By Rotimi Fasan
IT is not a plus for his democratic credentials, that President Muhammadu Buhari has not thought it fit to comment on the issue, weeks after personnel of the Nigeria Police were reported to have killed several members of the so-called Indigenous Peoples of Biafra and scores more were mauled down of followers of the misguided Shiite cleric, Ibrahim El Zakzaky, by soldiers of the Nigerian Army.

As the Commander-in Chief of the Armed Forces, he is the supreme head of our armed forces and as such cannot look away when members of the forces are accused of serious crime bordering on mass killings of allegedly harmless Nigerians.

President Muhammadu Buhari

His comments don’t necessarily have to be condemnatory of the action of the concerned soldiers if he does not think they are at fault. But, if otherwise, he thinks the soldiers went beyond the bounds of what can be considered acceptable conduct, his denunciatory comments would go a long way to reassure Nigerians that they are not at the mercy of a lawless military that can act totally with impunity.

We ought to have moved beyond the level of the ‘unknown soldiers’ such as those involved in the destruction of Fela’s Kalakuta Republic in 1977. Our soldiers are individuals with verifiable names and addresses traceable to whatever military formations they are attached to. In fact, some of the soldiers involved in the encounter with the Shiite were in the escort of Tukur Buratai, the Chief of Army Staff, who was allegedly pencilled down for assassination for yet undisclosed reasons by members of the religious sect.

It was in their bid to ensure a safe passage for him after the Shiite allegedly blocked his way to an official engagement, that the soldiers opened fire. This account has, of course, been disputed by the Shiite who claimed the COAS had left well before a detachment of soldiers returned to wreak havoc.

Whatever were the actual circumstances that led to the bloody showdown, the identities of the soldiers involved are not and cannot be unknown. They could be summoned to account for their action. Which is to say that as far as the IPOB or Shiite killings go, the president’s comments, whether laudatory or condemnatory, would have been better than his present silence. His opponents, rightly or wrongly, would be quick to cite cases such as these as evidence that he still needs to be fully weaned of his military propensities.

The right of Nigerians to freely express themselves either by being part of demonstrations to assert their right to self determination as IPOB proclaims, or to congregate for religious reasons as with the Shiite, should not be compromised. Yet, Nigerians who must assert their rights in the foregoing manner must also be ready to accord such rights to others and conduct themselves in ways that would not hurt public peace. But this is far more than one can say for either the followers of Nnamdi Kanu or El Zakzaky. Commentaries on the recent encounters of these two groups with the security agencies have not emphasised this point at all.

The overwhelming impression that is conveyed by many of these commentators is that the unnecessarily provocative and sometimes violent actions of members of the respective ethnic or religious group are just all right and should continue without consequences. Yet both groups have functioned many times outside the bounds of propriety. If IPOB members have confined themselves to peaceful street protests without blockading the Niger Bridge in Onitsha, perhaps their run-in with the police would have ended more happily.

Forced closure of business places or major highways like the Niger Bridge cannot at all be considered peaceful. When this is coupled with the possibility of miscreant activities among genuine members of this group, there is no way to guarantee a peaceful outcome 100%.

As for the Shiites, available footage of their encounter with the soldiers shows they might have been asking for what came their way. Parts of this footage show senior military men in close discussions with the Shiites, apparently pleading with them to leave even when some of them could be seen openly brandishing machetes and other types of cudgels. What point were they trying to make confronting these soldiers with such arms?

Our security and military personnel have not been too famous for their cordiality. They are too full of their own sense of self-importance and engage in unnecessary show of power. They are often a trigger-happy lot, would sooner bawl orders at people and speak with their weapons and horse whips rather than behave civilly. For such unprofessional acts of reckless irresponsibility, we must continue to condemn them and insist that they change. But what we must never allow is to create a situation where our collective security is endangered by our readiness to tolerate the outlaw behaviour of extremist ethnic or religious groups in the misguided belief of championing their rights even when they would not submit to the rules that bind us all.

The excesses of the El Zakzaky Shiites like such other religious or ethnic groups need to be curtailed for our collective security. A group that seems eager to foment trouble even without provocation and pays no regards to the common rules that binds society is not one that should be allowed free reign. Just over a year ago, El Zakzaky lost a number of his family members in what looked like a case of mindless self-assertion by members of his group.

This group is known for its disruptive actions- spewing hate language, blocking roads for their activities or sending their members on long pilgrimage-like treks on major highways, and thereby obstructing the smooth flow of traffic.

They are belligerent and appear permanently poised for violent encounters or the enforcement of their peculiar doctrines. We continue to scream that Nigeria is a secular state but here we are saddled with Boko-haram-like groups springing up around us, determined to impose their strange doctrines on everybody, and we talk glibly about their rights as if the assertion of such rights must imply the denial of the rights of others to choose a different way of life.

We’ve seen how monies meant for arms purchase were criminally channelled into private pockets; how soldiers were hobbled and sent into battles without arms. We’ve seen Boko haram overrun towns and states after states, and declaring a caliphate even as our military, our only means of protection, were comprehensively trounced. Just eight months ago, we were all helpless wimps at the mercy of religious terrorists. Are we going to look on as similar outcast groups grow into Frankenstein monsters that will later threaten our collective security or insist that they too, like our military, should be subject to collective authority?