THE PERSPECTIVES AND CAUSES OF CONFLICTS IN JOS


By

Pastor Joseph Maren Sampson

Director, Reconciliation Trainers Africa (RETA)

#41 Sarkin Warram Street Bukuru, Plateau Nigeria

Email: marensam@yahoo.co.uk

Mobile: +234 (0) 7039634892



Introduction

The constant conflict in Jos has become a subject of several editorials. Competing and conflicting interpretations of what make up Jos have contributed immensely to the prevalence of conflict being witnessed. The history of Jos before, during and after colonial rule and the underlying assumptions to its claims by various stake holders has not contributed to the peace that is desired in Jos Plateau. These claims and historical interpretations form the justification for the claims made by the primary parties to the conflict in both its traditional and modern form. The quest for prominence over each other has not also helped matters. Perceptions are believed to be a major source of conflict in any given situation. They shaped the nature of conflicts around.



This article examines what in my opinion I think are the burning issues that are the underlying tones for the re-occurrence of conflict in Jos as well as the causes and dynamics of it. Various perceptions of the primary parties to the conflict in Jos have been analyzed so as to give the reader in-depth knowledge to appreciate the reason for agitations from the parties. It then proffers strategies that can be adopted as a means of checking its re-occurrence so as to help build the Plateau of our dream where everyone is a key player in its socio-economic development.



Hausa/Fulani perspective of Jos

The Hausa narration and historical antecedents has it that they established Jos from nothing and nurtured it into what it is today without the help of the so called indigenous ethnic groups. Their argument is that Jos was established around the nineteenth century out of a virgin land with none of the indigenous groups near the vicinity. This is confirmed by the paramount Hausa/Fulani leader in Jos, the Turakin Jos, Alhaji Inuwa Ali in 2002 at a speech delivered by him at the Presidential Retreat on Peace and Conflict Resolution at National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies Kuru, Jos, 23-26 January when he states:



“Historically, Jos is a Hausa settlement and this had been confirmed by Mr. Ames, a colonial Administrator who gave the population of Jos town in 1950 as 10,207, out of which 10,000 people were of Hausa/Fulani origin. Before the arrival of the British, the present location of Jos was a virgin land and the situation as could be seen today shows no concentration of Beroms or any of the tribes in the neighborhood as being seen in the heartland of Jos town”.



This position has been strengthened by other Hausa/Fulani writers and publications thereby making the Hausa/Fulani agitate for their perceived identity. For instance, Col. D.A. Umar (Rtd.) has made a frantic attempt to explain the historical foundation of Jos by dismissing the claims of the Berom, Anaguta and Jarawa to the ownership of Jos. In his conclusion, Jos belongs to the Hausa/Fulani who in his perception are the real indigenes of Jos when he categorically states;

“Historically Jos belongs to the Hausa/Fulani and they are the real indigenes. What is happening today in terms of rejection is just distortion of history which will bring more difficulties and complex questions than solutions”.



The Berom perspective of Jos

The Berom wider community claims that they settled and secured Jos along with the Anaguta prior to the coming of the colonialists who came and made Jos the administrative center. In January 2010, in my curiosity to unearth the Berom perspective of Jos, I had an interview and consultation with Da Toma Davou Jang an elite and respected Berom elder from Du District of Jos South Local Government Area and he summarized the Berom perspective as follows:



“The Berom first settled in Jos and had a traditional name for it called Jot, meaning a water spring. The colonialists arrived and make Jot the administrative center and then brought in the Hausa to assist in the labor force of tin mining activities which was the main commercial activity then. The Hausa and the colonial administrators corrupted the name Jot to what is now known today as Jos. According to him, the water spring was located around the Gangare vicinity behind the burnt Jos Ultra Modern market. However, due to human development and activities, the spring has been destroyed. The Hausa immigrants and Fulani pastoralists came in from Borno, Katsina, Kano etc with other locals from around the State such as the Mupun, Ngas, Ron, etc in search of opportunities for economic survival making the city of Jos to expand to its present state.”



