By Israel
Abiodun
The London-based Amnesty International has a passion
for stirring calm waters, especially in Nigeria. It seems, the organization
delights more in propagating contrived negations than rejoicing with humanity’s
enviable accomplishments.
By the frequency with which Amnesty International choruses’
human rights violations in Nigeria, one is tempted to believe there are no
other countries in the world, where citizens have human rights that are
traduced. In the past, this organization has passed very damnable verdicts
about alleged human rights violations in different parts of the country.
Unfortunately, in many instances, Nigerians hardly believe such reports, as
they are perceived more as rubble rousers.
While Amnesty International is free to practice its
trade of investigating human rights abuses elsewhere, Nigerians are sickened by
the routine assault on their collective psyche and sovereignty in the guise of
human rights. Nigeria itself is not unmindful of the protection of rights of
her citizens, as expressed in the establishment of the National Human Rights
Commission.
It confounds
reason that in spite of the array which alternate such bodies, like the
International Human Rights Commission, only Amnesty International constantly
faults Nigeria on human rights violations. What remains baffling too is the
apparently faulty manner it conducts its researches and draws seemingly hasty
conclusions. Each account of an investigation of human rights by Amnesty
International reveals a lopsided approach.
Its recent reports on the operations of the military
in Nigeria have been most repulsive. For
instance, Amnesty International claimed after an investigation on the clash
between members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) and soldiers in Zaria,
that the military executed mass murder of the protesting sect members.
Contrastively though, Amnesty International
surprisingly dismissed claims that Islamic Movement of Nigeria members
attempted to kill the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Gen. Tukur Buratai whose
convoy was assailed on a public road by people the organization itself classified as protesters.
It belies truth for anyone to think protesters are not inclined to violence,
yet confront the number one soldier in the country and obstinately turn down
pleas to unlock the pathway.
Furthermore, Nigeria has been under the spell of
terrorist's groups, some with connections to ISIS. In the last four years,
there have been sustained campaigns to dislodge the Islamic insurgents
otherwise branded as Boko Haram, who predominantly operate in some states of
the Northeast. They have murdered thousands in cold blood, including military
officers and annexed Nigeria’s sovereign territories.
But in the last one year, the combative efforts of
the Nigerian military has significantly waned the capacity of the insurgents to
visit mayhem on innocent people. But while Nigerians are still celebrating this
respite from terrorists, Amnesty International again released a report alleging
human rights violations in military camps. What the report is meant to elicit
is yet to be discerned.
It
generously accused the military of torture and violation of human rights of
women, children and other detainees, some of whom they claimed died in military
detention camps. It also implicated the local vigilante group, also called the
Civilian Joint Task Force, another portent force in the war on terror for same
crimes.
Quite shockingly, Amnesty International stressed
that its conclusions was based on with 400 persons who were victims,
eyewitnesses and members of the armed forces, with pictorial evidence and
videos of the tortured or those interviewed? Besides, why does Amnesty
International believes hook and sinker stories relayed to them? Is there no
possibility that the interviewees responded on sentiments? We have heard of
Boko Haram secret agents in the communities and even the military. So, this
scrap sounds like a fable.
But Amnesty International gave a confident verdict
thus; “These acts, committed in the context of a non-international armed conflict,
constitute war crimes.”
But in the dreaded Northeast region where the fear
of Boko Haram lingered and haunted minutely, it is amazing how Amnesty
International investigators accessed 400 people who witnessed the war crimes to
attest in an interview.
Betraying their concealed motive and deliberate
attempts to belittle the performance of the military, Amnesty International
claimed the insurgency war had no international dimension to warrant the
perpetration of war crimes. But records indicate that Boko Haram in Nigeria
stretched to neighbouring countries like Niger, Cameroun and Chad Republic. In the
estimation of Amnesty International these countries are part of Nigeria. Even
the establishment of the Multi-national Joint Task Force could not force this
reality on their assessment or purge their polluted minds of the predetermined
verdict.
However, in its 2015/2016 annual report on Nigeria
published on its website, Amnesty International unconsciously conceded minimal
war crimes against Nigerian security forces.
It stated that
“In the November report on
preliminary examinations, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC identified
eight potential cases involving the commission of crimes against humanity and
war crimes by Boko Haram (in six cases) and the security forces (two cases).”
Nonetheless, Nigerians were quite displeased with
the verdict of Amnesty International, which they adjudged as shots to dampen
the spirit of the military against its campaign to completely rout the
insurgents and other criminals.
The condemnation of Amnesty International was
publicized by a Coalition of Civil Society Groups (COCSG), led by its
President, Mr. Etuk Williams. The civil
society groups described the report “as lopsided and lacking in basic facts.”
The group was pained that the Amnesty International
report was fabricated to discredit the military, after the rest of the world
abandoned Nigeria in its counter-terrorism war. It insisted that its
independent investigations contradicted the claims of Amnesty International.
“The war that
the world left us alone to fight is almost won to the dismay of many who want
to discredit the efforts of the military in order to shift the attention of the
world from a once impossible task that has now been made possible through the
heroics of men and women who should be celebrated,” he said.
It is
inexplicable how the interest of Amnesty International only drummed military
violations of the human rights of terrorists, but correspondingly refused to acknowledge the
violation of the human rights of victims of terrorists.
Even the report which conceded minimal wrongs on the
part of security forces on war crimes was an independent investigation anchored
by the office of the Prosecutor, ICC. But the fact that Amnesty International
published it on their official website implies that they believed in its
contents, which they were unwilling to admit in their own report.
From all indications, it appears that Amnesty
International is fast losing its steam and popularity in Nigeria. They are
beginning to perceive their activities in Nigeria more in the light of the desperation
to portray the country and her security forces in negative light, for reasons
not far from smear campaign to tarnish the country’s reputation in the comity
of nations. Amnesty International does not operate in all countries of the
world; therefore, they should spare Nigeria and her people the trauma of watery
reports of their version of human rights abuses.
Abiodun Israel a forensic
psychologist contributed this piece from Ibadan, Oyo State.
No comments:
Post a Comment