We have just been entertained with a dramatic comedy. That is what the Kankara abduction has turned out to be. The act looks well choreographed. It has all the trappings of melodrama. It is emotional , sensational and exaggerated. It does not, in all seriousness, pass the test of verisimilitude. It is, more or less, a farcical portrayal of the real story of abduction. The watching world appears confused. We do not know what to believe any more.
The coincidences associated with it are even uncanny. The schoolboys were abducted in the president’s home state of Katsina a day after he arrived the state for a private visit. Was the abduction scripted to coincide with the president’s visit to give it a touch of daredevilry? I am wondering. What about the staccato dance that accompanied the tale? At first, over 600 boys were declared missing. Then the figure thinned down to the beautifully arranged number- 333. While the figure fluctuated, a presidential aide was quoted as having put the figure at only 10 and then at over 300 after the release of the schoolboys.
Then, the question. Were the boys released or rescued? There are conflicting narratives here. We have been told of the rescue operation carried out by a combined team of security operatives. The operation, if there was one, was so clinical that there was no casualty on either side. Everybody went home unscathed. There have also been reports about the release of the boys. Was it conditional or unconditional? What was the manner of the negotiation carried out by Miyetti Allah on behalf of the Nigerian government? Is it not even curious that Miyetti Allah is involved in this? Can you see why I call the organization an alternate government? It dares to step in even where the government of Nigeria fears to tread. What effrontery! What a country!
But does it matter whether the schoolboys were rescued or released? What should matter here is the act itself. A crime has taken place even if it was arranged. So where are the criminals? A negotiation took place with the criminals. Thereafter, they released the boys or the boys were rescued. But the criminals must be somewhere. What is being done about them? No attacks? No attempt at rounding them up? What really is going on here? Situations like this create room for conspiracy theories. Where in the world does this happen? That criminals will do the unthinkable and still be walking about freely? Is their hideout located in Mars? Why have we mystified criminality in northern Nigeria? Why do we have impenetrable forests where only the criminals operate in? The entire scenario looks like a joke. It makes the Kankara abduction look improbable. The story line is so straightforward. It is devoid of complexity. How could the plot of such a momentous event be so bland? Even tales from the Wonderland of Alice cannot be as farcical as this. We need to come back to the real world. And in the real, everyday environment that we are used to, the Kankara story cannot fit in. It looks too artificial, too made up to withstand logical scrutiny.
But let us, for a moment, leave the farce called Kankara and focus on the general state of insecurity in northern Nigeria. Here, I am interested in deciphering why the north is at war with itself. Bloodletting is now an hourly occurrence in the north. Before now, it was Boko Haram. But the menace has assumed a more staggering dimension. They now have the people they call bandits. We are told that they move about in the open, including market places, with their guns. That , I think, is the problem. It looks to me like guns have been legalised in northern Nigeria. It also looks like the north and south of the country are governed by different laws. In the south, the police, the army and other security agents are all over the place. Nobody dares wield guns or any weapon in the open. Those who risk that usually run into trouble with security operatives. Thus, illegal possession of arms is a rarity in the south. But this is not the case in the north. The security agents who forbid illegal possession of arms and ammunition in the south do not seem to exist in the north. If they do, why do we hear that the people they call bandits move about freely with guns? Are there no police or military personnel to stop them and get them arrested as they do in the south? The double standard being applied in this matter is the reason the north is in flames.
We have heard the leadership in the north complain about insecurity in the region, but I do not think that they mean business. They certainly know what to do if they want the bandits to be reined in. It also looks like the army and the police, who are headed by northerners anyway, are not perturbed about the situation in the north. If they see banditry as a security threat, why are they not up in arms against it? Could it be that the north has a reason why it allows insecurity to fester in the region? What could this reason be? I am really curious.
Some people have insinuated that Boko Haram and its sister terrorists would face the south whenever they are through with the north. If that should happen, it would mean that the entire country will be a theatre of war. But then, who will be the counter force against the insurgents should they enter the south? Is it our armed forces that have not been able to defeat the terrorists? Those who imagine that the terrorists that are ravaging the north may look southwards someday may wish to ponder this. But I won’t be bothered about such talk because I know that its possibility does not exist. The south cannot be a killing field in the manner of the north except in a situation of full blown war. And an all-out, unrestrained war between or among whoever will spell doom for Nigeria. I am also certain that Boko Haram insurgency is impossible in the south. We do not have any Sambisa Forest here. The region does not have hideous hideouts where terrorists can use as their base. Also, since the locals are not likely going to collude or connive with terrorists with devious agenda, the phenomenon is not likely going to thrive in the south.
But all this is by the way. What is at stake here is that the north has been flattened by terrorists. It is therefore incumbent on those who love the country to find a way out of the conundrum. Unfortunately, some people are playing politics with the situation. That is why they make a distinction where none exists. In the case of the Kankara abduction for instance, Boko Haram claimed responsibility for the action. It even released a video footage showing the schoolboys. But for elements like the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the schoolboys were not abducted by Boko Haram. He said the group was only seeking relevance by claiming responsibility. Alhaji Mohammed did not say who was responsible for the act. But whatever may be the case, the interjection from the minister was unnecessary. It really did not matter who was responsible for the abduction, if indeed there was one. What we should worry about is the fact that the incident took place at all. Splitting hairs over who committed the act is immaterial. It trivializes an otherwise serious national emergency.