By Dele Sobolwale
“It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists; but, it is equally certain and exceptionally painful that almost all terrorists are Muslims…”Abdel Rahman al-Rashad, General Manager, satellite station, AL-ARABIYA.

Very few people have been prosecuted for religious violence, but none has ever been brought to conclusion. Why are such cases never concluded?”

Vice President Osinbajo

Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, in a national newspaper, January 13, 2017.

Professor Osinbajo, SAN, as a prominent lawyer, teacher and now top politician asked the question: “why are such cases never concluded?” as if he does not know the answer. The answer had been partly and generally provided by the General Manager of a satellite station in the Middle East. World wide and in Nigeria, there is very little of what you can call “religious violence” left anywhere. What we have had since the rise of Al Queda and the attack on the World Trade Center in New York has been global terrorism and genocide systematically and relentlessly carried out by those claiming to be Muslims.

Granted, the attacks are sometimes carried out indiscriminately, even killing Muslims, as we have experienced with suicide bombers in Nigeria, but, there has never been and there is today no doubt regarding the religious affiliations of the terrorists. They, in almost all the cases, claim to be Muslims. By contrast, there is no single Christian terrorist group operating in the world or in Nigeria, targeting Muslims and avenging “insults” to Jesus Christ and committing multiple murders in his name.

That is why what is going on in Nigeria cannot be called religious violence. It is calculated genocide perpetrated by some Muslims against Christians – safe, in the knowledge that they would never be prosecuted or made to pay for their crimes. Let me illustrate the point on one-sidedness of the murders which removes them from the classification of religious violence.

For over three hundred years there was religious violence in Northern Ireland. It was between the Catholics and the Protestants and was brought to an end late in the last century. Horrible crimes were committed on both sides – all in the name of Jesus Christ. With both sides involved in the massacre and both suffering untold casualties, religious violence could be said to occur.

The war in Iraq which brought down Saddam Hussein also unleashed massive religious violence. Hussein, a Shi’ite, had used the military to suppress the Sunni majority. When the Americans conducted their exit election, the Sunnis won a majority of the seats and for the first time the President was one of them. The Shi’ites fearing reprisals went on the offensive; the Sunnis were also eager to avenge past wrongs. Bombs were flying in the two directions – casualties were also recorded in the give-and-take that continues till today. Religious violence can be said to occur.

Let us now turn to Nigeria and use two states as example. Akwa Ibom State is almost as totally Christian as Kano State is Muslim. There are Mosques in several of the major cities and towns – Uyo, Ikot Ekpene, Eket, Ikot Abasi, Abak, Oron, just to name a few. To the best of my knowledge no single person had been murdered for being a Muslim; no Mosque had ever been burnt in the Southern State. Most likely, if any Christian openly murders another person because he “insulted Christ” or abused the Bible, not only will the assailant be fully prosecuted, his fellow citizens in that state would distance themselves from him. The Attorney-General of the State would not “advise” the Magistrate trying the case to discharge the accused. That is a typical Christian state. The same will be the case in Ebonyi or Cross River.

Then we move to Kano – because the travesty of justice there and official complicity in murder of a Christian is very fresh. Everybody is aware of the Christian woman who was gruesomely murdered by Muslims in her own shop because she had the “audacity” to ask them not to use the front of her shop for their preparations. The case was novel because it was the first time a Muslim state would even admit the constitutional right of a Christian to life as guaranteed by our constitution. But, the joys of those who thought that Kano State had joined the modern world were short-lived. Last month, the Magistrate trying the case acquitted the accused based on confidential advice by the State’s Attorney-General, certainly not a Commissioner of Justice. It was in the same state that an Igbo man, a Christian, was beheaded and the skull paraded for hours by his killers, with policemen looking unconcerned, in the name of Islam. Till today, nobody had been punished for it.

The answer to Osinbajo’s question, “why are such cases not concluded?” is very simple and true. The cases are not concluded because the terrorists are Northern Muslims and the victims of genocide are often Christians. It is instructive to note that a few days after the Kano court disgraced the judiciary with its ruling siding with terrorism, there was a mild conflict in Enugu state involving the usual terrorists called Herdsmen and people in a community. The initial rumours claimed that several of the terrorists were killed and their Mosques burnt. For the next few days, security agencies and the State government went to great lengths to discredit the story – especially the report of Mosques burnt. Only God knows how many churches had been burnt or bombed in Muslim states in the North without a word of sympathy from Governors and Muslim leaders.

