*Exclusion of Itsekiri from Amnesty programme unacceptable’

By Okey Ndiribe & Emman Ovuakporie

The amnesty programme has been a success   Hon. Daniel Reyenieju represents Warri Federal Constituency at the House  of Representatives. He is also Chairman, Committee on Inter-parliamentary Affairs of the House. He bares his mind on issues including the exclusion of Itsekiri youths from the Post-Amnesty Programme, Sovereign National Conference, controversy over the 2015 elections and others.

What is your reaction to the exclusion of the Itsekiri youths from the Amnesty Programme? Was it a  ploy to marginalize the Itsekiri or what?

It will be most difficult to take a strait-jacketed position on whether it is a  ploy to marginalize the Itsekiri in the whole Post-Amnesty gamut.

This is because everything about the Amnesty Proclamation and Post-Amnesty policies and implementation rests on the table of President Goodluck Jonathan. I do not think that Mr President will deliberately decide to exclude formerly armed Itsekiri youths from participating in the Post-Amnesty program when it is indisputable that the  armed Itsekiri youths, under the auspices of the Itsekiri National Youths Council (INYC), responded to the Presidential Amnesty Proclamation on the 25th day of June, 2009. They surrendered a cache of arms and ammunitions to the then Amnesty Committee within the stipulated period like their Ijaw counterparts. To this extent, I will say no to your question. But, as you know, President Jonathan cannot be incharge of  everything as the principle of delegation of power behoves on him to delegate some powers and functions to those he has invited to serve in his administration.

How these individuals may wish to apply the power delegated to them may not necessarily reflect the political direction the President would have followed if he was directly handling the Post-Amnesty programme. To this extent, I will say that some individuals working for President Jonathan in implementing the programme are unrepentantly devious irrespective of their pretentions. Such deviousness is largely strewn with ethnic bigotry. Some of those at the helm of affairs in the post-amnesty programme  do not exhibit any modicum of rationality and capacity for truth-telling,  such that they now unwittingly immerse themselves in half-truths. In brief, there is no doubt that there are some individuals saddled with the responsibility of implementing the Post-Amnesty programme that have committed themselves to the inglorious task of deliberately  excluding the formerly armed youths of Itsekiri extraction from the programme.

Don’t you think the action of those who are implementing the  programme did it to spite the Itsekiri youths because the INYC envisaged this fear earlier in the day when they surrendered the arms?

I am saying it because I could say, was probably involved in the whole exercise.  I have been involved and I am still involved so long as it has to do with the people from my constituency.  One of the reasons for representation  is to feel their pains and approach anybody  that could solve such problems. This issue of exclusion of the Itsekiris is an  unfortunate incident; we did not contemplate that it will get to a ridiculous extent.  From the proclamation of the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, it was obvious that anybody that was in possession of dangerous weapons that had the capability of causing damage or crisis in a particular area was contemplated.

Those persons who embraced the amnesty programme should be demobilized. Demobilized in the sense of submitting their weapons and getting registered, re-orientated and then brought into the system. But unfortunately for us, there was a mix-up; there was a list that was actually submitted by the Itsekiri people  on October 2nd, 2010.

It met the deadline within which the presidential proclamation actually directed that all submissions must be within  60 days.  But, as we speak, not a single person of Itsekiri extraction or militant has been enlisted into the programme and the question is why? And the answer will always be that the Itsekiris have always said they are not militants. But the issue is what constitutes being a militant? What makes you a militant is the ability of being in possession of dangerous weapons and two, the ability to use such dangerous weapons to distrupt a particular society violently.

So that is where we are. I find it difficult  to give details because the issue is already before the House. Last two  Thursdays, we had an investigative hearing on it by the House Committee on Public Petitions and we are awaiting the report to be written and submitted to the plenary. Having done that, the next stage is that it goes to the second stage of consideration and, as a key player at both ends, for my constituents  and as a member of House of Representatives, I am a little bit careful so that I don’t prejudice the outcome of the investigative hearing.

So I am very hopeful about what I heard from both the Itsekiri youths and the Amnesty Office. We are getting to an amicable settlement of the entire crisis. Fortunately for us as the Itsekiri youths, the Special Adviser to the President on Amnesty has actually said that the Itsekiris were qualified for such inclusion but the question is, how quickly can they be integrated into the Amnesty programme.

Is the Amnesty Programme itself  not faulty from conception or don’t you think it is already a failure?

I do not think so. The Amnesty Programme  was not faulty at the level of conceptualization and implementation within the context of mopping up illegal arms and ammunitions. In many parts of the world, Amnesty programmes are put in place to achieve the purpose of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration.

What is wrong is the pattern of implementation; specifically that some of those that are saddled with the responsibility of the post-Amnesty programme are bereft of the required and all important open-mindedness and statesmanship to handle such a sensitive issue particularly in an environment of inter-ethnic rivalry.  The problem here which can easily be resolved is that after disarming and demobilizing the formerly armed youths of Itsekiri extraction, the executors of the Post-Amnesty programme  opted to specifically deny these Itsekiri youths the opportunities to get rehabilitated.

What is your position on the on-going debate concerning 2015 and the sectional clamour for the position of the President? What does it portend for our democracy vis-a-vis the  zoning formula  of the PDP?

2015 will come and go and PDP will remain a strong party. The zoning formula is PDP’s strategy for winning elections and it has worked well for us. If our zoning formula is not alright, the Nigerian electorate will decide. For now, it is only within the PDP family that we can discuss the zoning strategy. Given the high level of ethnic pluralism, among others, the zoning strategy remains the surest way to give all sections of the country and all shades of opinion the opportunity to participate and remain equal stakeholders in democratic governance.
Don’t  you think it is too early?

We are politicians. Whatever is happening now is part of the politics we have individually and collectively opted for.

Please do not forget the age-long adage that early to bed, early to rise. ’
What is your stand on whether we need a Sovereign National Conference on constitutional amendment through acts of parliament in order to move the nation forward?

Sovereign National Conference was fashionable during the military regime. Today, we are in a democratic dispensation with all the appurtenances of democratic governance. There is the Constitution and the National Assembly. The Constitution  stipulates  the procedure for amendments and the National Assembly is saddled with the responsibility of effecting it. This is clear. But the said Sovereign National Conference  is not clear and has no place in a democratic environment anchored on a Constitution. In brief,  constitutional amendment is the only option available for us.