Ortom, Lai And Parable Of The Drunken Man, By Editor.

Ortom, Lai And Parable Of The Drunken Man, By Editor.

When the Taliban practically strolled into Kabul about two weeks ago, a video circulating on social media showed a group of Nigerian men in white agbada looking giddy as they watched the events unfold on TV.

From all indications, they are Muslim top government officials celebrating the sacking of Afghanistan’s albeit feebly democratic government and the return of an Islamist theocracy. It was another indication that there are well-placed Nigerians who foresee such a future for Nigeria and are working clandestinely toward that end.

Even then, when equally well-placed Nigerians of different ethnicity and political convictions express this view, the administration brands them agents of disintegration. Broadcast stations that air such views often bear the brunt of the administration’s fury.

That was the fate of Daar Communications, the owners of AIT and RayPower FM. The operations were shut down for days for broadcasting an interview that alleges government complicity in the Boko Haram menace. Now, in the words of Information and Culture Minister Lai Mohammed, Channels TV may be shown “the red flag” for broadcasting an interview of Benue State Governor Samuel Ortom, who makes very much the same assertion.

It all brings to mind the apocryphal story of a drunk man and his lost keys. It was nighttime, and he was wobbling around a lamp post looking for them. Then came a kind-hearted fellow, who offered to help. “Where do you remember last having the keys,” the good Samaritan asked. “Over there,” the drunk man said, pointing at some distance. “So, why are you searching here?” the man pressed. The drunk fellow responded: “Because this is where there is light.”

If Lai and the National Broadcasting Commission are asked why they are persecuting stations for broadcasting the views of respectable Nigerians, their answer, if frank, would be much like the drunk man’s: “It’s much easier to punish them.” Never mind that that doesn’t come close to solving the problem.

Lai, of course, has harsh words for the people who express views he deems inciting.“In the last few weeks, the country has been awash, especially from the broadcast media, with very incendiary rhetoric which has created a sort of panic in Nigeria,” he told the News Agency of Nigeria in Cape Verde, where he is attending a conference on tourism.

“The incendiary rhetoric that comes from political, religious leaders and some opinion molders have the capacity to set the country on fire. This is because the rhetoric is pitting one ethnic group and religion against the other and overheating the polity.”

But the hurt actually comes from the sticks and stones, as in guns and daggers. Surely, words do hurt too — never mind the saying to the contrary. But what is a governor to do when his people have been massacred again, from all indications by people of another ethnicity? Should he have whitewashed what happened? In any case, the language of the mortuary is always more incendiary than anything that can be said on TV.

“We agree that there are challenges but the government is doing its best in addressing insecurity, banditry, insurrections and fixing the economy,” Lai is quoted as saying in the interview. “What one expected from these leaders at this trying period is support and encouragement.”

There is just one problem, Information Minister: a vast majority of Nigerians do not think the government is doing its best. And if it is doing its best, then that best is not good enough. Even prominent Islamic clerics are angrily saying the same. Alas, the larger issue isn’t whether the government is doing its best, but whether it is complicit or at least accommodating.

The latest and most damning case has come from former Navy Commodore Kunle Olawunmi in an interview on Channels Television. Olawunmi cites irrefutable evidence of government’s duplicity in the handling of Islamist terrorism.

As a member of the military intelligence, he was one of the personnel who identified sponsors of Boko Haram as early as 2012. Several of those people are now in government as governors and senators and in the president’s staff, Olawunmi said.

And if one thinks that those may be repentant terrorists, Olawunmi makes the case of the present. “Recently, 400 people were gathered as sponsors of Boko Haram. Why is it that the Buhari government has refused to try them?” Olawunmi said. “Why can’t this government bring them to trial if not that they are partisan and part of the charade that is going on?”

These are questions that Lai may have to answer before lambasting critics of the government for inciting disintegration. But then, like the drunk fellow in the apocryphal story, Lai and the rest of the presidency would rather look under the lamppost.

As further evidence of an Islamist agenda, Olawunmi narrates his experience as a deputy director at the Defence Headquarters. The security was so strict that over a period of two years between 2015 and 2017, he had just two visitors. Yet, every Friday, the establishment was thrown open to Muslims for Jumat prayer at the mosque. “That is the time the terrorists … profile our security environment,” Olawunmi said.

Subversion aside, this practice — which Olawunmi said is the norm at all military establishments — readily explains the ease with which Boko Haram escaped military operations and even ambushed them. It certainly explains the recent breach of the Nigerian Defence Academy in Kaduna, during which terrorists killed two officers and abducted a third.

Most pointedly, Olawunmi said that “terrorism financiers want to turn Nigeria to a Taliban type of country.” And that’s the crux of the matter. That’s why some were toasting the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan. A cautionary note for them though is that Nigeria is not Afghanistan. A vast majority of Nigerians, North and South, don’t share the political vision of the Taliban.

Moreover, they may want to temper their celebration because the Taliban are over their head. They have a long road to go to mold Afghanistan into their vision, if ever. As noted two weeks ago, a Taliban commander confessed to a US network that they weren’t prepared to administer a city the size of Kabul.

Moreover, there is burgeoning resistance by other Afghans and challenge from ISIS. Even within the Taliban, there is evident division. There are diehard Islamists who want to return Afghanistan to where it was 20 years ago. But they have to contend with the pragmatists who know that that ship has left the harbor.

The latter group is apparently in control and fervently courting the support of Western countries. There are reports that they might be seeking the help of NATO member Turkey to help them govern. And they are pressuring the US to reopen its embassy in Kabul. In other words, they are fervently searching for legitimacy and viability in the modern world. These are bad times to try to establish an Islamist theocracy.

mibelema@bellsouth.net