I was in Sokoto in the early 1990s to see all the churches along Ahmadu Bello Way, in the state capital burnt by people claiming their religion is peaceful. Nobody offered help to re-build the churches. But, recently, a Northern Muslim state governor went in search of terrorists to compensate them for cows alleged to be lost; not to have them brought to justice for murders committed. He even later claimed the terrorists were not Nigerians!!! Mr VP, we know why the cases are never concluded. Some of the leaders of your party are responsible for shielding killers; and perhaps encouraging them for political advantage.

So far, in Nigeria, every violent conflict with any religious undertones had been caused by Muslims. The bloody clash between traditional worshippers in Sagamu was between Muslims and the other worshippers who had enjoyed a “live-and-let-live” relationship with Christians for years without violence.

I can bet Professor Osinbajo every kobo in my pocket that if a Christian openly murders a Fulani Muslim anywhere in the South, the case will be concluded. So, why must we continue with the self-deception? We know the perpetrators of religious genocide in Nigeria and why they are never convicted.

Official silence in such matters is not golden; amounts to loud consent!!!

PLEA FOR BANKERS IN TROUBLE OVER MRS JONATAN AND DIEZANI – 1

“I will make you an offer you can’t refuse.” Mafia Boss to shop owner, Boston, 1969.

His name was William, “Bill” Rice, a black American Korean War veteran, who had established a successful grocery store in Roxbury, Boston, attracting thousands of people a day. That success eventually brought him the attention of the Boston Mafia and a lot of pain. The Mafia wanted a share of the business in order to use it to launder illegal funds from all sorts of criminal activities. But, Bill was a devoted Baptist who lived as a law-abiding citizen. Accepting the initial Mafia offer would have made him an instant millionaire – but one now enmeshed in crime. He turned down the offer. But, the Mafia was just as determined. They doubled the initial offer. Still, Bill refused. Then, the Mafia Boss himself called on Bill and uttered those chilling words quoted above. The words always carry the same meaning. “Accept our generous offer or we will ruin your business; even kill you.” Even a stone-hearted man knows when it is useless to continue fighting. Bill gave in.

Anyone who had been following the revelations concerning millions of dollars of Nigerian money illegally deposited in various Nigerian banks and the possibility of the bankers being prosecuted for violations of several banking laws must pity the bankers. Like Bill, in Boston, forty-eight years ago, offers were made to them which they could not refuse without dire consequences for their banks and their careers.

When the wife of a President, in a Banana Republic, invites you, a banker, to run questionable errands for her, using your bank, it would be unwise and very dangerous to refuse. The Federal Government of Nigeria is the biggest customer, by far, any bank has. That by itself renders any offer from the Bedroom Cabinet of that power house impossible to refuse.

The bank’s licence can also be capriciously withdrawn or suspended without immediate appeal to any court in the land. Even when litigation is embarked upon, judgment takes a long time such that the bank, once closed, is closed for ever. A perfect example is Savannah Bank which was closed by the Central Bank of Nigeria when Soludo was Governor. Court judgment ordered Emefiele to return the licence; he promptly did. But the bank remains closed till today. Any attempt to open it will lead to a run by depositors.  It is simply bad luck for a banker to be faced with losing its biggest client and its licence on account of an ethical and professional dilemma forced on him by circumstances beyond his control and by those in the corridors and bedrooms of power.

The case of the bankers involved with the alleged diversion of funds by the former Minister of Petroleum Resources is almost the same. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC, is probably the second largest client of any bank in Nigeria. Every bank profits enormously from the relationship. By a simple stroke of the pen, the Minister can order all the Ministry’s deposits withdrawn from the bank and precipitate a liquidity crunch immediately. Furthermore, news that NNPC had withdrawn from the bank might be construed as lack of confidence by others and trigger a run on it. No banker can take that risk on behalf of his bank because no bank can survive the backlash of refusal to cooperate with what they knew were questionable transactions. They either went along or there would be no bank to manage anymore.

Furthermore, banking regulations require bankers to report illegal transactions to banking authorities – presumably for investigation and prosecution. But, what happens when the banking authorities are themselves controlled by the perpetrators of the infractions? Most likely there would have been no prosecution and the banker would be targeted for removal on trumped-up charges. Nobody wants to take that risk; nor should anybody be asked to do so. It is unfair.

The cases have not started, and I fervently pray they would not for the sake of the bankers – none of whom is known to me. But, they are young enough to be my nephews who would have acted the same way. Misfortune and former top government officials had placed all these young men in a situation where doing the right thing would have amounted to career and even personal suicide. It is not fair.