of quick kill (even if unintended) is unexpected, un-Godly and un-Catholic.
More disturbing is the fact that since the Obasanjo regime ten years ago, Matthew Kukah, one time or the other, was on a committee set up to recommend solutions to the Niger Delta problem. How much of his committees’ recommendations have been implemented by the authorities concerned? Delay, unwillingness to implement or outright rejection of such recommendations partly creates and sustains the atmosphere for the militants to thrive in violence.

A clergyman must not lose his patience, unlike a politician who can afford such recklessness. When beleaguered, the down-trodden look to the clergy for comfort. Father Kukah’s “quick kill” idea surely cannot enjoy the support of Nigerian Catholic hierarchy. If religious violence erupts again in Southern Kaduna, will Father Kukah, under provocation, dismiss dialogue as an option for ending the bloodshed?

In 1965, the then Rhodesia (under a white man, Ian Smith as Prime Minister) declared unilateral independence from British rule. For fifteen years, (till 1980), British government strictly employed dialogue instead of military action. In 1968, Catholics in Northern Ireland, took up arms in pursuit of their political rights.
For some thirty years, instead of resorting to “quick kill” policy, British government, instead of resorting to “quick kill” or completely abandoning dialogue, rather employed the double strategy of dialogue and containment because as in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe) those involved were whites.
That was why the same Britain attracted world-wide criticisms for supplying heavy arms to Nigerian government to kill Biafrans during the civil war caused by declaration of independence in 1967, two years after Rhodesia declaration of independence.

The support for Aso Rock in the Niger Delta crisis should be strictly continued dialogue, no matter the violence or criminality.
Aso Rock must be told the truth on this Niger Delta crisis. Government, perhaps unconsciously, is playing into the hands of Niger Deltan militants. No government anywhere in the world would treat any threat of treason with levity. But such charge must be real and duly tried in a court of law (under a civilian regime) or an appropriate tribunal (in a military regime).

Unfortunately in the past ten years, charge of treason has been conveniently waved to put presumably otherwise innocent critics or even political agitators out of circulation. Olusegun Obasanjo incarcerated OPC leader Frederick Fasehun, MASSOB leader Raph Uwazurike and Niger Delta activist Alhaji Asari Dokubo one after another on alleged charges of treason or treasonable felony. After almost years in detention and widening tension in the country, the judiciary proved a willing tool to purportedly release these men on bail.

Where now are the treason charges?
In his own case, President Yar’Adua has incarcerated Niger Delta activist Okah similarly on treason charges. Since when and for how long will Okah remain in prison detention for untried charges? Anytime the man appears in court, there is always a long adjournment to legalize Okah’s continued detention.
With no certainty of when the trial will commence for Okah, President Yar’Adua makes it legitimate for the Niger Delta militants to demand the release of their leader (Okah) as the first condition of any ceasefire.

The possibility was that if Okah were not in detention, he might have been accused of being the brain behind the current violent conflict in Niger Delta. Government must, therefore, in the face of weighty evidence put Okah on trial or in the absence of justifiable reasons, set him free.

On their part, militants in Niger Delta, whatever the legitimacy of their struggle, must also assume the responsibility of sustaining acceptable limits of their tactics; such can be defended to attract any continued support in moderate circles. If that is a sacrifice they have to pay, so be it for them.
Kidnap as a weapon is not peculiar to Nigeria but in sane societies – Britain, United States, Middle East, The Americas, kidnap victims are mostly not harmed nor are they necessarily held up for ransom of money. Instead, the release of political detainees serve better purposes.

By the way, why this moaning on American’s President Barrack Obama not touching down in Nigeria on his forthcoming visit to Africa? Are we really serious? What improvement would Obama’s visit have made on standard of governance in Nigeria? In the past ten years, Nigeria hosted two American (new) ex-presidents – Bill Clinton and George Bush, Jnr. Did their visits improve our power supply, water needs or electoral standard?
If Obama visited, would that occasion give us food, jobs, or houses? Has anybody ever stopped to estimate how much billions of naira would have been spent wastefully starting from the cost of hiring cultural troupes both for Obama’s arrival at and departure from Abuja airport?

In any case, if America tolerated the 2007 Nigerian elections, discredited by their (American) Republican and Democratic Institutes, as well as United Nation’s observers, did we show any regret or repentance with the Ekiti State governorship election re-run, which took place just when Barrack Obama’s officials were preparing his trip to Africa?

We can continue mis-performing in ruling ourselves but civilized nations have the right not to embrace us or keep our company at G.20.
Hungry, thirsty, jobless, naked, homeless and insecure, we can keep ourselves busy on empty slogans of Vision 2010 and when that came about, we jumped to Vision 2020. When that illusion comes about, we can jump at Vision 2030.
Ghana’s Vision year in, year out is human development, never disguised or sloganized as any particular vision. Barrack Obama has testified to that.