FORMER President, Olusegun Obasanjo, has stirred the

hornet’s nest once again. The redoubtable soldier, war hero,

ex- ruler, farmer and two times president claimed in a talk

that he gave at an Anglican Church in Oleh, Isoko South

Local Government Area of Delta State, that the entire

purpose of the Boko Haram insurgency is the Fulanisation

and Islamisation of Nigeria. Which is saying that the spate

of kidnappings, sacking of communities, armed robberies in

the form of cattle rustling and above all, the imposition of

the Islamic legal and religious codes in places under the

control of Boko Haram are well-orchestrated plans aimed at

making Fulani and Muslims out of other Nigerians.

Buhari and Obasanjo

As is now the case with most of his interventions, Obasanjo

said nothing new. Nothing that other Nigerians have not

said over and over again. His remarks have, however,

elicited instant responses from many quarters, highlighting

the fault lines in our peculiar federation that has made the

country’s unity a project perpetually in the future. While

some have condemned his remarks as unbecoming of his

status, he has received enthusiastic approbation from

others. The problem, again as usual with Obasanjo, is not

necessarily the message but the messenger.

Obasanjo acknowledged the fact that Boko Haram has been

with us for quite a while. But its activities were viewed, he

said, as a revolt of the poor and dispossessed. They were

seen as an economic issue that could be resolved by

tinkering with those policies through which the governing

elite in the North have kept most Northerners away from

the gains of our commonwealth. Now Obasanjo thinks such

reading was essentially flawed and naïve as it beggars the

fact now at our disposal, namely, that Boko Haram had and

has a far more sinister agenda. This is to impose Islam as

well as Fulani rule on the rest of Nigerians. All of this

became clear, according to Obasanjo, from the concerted

manner in which Boko Haram has escalated its activities

while teaming up with other murderous groups like the

Islamic State of West Africa Province and Al Qaeda, among

others.

For quite a while, Nigerians from the Southern and Middle

belt parts of the country have raised fears about the

possible Islamisation of Nigeria. Those fears have been

accentuated since Muhammadu Buhari took over as

president. Things were nowhere helped by the fact that

Buhari himself exhibited a high degree of revanchist

provincialism in his appointment of ministers and other

public officers. He displayed a clear bias for Muslims from

the North of the country while quietly ignoring the concerns

of others like the Igbo who did not vote for him and have

never supported his presidency. His recent reappointment of

Godwin Emefiele as Central Bank governor is being seen as

a mere sop that would not do much to assuage the feeling

of alienation his administration has engendered among the

Igbo.

His weak response to herdsmen attacks in many parts of

the North, seen as a lack of concern for other Nigerians,

makes his stance appear like subtle endorsement of the

activities of the insurgents. Buhari, like most of the elite

from the North, at some point adopted a casual stance that

suggested he was satisfied with the activities of Boko

Haram. This was in the early days of its activities when

prompt condemnation could have gone a long way. Things

remained this way until a strange twist in the tale would

result in Boko Haram hunting after prominent Northerners.

Buhari was a target of one such attack and only escaped

narrowly. Only then did the scale fall from the eyes of the

Northern elite. And they began to align with the rest of

Nigerians to reject the extremist ways of Boko Haram. By

this time, however, matters had got to a head and the

group had become a monster with a life of its own,

answerable to nobody.

That Abuja was, as at last week, embroiled in an argument

with Afenifere and Ohanaeze Ndigbo about the nature of its

recognition of and dealings with Miyetti Allah, the Fulani

cattle breeders umbrella organisation, feeds into the

unsettled narrative that the government is all hunky-dory

with the herdsmen and by extension, cattle herders – a

step from Boko Haram. Activities of the herdsmen and

those of Boko Haram directly or indirectly align with one

another.

It was under these circumstances that a presidential aide,

Lauretta Onochie, issued a statement suggesting that Atiku

Abubakar, Buhari’s opponent who has been in court since

the conclusion of the 2019 elections, is under investigation

for corruption at the United Arab Emirates. Abubakar, it

should be said, has not been a favourite of the Northern

elite or groups like Miyetti Allah that opposed his candidacy

in the 2019 presidential election.

Atiku feels he has been defamed by Onochie’s claim and

has instructed his lawyers to demand compensation

running into billions of naira. It is not surprising that

Lauretta Onochie would attack Atiku in the manner she did.

Her remarks were in consonance with the position of Abuja

that Atiku is at the vanguard of a conspiracy determined to

disrupt violently the Buhari government. What is, therefore,

surprising is that Abuja has not thought it wise to arrest

Atiku considering the gravity of their accusation, one that

has been repeated by other administration officials,

including the military chiefs.

What is Abuja and Buhari up to with their attack on Atiku?

Why have they continued with their claim that he plans to

disrupt Buhari’s inauguration while failing, against the

norm, to act on their accusation for which they say they

have ample evidence? Is theirs a red herring to prepare the

ground for a clampdown on Atiku or a move to undermine

his challenge of the Buhari Administration in the courts?

Is Obasanjo’s own remark about the Fulanisation and

Islamisation of Nigeria an expression of his disappointment

with the failings of the Buhari administration as Sule

Lamido has alleged? Even if one could criticise Obasanjo for

gross insensitivity and unbecoming utterance given his

position as a former president and indeed, one of Nigeria’s

most respected (and vilified?) leaders, would it be right to

assume that his remarks are so much blather? Or could

there be some truth to his observation?

Nigerians, especially leaders, should be careful not to say

things that could aggravate the tense cloud that has

pervaded our country in the last few years. But should that

stop us from telling one another some home truths? A

church might not be the most appropriate place for

Obasanjo to highlight the objectives of Boko Haram. Our

greater concern, however, should be to ask what Buhari is

doing to erase the perception that he supports Fulani

domination and Islamisation of Nigeria.