- The bloody conflict between the Nigerian Army and the Shi’ite Islamic group in Zaria makes regular dialogue between the military and civil groups imperative
The bloody battle between the Shi’ite Islamic group led by Sheikh Ibrahim ElZakzaky and the Nigerian Army is most regrettable. The monumental loss of lives and property should provoke indignation by all Nigerians. We are pained that some Nigerians could confront the military armed and trained with public funds in the manner it happened in Zaria and at such a great cost. But, the question to ask is what caused the showdown and what should be done to avoid a repeat?
We note that this is not the first time such confrontation and casualties would be recorded. As the military explained even with video evidence, the Shi’ite group had blocked a federal highway, thus preventing motorists from pursuing their legitimate businesses. Many plying the road were made to park by the roadside by men of the Elzakzaky Islamic Movement who insisted that it was their anniversary and that had conferred on them the right to effect a blockage.
This was wrong. The highway belongs to all. Not even the federal or state government has the right to block it without acceptable reason and due notice.
Although Nigerians have the right to protest or hold rallies, this should be done with due caution. Each person’s or group’s right should be exercised with due attention paid to the rights of others. The Islamic group had no right superior to those of other citizens who had cause to ply the road on the fateful day. The freedom of movement enshrined in the 1999 Constitution is basic and available to all and could not be denied anyone except as allowed by law. It should be noted that the Nigerian Army thus had the right of way on the day.
It is unfortunate that the Islamic group, emboldened by previous similarly illegal moves, sought to deny the Chief of Army Staff and his entourage of passage on the way to paying courtesy call on the Emir of Zaria. It was a needles and costly affront. No group of Nigerians has the right to take the laws into its own hands. We commend the army for engaging the group in a discussion with a view to freeing the highway. We find it difficult to blame the military for responding to the heaving of missiles at the senior military officers sent to discuss with leaders of the group. They acted under provocation and, as the military authorities have pointed out, they responded within the rules of engagement in such circumstances.
Nigerians must realise that these are no normal times. The security breach in many parts of the country, especially the Boko Haram war in the North has made the military a target of attacks by groups. It is therefore foolhardy to challenge the soldiers to a battle without consideration of the consequences. The military represents the Nigerian state and no group can be allowed to feel superior to the state.
However, if it is true that the army went back to the site the following day to level the abode of the group’s leader and unleash terror on the people, this is hard to justify. All security forces ought to realise that the best available to them for use in resolving such conflict is minimum force.
We call on the military authorities to look into the matter with a view to drawing useful lessons for the future. Training in civil-military relations should be stepped up to avoid unnecessary blood-shed. The leadership of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs also owes a responsibility to the Nigerian nation to institute programmes to douse tension in the land and educate their members on the need for peaceful coexistence.
Groups such as Elzakzaky’s should be tutored on the limits of their rights and how to relate with institutions and symbols of state. We note in this connection that such rifts are decades old and this makes regular orientation courses and programmes among and between religious bodies, and in conjunction with security agencies, necessary.
