Deradicalisation Of Boko Haram Fighters, Amnesty For Niger Delta Militants Not Same — Ex-NAF Grp Capt
In this interview on Politics Today, a retired Air Force Group Captain and security expert, Sadeeq Garba Shehu, speaks on the nation’s counter-terrorism operations and other military exercises as well as the deradicalisation of Boko Haram members. See excerpts below: Do terrorists repent? It’s very clear to look at the terms. When you talk of the terms, you talk of disarmament, demobilisation, deradicalisation, and integration. Each of these terms, even though they are combined, has different terms. When you talk of disarmament, that is to take away the weapons, when you speak of demobilisation, that is to break away the terrorist group. When you talk of deradicalisation, which is a controversial term, that is to reduce extremist behaviours and reintegration, returning people to society.Some believe deradicalisation, that is changing the mindset of a terrorist is possible. However, some believe that once a terrorist, always a terrorist. Some believe that that belief system cannot be changed. So rather than deradicalisation, they talk about disassociation. People generally are very skeptical about the deradicalisation programme, but then we have to ask: how does deradicalisation or rather amnesty come into it? We have to understand that war has its rules and regulations. Under the Geneva Conventions, specifically, Additional Protocol 2, and even in that, you are talking of Article 65. It talks about how to end a non-international armed conflict. There are two types of conflict. An international armed conflict, for example, is like the one between Russia and Ukraine, one country versus another. Ending such a conflict is very neat. At the end of it, you transfer prisoners of war and everybody goes to their country. How Is It Done In Insurgency? Unfortunately, in a non-international armed conflict where the opponents are the government versus people who are citizens, the ideal way to end a non-international armed conflict like we’re having with Boko Haram is to arrive one day and say all Boko Haram have been killed in action. You don’t have a problem with that, but unfortunately, that is never a feasible solution. So definitely, you’re going to have those that are injured and you capture them. You are going to have those who have surrendered, those who are not fighters but were taken into the bush by force by Boko Haram. Now, under international law, you cannot say those people are no longer in Nigeria and after arresting them, it will be a war crime to say, “Ok, line them all up and kill them. Even if you say you’re taking them to court, some will be convicted, some will be found not guilty. Some will be given jail time, maybe three years, or four years when they feel they are still there. So this is where the problem comes in. In a non-international armed conflict, you are still left to people who are citizens and you have to find a way of treating them. That’s where Article 65 of the Additional Protocol of Geneva Conventions comes in and it says, “At the end of the hostilities, the government in power should endeavour to give amnesty as widely as possible to fighters who are remaining after the conflict”. That is to say, the amnesty recommended by the additional protocol is at the end of the conflict, this is where I have a little problem in Nigeria. Can we say we have come to the end of the conflict? And also it goes further to explain that amnesty is not a blanket amnesty. It’s amnesty for low-level fighters who have low-level engagement, but anybody who is found to have committed murder, arson, rape, killed people, such people must face the law. Are There Conditions For Implementing An Amnesty Programme? So these are the two caveats in carrying out an amnesty programme. First, it should be at the end of the conflict, secondly, it should not be a blanket amnesty. Probably, this is where we may have challenges in Nigeria. Why At The End Of The Conflict? Why do they say at the end of the conflict? At the end of the conflict, you even have more processes of justifying who is at a high level, and who is at a low level. When you say at the end of the conflict, you make it an incentive for the people you are fighting to stop the war, and then come out. So in essence, this is why this amnesty is coming into it. It is something that Nigeria has signed because Nigeria, in 1988, signed the additional protocol to the Geneva Convention, and in international law, whenever you sign a convention, you have a duty to abide by its contents. We’ve seen amnesty in the Niger Delta. By the Geneva Convention, you said at the end of the hostilities. The hostilities in the northern region of the country are not yet over, are they? I think this is one of the challenges of the amnesty programme we’re having. There are many reasons why you have to leave it. Is what we see in the north amnesty? What is being done with Boko Haram is amnesty. It’s part of the amnesty, that’s why they are being deradicalised. Who declares amnesty? It is the state that declares amnesty. We may debate whether we really have come to the end of hostilities in the North-East before we declared that amnesty. It shouldn’t be a blanket amnesty, the processes of determining what is the level of involvement is something that should be done from the moment you arrest a Boko Haram member. Where did you arrest him? When did you arrest him? What’s he carrying? What was he doing? And you should even make inquiries around the areas. Has this guy attacked a village? Has he killed somebody? But if you don’t do that, and like, unfortunately, we did in Nigeria — you arrest them, and you keep them in prison for over 10 years — all the evidence that might have even assisted you in determining the level of involvement would have been lost. And then again, the timing. The other amnesty we had for the Niger Delta, there is a slight difference. In the Niger Delta, it was not in technical terms, an armed conflict that we had in Delta, whereas with Boko Haram, there was a declaration of war if you remember during the Jonathan regime. So, these are two differences. Are you asserting that the radicalisation process is ill-timed? If we take the definition as given by Article 65 of Additional Protocol 2, it says “at the end” of hostilities. The National Committee of the Red Cross, went further to explain what it meant. It says when there is a ceasefire signed, that is one aspect, when the opposing forces are no longer carrying out military operations, when there is a surrender document that has been signed, that is the end of hostilities. So unfortunately, if we look at these definitions, then there may be doubt as to whether we have reached that stage of the end of hostilities.
Admin | 2025-05-04 12:09:40