From this perspective, the Berom reiterate that Jos is indigenously inhabited by the Berom, Anaguta and Afizere. They opine that these groups share the ownership of Jos as indigenes and have co-existed peacefully with each other. They consider the Afizere and Anaguta as their fellow indigenes. They however admit that the Hausa/Fulani are citizens of Nigeria and have contributed to the economic wellbeing of Jos but that this cannot be said to give them an indigene status of Jos. They maintain that they are not indigenes of Jos. They are not convinced that because the Hausa’s have lived for so long in Jos they should be considered as indigenes. They argue that they are residents and have residency rights like any other Nigerian as enshrined in the constitution. This position is one that has been vehemently rejected by the Hausa community in Jos who believed that they are indigenes by virtue of their long stay in Jos.



The Afizere perspective of Jos

According to oral and historical Afizere narratives, they see the Hausa/Fulani as settlers and non-indigenes who do not appreciate and reciprocate the hospitality shown them by their hosts communities. They consider the Hausa/Fulani as a group of people that has no right to claim the traditional authority and land in Jos. The Afizere also disagree with the position of the Anaguta’s and Berom as to the ownership and claim of Jos. They posit that Jos belongs to the Afizere’s and there is ample evidence to show concerning this. They argue that the name of Jos comes from a corruption of “Gwash” in the Afizere language which the colonialists and other strangers misspelled as Jos.[1] They claim that the boundary between the Afizere and the Berom is located at the Bukuru Low Cost bridge and that the mistaken placement of the larger Afizere community under Bauchi province by the colonial administrators allow the Berom to infiltrate most parts of Jos. In an interview with Mr. Itse Dabo, a prominent Afizere citizen in Abuja, the Anaguta cannot claim ownership of Jos because they have often hide under Afizere protection during the pre-colonial period to save them from the plan by the Rukuba to exterminate them and thus would give the Anaguta the Afizere tribal mark as a security cover.



The Afizere argue that most part of the land in Jos was sold by them and compensations paid whose evidence and documentation they have to table any moment. Like the Anaguta, the Afizere contend that most part of the land claimed by the Berom was given to them freely without paying any form of compensation due to the peace co-existence that has existed between them.



The Anaguta perspective of Jos

The Anaguta perspective coincides with the Berom and Afizere perspectives which opine that the Hausa/Fulani have no portion to claim in Jos as regards ownership as they are settlers and Jos cannot be their heritage. They accept that the Hausa/Fulani have been instrumental to the development of Jos but this does not translate to a right of ownership of Jos.



In a wider sense, the Anaguta consider themselves as the true indigenes of Jos and none other. The Anaguta original name for Jos is Uzheashi, meaning a place where people gather with its location found from Kasuwan Nama to School lane in Jos town. They maintain that they were the first to arrive Jos. They dismiss the idea of Hausa chiefs as rulers and their claim to having ruled Jos as baseless since they did not conquer any area in Jos during the pre-colonial or after the colonial era. Just like the Afizere, the Anaguta add that they gave out most part of the land owned by the Berom free without any compensation. They agree with the Berom and Afizere on farmlands which they believe have identifiable boundaries but strongly reject the idea that they do not own Jos. Another major area of conflict between the Anaguta and the Berom, as well as the Afizere is the issue of the traditional rulership of Jos which they claim is one sided in favor of the Berom whereas they are rightful owners to it.



Religious and Political perspectives of the Jos Crisis

Christian leaders in Plateau State consider the Jos conflict as religiously motivated other than being political or tribal as some would like to color it. They see the conflict as an orchestrated jihad, which is a holy Islamic campaign employing violence to forcefully bring to the downfall of Christianity and impose Islam on the people of Plateau. Christian leaders have refused to accept that the crisis is political or tribal as Churches and Pastors have often been the target of destruction. They question that if the conflict is political, how comes no political party office has ever been attacked? For this reason, Christian leaders in the Plateau believe that the bottom line is to attempt to actualize the Usman Dan Fodio Jihad philosophy in the State which has failed during pre and colonial times.



