THE first gut reaction of many Nigerians to Justice Gabriel Kolawole’s judgment last Friday was: why did it take so long?  Sheikh Ibraheem Zakzaky was seized from his home in Zaria between 12th and 14th December 2015 by officers and men of the Nigerian Army who had then killed three of his sons, and blinded him on one eye.  Hours earlier the Army had massacred hundreds of his followers, a Muslim minority group known as Shi’ites.The Army had also demolished the Sheikh’s home, just as it had demolished the headquarters of his organization, the Islamic Movement of Nigeria.  The Army officers demolished every standing property connected with the Sheikh, including his mother’s grave.  They also arrested his wife.  Both were held without charge.

The ‘crime’ of the Shi’ites was obstructing the route of the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai, an allegation the Shi’ites strenuously denied.  Indeed the Army alleged the Shi’ites attempted to assassinate the Army Chief, but it showed nothing to justify the accusation.  Yet the Shi’ite leader and wife were held without charge.

Next week, it’d be 12 months a Nigerian citizen was held in detention without charge in a constitutional democracy.  And it was just last week that a judge, Justice Gabriel Kolawole, eventually found courage and said no, he must be released.  Why did it take so long? I have not had the opportunity to read Justice Kolawole’s judgment.  The best I could get are its snippets from newspaper reports, from which I gather that the judge would have given his judgment earlier, but delayed it while he urged the parties to try to resolve the issues between themselves.  He was giving the government a long rope, to do the right thing.

I think the judgment was extraordinarily lenient, given the vicious behavior of the government and the Army.  I’m sure Justice Kolawole, a wise judge that he is, was yet nudging the government to return to sanity and reason,he was reminding the government to pay even lip-service to the rule of law, to know that it owes every Nigerian, even a Shi’ite, and the protection of his fundamental rights.  The N25 million apiece to the Sheikh and his wife is rather low, but that’s not the issue for now.  But Nigerian courts ought to find the courage to make an example of the Nigerian Army in the award of damages in this matter, to ensure that when next the officers and men are tempted to go on a demolition expedition against innocent citizens, they might show a little more restraint.

Yet, it is still scary that barring the occasional protests of the Shi’ites, all that obtained was a shocking nation-wide silence.  The meaning of  silence after a horrific massacre like the Zaria massacre is that the victims are expendable.  Even when the Kaduna State Government finally confessed that it had collected the corpses of 374 innocent Shi’ite men, women and children slaughtered by the Army in cold blood and had buried them in mass graves, there was still no outrage, no protest strong enough to get anyone to even issue a condemnation, or ask the Army to turn in the butchers.

After living in military tyranny for nearly 30 years one would have thought that Nigerians should be able to identify, and call out, tyranny from a mile, and begin to shout no, no, no!  And if they forgot everything that happened between 1966 and 1999, they should at least remember the words of the German Protestant Pastor, Martin Niemoller, on why silence means consent when we are witnesses to the perpetration of evil:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a socialist.

Related News

Then they came for the Trade Unionists and I did not speak out – Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out – Because I was not a  Jew.

Then they came for me – And there was no one left to speak for me.

When the Shi’ites were being murdered in hundreds by this time last year, the Army tried but could not hide the crime.  But, in any case, who cares about the Shi’ites?  When the Biafra protesters were being butchered in May, it was almost successfully concealed as the soldiers carried the corpses and the injured away.  But, then, who cares about pro-Biafra protesters?  Some cared, but what can they do? Who cares about the Agatus?  Who cares?  Two important servants of State who ought to care, who have the responsibility to care, are the President of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN).  They betrayed their office; and the spirits of those wasted Nigerians will continue to bay and protest until they receive justice.

But, perhaps, the most frightening part of the “persecution” of the Shi’ites has been the confounding role of the Governor of Kaduna State, Mallam Nasir el-Rufai.  He reminds you of the fundamental rules of tyranny and the principles of a new phenomenon called “fake news,” popularized by the Donald Trump campaign. From the remotest periods of antiquity what tyrants did to get their victims has always been to levy an accusation of conspiracy, or of treasonable felony, or of espousing views undermining the sovereign.  Proof was always of secondary importance.  That has been the case between Governor el-Rufai and Sheikh Elzakzaky.  Last December the governor was so sure the tragedy of the Zaria massacre was caused by Sheikh El-zakzaky, who was nowhere near the location of the altercation between the Army people and the Shi’ites.  In his broadcast to the people of Kaduna State the governor accused the Sheikh of all manner of crimes and insisted that the Sheikh must be prosecuted for those crimes.  The Sheikh was arrested, yet no charges were filed. Then the governor set up a commission of inquiry to investigate the massacre which ended up being a waste of the tax payer’s money since not a scintilla of evidence came from the principal party to the dispute, the Shi’ites.  It shocked the world by proceeding with the inquiry without the Shi’ites.  It became clear, therefore, that the commission had other purposes than the search for the truth, and was probably designed to be a cover-up.

Predictably the commission ended up blaming the Shi’ites and their leader, the victims of the massacre, and praising the governor who appointed it.  Now armed with a legal document, the “kangaroo” report of the commission, Governor el-Rufai proceeded to declare the Shi’ites a criminal organization, banning them in Kaduna State, after all, hadn’t the “kangaroo” commission discovered that the Islamic Movement of Nigeria was not registered in the Corporate Affairs Commission?

The failure of the government to arraign the Sheikh showed he was being held to cover up the Zaria massacre so Nigerians would continue to think the Sheikh was to blame, thereby covering up the crime and shielding its perpetrators.  But facts are stubborn things.  I have never met a Shi’ite in my life.  I can’t tell them apart from other Muslims, but if they must be persecuted and treated as outlaws in 2016 Nigeria, those who allege must prove.  It is not enough for Governor el-Rufai to call editors and correspondents to feed them “fake news” and conspiracy theories, and imaginary crimes the Shi’ites might commit in future.  The difference between fake news and journalism is that the latter insists on facts.  It is not enough to sponsor rented crowds, including one that called itself “Stand Up Nigeria” which reminds you of Burke’s aphorism: “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”