The recent fracas between the Nigerian Army and members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria, as they prefer to be called, needs no introduction. It has, in the last two weeks, been one of the topics of discourse in both national and international media and forums. Many people have sought my opinion when the heat of the event was at its peak but I declined to comment because, at that time, I could not be certain of what actually transpired on that fateful day or days, rather. However, with the passage of time, things have unfolded and many people now think they know what actually happened as pieces of information are being put together. Therefore, I do not intend, in this article, to inform my audience of what happened nor am I out to indict or absolve any party. I am interested in the aftermaths of the event on Nigeria as a country in the international community and on the Nigerian society and government as a political unit.
Reactions to the event poured from different angles of society; the clerics, the general masses, some governments and traditional authorities. Some were in form of sympathy with the Shiite community while others were jubilations and, yet some took the form of condemnation of either side. Only the President has, until last Thursday’s media chat, said nothing. One of the most notable reactions worthy of my attention was that of the Emir of Kano, Muhammad Sanusi ll. The Emir, who has already earned the mark of being a radical intellectual on the far left, a bold analyst of public affairs and a human rights activist as well as, to some extent, a feminist and was assumed by many to be a Shiite before becoming an Emir ironically made the most asinine condemnation of the movement led by Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky.
My problem with the Emir’s position is that, in his characteristic inconsistency, lumped so many issues together and even pretended ignorance, perhaps, in order please the ignorant majority of his subjects. This apologetic attitude seems to define him since the day he was made Emir as if he is using it as a strategy to gain popularity among his subjects and consolidate his power and grip on the throne. The radical intellectual in him seems to have died with the former Emir, Ado Bayero.
One of the weaknesses of the Emir’s position is that he failed to distinguish Shia as sect from the Islamic Movement as a political association thereby attempting to deny some people their freedom of religion enshrined in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. No one should be denied holding a religious belief or be denied the freedom to practice the rites of the religion which he or she chooses as long such a practice does not infringe on the rights of another citizen. In this sense, the Emir has violated the constitution by charging traditional rulers to restrict a certain religious belief.
However, Nigeria, like any other secular state guarantees the freedom of religion at an individual, private level. When it becomes a group, there is still freedom of association whose limits must be observed. The Islamic Movement as a religious organization must enjoy the freedom of association if it observes all the limits outlined in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; but if, otherwise, it violates the limits by either carrying out illegal activities and advocacies or by constituting itself into a nuisance for society, then the authorities concerned have the right to either bring it to order or abrogate it completely as the case may be. In his case, the Emir is blaming a religious sect for an offence allegedly committed by a religious organization. Not all Shiites are members of the Islamic Movement and some of them vehemently disagree with Zakzaky in many ways. What is the fault of such Shiites in this? Therefore, for anything committed by the Zakzaky led movement, justice demands that blame should be laid and action be taken on the movement not on Shiites in general.
Another fault of the Emir’s sermon is that he, still appeasing to ignorant followers, made an inappropriate reference to Shia as the ‘sect of those who insult the Prophet’s companions and wives’. Every group, every movement, religion or organization should be defined by reference to its essence, its rason d’être. There are Shiites who engage in such practices; most of them secretly do if you are talking about the Twelvers as the only Shiites. Yet, it is not the backbone of their formal belief system. It is even a recent innovation that became widespread after the Safavi tyrannical invasion of Persia. To this day, Zaidi Shiites of Yemen, who were the majority Shiites until the Safavi conversion of Persia, consider it a blasphemy to accuse any of the three first caliphs of any wrongdoing. So also the Alawites of Syria and Turkish Alevis hold them in high esteem. In the Twelvers’ oldest records, such a practice has no basis. In fact, their greatest tafsir, an equivalent or counterpart of ibn Jarir al-Tabari’s in the Sunni world, known as ‘Tafsir al-Qummi, contains many instances where the first three caliphs were highly praised. Al-Qummi was a disciple of the eleventh Shia Imam. The practice of demeaning and insulting the first three caliphs and their daughters who happened to be wives of the Prophet and, therefore, part of Ahl al-Bayt from the Sunni perspective was instituted by a Safavi court cleric, Mullah Muhsin al-Rafidhy. Today, Iran, which is the de facto leader of Shiites in the world despite the fact their highest spiritual authority in Iraq in person of Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has issued a formal verdict against such practices so that any Shiite who engages in them is on his own and is disobeying his masters. Someone may argue that it is hypocrisy but such an argument is not allowed in Islam; unless you hear it from one of their authorities, the position that they have officially prohibited it remains. Therefore, the Emir’s reference to them as ‘aqidar masu zagin sahabbai’ is mischievously unjust.
