By Alex O. Akpodiete Atawa”
In
the past few weeks, there has been a lot of peace accords along with the
attendant media hype. The first of these was the Abuja accord where the leading
political parties and their presidential candidates signed an agreement
essentially against election violence. They apparently agreed for themselves
and on behalf of their supporters that there will be peace before, during and
after the elections whether they win or lose.
Of course, there has been criticism about the enforceability of these
“peace” agreements.
The
current Abuja Accord should be distinguished from the 1995 Abuja Agreement
meant to secure peace in Liberia. The current Abuja Accord was signed on
January 14, 2015 between various Presidential candidates led by President
Goodluck Jonathan of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Gen. Muhammadu Buhari
of opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) and is basically an agreement
that neither they nor their agents will be involved in post-election violence. The
agreement was witnessed by the former Secretary General of Commonwealth, Chief
Emeka and the former Secretary General of the United Nations; Mr. Kofi Annan,
and some members of the diplomatic community.
In law,
a contract (agreement/Accord) embodies the “meeting of the minds.” There also
what is called bargained for exchange along with a requisite offer and
acceptance. As one who has taught jurisprudence (law) internationally, I am
using these principles for purposes of exposition of the fallacy of these purported
peace agreements. Let me explain in lay man’s terms; for you and I to enter
into contract, our minds must meet. Someone must make an offer and the other
person accept. There are many times in a contract when we have what is known as
third-party beneficiaries. In the case of these agreements, the Nigerian people
will be considered third-party beneficiaries. This begs the questions what can
the Nigerian masses do if the agreement is broken. Can we go to court to
enforce our benefits (rights) arising from the peace contracts?
In
Nigeria, we like to come up with new documents, which is part of our love for activities.
Our laws are replete with penalties for violence, election or otherwise.
Further toothless agreements are unnecessary showmanship that are essentially
tantamount to playing to the gallery.
It
behooves our security forces and courts to enforce these laws, no matter who are
the perpetrators. However, the reality on ground is that those who engage in
election violence always go unpunished. The culprits responsible for the suleja
2011 bombing that killed Youth Corpers who were just checking their names on
the billboards have yet to be apprehended or prosecuted. The sponsors of post-election
violence, especially in the North are still walking around free and some are
even contesting again.
Those
who have made provocative statements that incited the masses to violence in 2011
have not even been arrested. Whether guilty or innocent, the system has not
even kicked in to allow it to work. Inflammatory statements about making the
country ungovernable or bloods of dogs and baboons are actionable statements.
Can you imagine what message we will be sending if we arrest those persons and
prosecute them in a court of law? People will clearly understand that no one is
above the law. However, the hypocrisy in
the system will show itself when people start claiming that the prosecution is
a political witch hunt.
The
Abuja accord is another example of paper tigers or toothless bulldogs. A facade
meant to obfuscate the reality on ground, which is that many politicians see
elections as a do-or-die affair because they don’t have any other comparable
source of income and are not vying for office to serve the masses but rather
for their own personal enrichment.
The
Abuja accord reminds me of another accord between another northerner and a
South-easterner some years back. Aburi Accord, named after the venue in Accra
Ghana, was meant to salvage an impending war in Nigeria. It was held from
January 4-5, 1967 with over fifteen (15) delegates including Chairman of the
Ghana National Liberation Council -Lt.-General J.A. Ankrah-Chairman; Lt.-Col.
Yakubu Gowon- Head of State of Nigeria;
late Lt.-Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu - Governor Eastern Region; Major Mobolaji
Johnson - Governor Lagos State; Lt.-Col. Hassan Katsina - Governor Northern
Region; Lt.-Col. David Ejoor - Governor Mid-Western Region; Commodore Joseph
Edet Akinwale Wey - Vice President of Nigeria; and Colonel Robert Adebayo -
Governor Western Region.
The
Aburi accord was opened with a declaration to renounce the use of force as a
means of settling the Nigerian crisis which saw the population of over 56
million (then) at the brink of war.
The
Aburi accord had at least three portions: (1) the legislative and executive authority
of the Federal Military Government should remain in the Supreme Military
Council, to which any decision affecting the whole country shall be referred
for determination provided that where it is possible for a meeting to be held
the matter requiring determination must be referred to military governors for
their comment and concurrence; (2) appointments to senior ranks in the police,
diplomatic, and consular services as well as appointment to super scale posts
in the federal civil service and the equivalent posts in the statutory
corporation must be approved by the Supreme Military Council; and (3) all the
decrees passed since January 15, 1966, and which detracted from previous powers
and positions of regional governments, should be repealed if mutual confidence
is to be restored.
General
Gowon enacted Decree No. 8 which essentially codified the Aburi accord. There
were disagreements about its interpretation. Ostensibly, the Aburi conference
between the Federal Republic of Nigeria delegates led by Gen. Gowon and Eastern
Nigerian delegates led by the late Chief Ojukwu, ended up being meaningless as
the federal government allegedly violated the agreement. In legal parlance,
Nigeria breached it and the Biafrans had no choice but to go to war. We all
know what happened in the bloody civil and the resultant physical, emotional
and psychological damages. In fact,
arguably some of the leadership problems and federalism issues today could have
been solved if the Aburi accord was adhered to by Gowon and his co-travellers
What
recourse do we have if politicians violate the Abuja accord and the other peace
agreements entered in various states such as Delta and Ekiti? Do we just take
the words of politicians? Are we spoiling for war and is there any legal teeth
to agreement that will allow us to sue them in civil court or prosecute them in
criminal court?
*Rev. Atawa, a
public affairs analyst writes from Asaba. Contact him on 08138391661 or Profatawa@gmail.com,
No comments:
Post a Comment