Muslim leaders on their part consider the conflict as religious persecution meted against them and their faith. This position is strengthened by the fact that their Mosques have also being destroyed and damaged by Christians. They consider this as a subtle way to send them out of site thereby doing everything possible to resist this ploy. Politicians and Government agencies want to color the conflict as political which to me seems far from the truth bearing the fact that political structures have never come under attacked. Therefore, concluding that the conflict is political will be a suicidal attempt.



Preventive strategies

The conflict in Jos can be put to rest if all players are sincere and honest with each other. If all mediation efforts at bringing about peace are well articulated, sensitively pursued, and courageously approached, then I see peace returning to Jos.

Strategy 1. Overcoming peddled falsehood

Some common falsehood being spread around is that the Berom people are unaccommodating. This is a falsehood of the highest order bearing the fact that the Berom and other indigenous tribes have existed side by side with all other tribes that have been resident in Jos over time without any crisis. Plateau has been politically, socially, religiously and economically accommodating to all people. As a traveled person around this Country, I see Plateau as the most accommodating of other States we have.



In Plateau, people despite their tribal or religious affiliation can acquire land, build and live peacefully. In Kano, Katsina and other Hausa States Christians are not giving the opportunity to buy land and develop it even though they are Nigerians. Can any non Muslim in the Hausa States claim to aspire even as a Councilor of a Local Government? Not at all now but may be some generations to come. In Plateau State, the man from Katsina is elected to serve in the House of Representatives and a Muslim served as Chairman of Jos North. In Plateau State, the Muslims are elected into various political positions with equal treatment as the indigenes. In Plateau State people buy land, build their residential homes, set up lucrative businesses and worship the god of their choice without any hindrance. Muslims in Jos do block roads leading to their Mosques during Friday prayers without any hindrance. Can any Christian try to do the same in Northern Nigeria? Certainly No! What kind of accommodation is more than this? To restore peace to Jos, major players must stop this falsehood otherwise it only infuriates the situation rather than heal the wounds.



Strategy 2. Dealing with positions, interests, needs and fears of all parties to the conflict

In every conflict as is the case with the persistent Jos conflict, parties to it are likely to have positions, interests, needs and fears. Positions are normally irreconcilably different and often quickly mentioned by the parties to a conflict. Interests, needs and fears are often hidden and peace analysts need to probe and understand them. Identifying these peace values do assists interveners to arrive at meaningful ways to manage the conflict. In the Jos conflict, one can observe that the needs of the parties to the conflict do not appear to be in conflict with each other, but the positions they took conflict and compete. I suggest that all government machinery geared at managing the Jos conflict find a way of dealing with these values creatively, sensitively and honestly. Doing so will bring about lasting peace in Jos and environs and return the State to its glorious history of home of peace and tourism.



It is possible for the needs, fears and interests of both parties to be met without necessarily resorting to violence. Mutual respect and tolerance on the part of both parties should be encouraged. The need for access by the Hausa can be realized both in the traditional administration and the Jos North & South Local Government Area in a respectable and different approach than presented by them and as understood by the indigenes. However, both parties need to be facilitated towards building confidence and making them realize that their fears, positions, interests and needs can be achieved with patience, tolerance, hope and trust for one another.

Conclusion

I believe in the peaceful resolution of conflicts and differences through a non violent approach. I believe that no matter how poor or oppressed a society is, or how provocative and manipulative political or religious leaders may be, violence does not erupt suddenly. Inevitably, I believe that it is the manifestation of accumulated aggression and hostility that often sparks conflicts and crisis in Jos. In order to prevent violence, it is necessary then to address the hostile mistrust and belligerence before it reaches a point where each side believes that violence is their only recourse. We must develop preventive strategies that can bring about peace. The goal of prevention is to create a situation in which differences and conflicts can be addressed in a non-violent and constructive manner. I encourage round table discussions by stake holders in order to ensure we have a stable State.