For the Nigerian government on the other hand, the situation is more complex and difficult than it is perceived by the Shiites and their sympathizers, their antagonists and by foreign governments and human rights’ organizations crying out loud about human rights violation. It is true that the army has violated the rule of law in handling the situation from beginning to the end. For instance, someone rightly opined that the Shiites, being Nigerian citizens, having blocked the road against anybody, should have been reported to the police. But the situation is far beyond mere blocking of the road for any sincere observer. The events that transpired later that led to the arrest of the movement’s leader indicate something more like a premeditated clampdown on a dissident organization. And, still truth is that not what was done but how it was done that was completely wrong.
To be fair to the Nigerian government, it has tolerated for too long what no other government in the world can tolerate; the existence of a politically minded association that advocates the illegitimacy of the government and seeks to evolve every instrument of a government from security and defense to judiciary and intelligence on its own so that it, as a body, or its members pay allegiance only to its own institutions. A moderate member of the movement admitted to me that their movement is a caricature of Hezbollah in Lebanon; and we know that Lebanon has two parallel governments today such that a certain group of people pay allegiance to only Hezbollah which possesses all institutions including a formidable army and does whatever government can do.
Indications that the Islamic Movement of Nigeria wants to evolve into a parallel government are diverse. A prominent example is the suicide bomb attack carried out on the group’s trekking mission from Kano to Zaria last year. Their leader claimed that he had prior intelligence that they would be attacked but decided to take action on that sensitive intelligence on his own without reporting it to the appropriate security institution. Any organization that receives information about a threat to the lives of so many citizens without reporting it to government agencies must harbor the feeling of being a government by itself. He could have been charged with the crime of endangering the lives of citizens who died as a result of the attack. After the attack, one suicide bomber was caught alive by the group; still they refused to hand him over to government security agencies and claimed to have interrogated him themselves. Worse still, they ended up accusing the Nigerian army of having sent the suicide bombers in a bit to brainwash their followers into believing that the government is primarily set against them. No government can tolerate these things; not even Iran.
Therefore, what followed after the roadblock incidence that culminated in the arrest of Zakzaky and razing down his residence and spiritual headquarters was an indication that the government had endured more than enough. While I understand and even agree with why the government has to check the activities of the movement and even outlaw it if necessary, I completely disagree with the way it was done. The army could have arrested Zakzaky under two circumstances only; either if he was a foreigner who attacked the Nigerian territory or a separatist citizen who held a territory with arms. In both cases, the army could have legitimately taken him into its custody as a prisoner of war but following an official declaration of war which is the prerogative of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. There was no declaration of war on the Islamic Movement, so, the entire the action taken by army was completely illegal and an outright breach of law no matter what was the provocation. The proper channel was for the army to report him to the appropriate security agency; Police or the DSS. If all the channels have been exploited without the success of bringing him before the law; the police could apply force to arrest him and if that fails then President may declare him a danger to national security and order the army to get him.
On the diplomatic table, the Nigerian government’s patience has severely been tried by Iran which has finally, somehow, proven the allegations that it is bolstering the Islamic Movement to promote its interests in the country. Members of the movement are all Nigerians, the event took place on Nigerian soil but Iran reacted as if members of the movement were its citizens who came to Nigeria for a legitimate mission. If there was any consideration for leniency from any part of the government, Iran’s reaction has ruined it. No country can tolerate its envoy in another country being summoned to explain a security incidence involving its citizens on its own soil especially if the other country is known to have propped up a parallel government in Lebanon and the incidence in question involves an organization that allegedly growing into a government of its own within the boundaries of the state.

https://pullo4mbina./2016/01/07/el-zakzaky-and-the-nigerian-government-a-focus-on-zaria-incidence