For the umpteenth time, the Nigerian government risked stretching credulity to the limits after claiming last week that it had reached a ceasefire agreement with the Islamist terrorist group, Boko Haram. A chief component of the said deal announced by the Chief of Defence Staff, Alex Badeh, an Air Chief Marshal, is the immediate release of the remaining 219 Chibok schoolgirls kidnapped by the mass murderers more than six months ago. One Danladi Ahmadu, who claimed to be the spokesperson for the rampaging extremists, also said on the Voice of America radio that the abducted girls would be released eventually.
Although quite cheering to well-meaning Nigerians – following firm confirmation by top government officials, Mike Omeri and Doyin Okupe, the Director-General, National Orientation Agency/Coordinator, National Information Centre, and the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Public Affairs respectively – the news, however, was met with scepticism in many quarters, especially among those familiar with the modus operandi of terrorists.
But, with the new turn of events, it is obvious that whatever deal that was struck with the sadistic cult, which has been credited with killing well over 15,000 Nigerians in the past five years, should only have been taken with a pinch of salt. Recent news reports now confirm that the ceasefire agreement has already broken down, barely four days after it was purportedly cobbled together. Nigerian troops engaged some terrorists in a fierce battle after the latter attempted to retake Damboa, a town in Borno State, that had been liberated by Nigerian soldiers. No fewer than 25 terrorists were said to have died in that encounter.
Many have tried to attribute the new wave of Boko Haram attacks to the splintering of the savage group into independent factions. But for those who are familiar with the operational strategies of Islamist terrorists, especially those affiliated to al-Qaeda, what is happening now has not come as a surprise. It is consistent with their style to call for a truce (“holy” deception) when the heat is on them. This affords them a breather and a chance to ensure the release of their detained members, while they regroup and launch more vicious attacks.
A good example of this took place in Afghanistan, where the former president, Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was in charge of peace talks with the Taliban, was killed in a suicide bombing while preparing for a meeting. This led American Admiral, Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to say that the battlefield campaign had failed and Taliban had shifted to “these high-profile attacks.”
For those who may have doubted the veracity of the ceasefire claims, there were other ample reasons to justify their position. There has not been any official statement from the Chadian government or its president, Idris Deby, who reportedly brokered the truce. Besides, it was also strange that Boko Haram would have rushed into a ceasefire with the government when it is still in control of several Nigerian towns and villages.
Already, there have been attempts to link the ceasefire to the “success” achieved by President Goodluck Jonathan in his recent shuttle diplomacy to Chad, Cameroon and France. Okupe said, “Implementation of this ceasefire was signed today and further agreements on this deal, including the release of the kidnapped Chibok girls, are part of this agreement.” But can Boko Haram ever be a good negotiating partner based on its warped aims and evil ideology?
It is important to sound a note of caution here. Our security and intelligence community should demonstrate a better understanding of terror networks. Al-Qaeda has often offered truces before launching fresh attacks, especially whenever it is feeling the pressure.In March this year, the Pakistani Taliban declared a unilateral ceasefire. But just two days after the ceasefire was announced, according to reports, militants attacked judges and lawyers in a heavily guarded court premises in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. A few days later, two bomb attacks on security forces killed nearly 20 people and injured over 60. Back in 2002,the Philippines rejected a ceasefire call from the Abu Sayyaf terrorists, who were allegedly linked to the al-Qaeda network, and said the Abu Sayyaf, who were holding three hostages, including an American missionary couple, had only two choices − surrender or die.
The Federal Government should err on the side of caution in dealing with this cult of sadism. With Boko Haram,the chances of a negotiated solution are slim unless they are decimated by overwhelming military force. It is desirable to get the schoolgirls freed and to be done and dusted with the war. But the government should be sure that, as was the case in the past, it is not being conned. A rights activist, Shehu Sani, who is credited with some links with Boko Haram, has already dismissed the government proposal as a fraud. He reportedly said, “It is either the government sat with fake persons or the government is part of the forgery.” Better still, for a matter as sensitive as this, it would have been advisable for the government to keep it close to its chest until when the abducted schoolgirls breathe the air of freedom again.
