Banner Online News

By Ehichioya Ezomon

The saying, “Be careful what you wish for,” may haunt former Vice President Atiku Abubakar going forward from the ashes of the 10-day #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protest that rocked and racked parts of Nigeria between August 1 and 10, 2024.

The presidential candidate of the main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2019 and 2023 General Elections was most vociferous in cheering the protesters from start to finish without a thought – as many concerned Nigerians had – for how quickly such protests turn violent in the absence of noticeable and recognisable leaders.

Acknowledging the rights of Nigerians to freedom of expression, especially against bad governance, individuals and groups, including the government and the United Nations Department of Safety and Security, appealed to the agitators to shelve their plan, to avoid aggravating an already dire economic situation, and prevent groups with ulterior motives from hijacking the protest.

But standing out from the pack, Atiku’s adamant in stoking the fire, accusing the Bola Tinubu government of attempting to abort the protest. In a post on his X handle on July 23, as first reported by Vanguard on July 24, Atiku said it’s ironic that those stifling the rights of Nigerians to protest in 2024 were leading protesters in 2012 (a reference to now President Tinubu).

Atiku wrote: “For the avoidance of doubt, the rights of citizens to protest are enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution and affirmed by our courts. Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as altered) unequivocally guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and association.

“Chasing shadows and contriving purported persons behind the planned protests is an exercise in futility when it is obvious that Nigerians, including supporters of Tinubu and the ruling APC, are caught up in the hunger, anger, and hopelessness brought about by the incompetence and cluelessness of this government.

“It is deeply ironic that those who now seek to stifle these rights were themselves leading protests in 2012. A responsible government must ensure a safe and secure environment for citizens to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights to peaceful protest. Any attempt to suppress these rights is not only unconstitutional but a direct affront to our democracy.”

Reacting to alleged killings, and the police manhandling of journalists, Atiku, as reported by The Cable on August 2, noted that the protesters had “mostly” conducted themselves well and should be commended, describing as “needless” and “unacceptable,” the high-handedness of some security officers.

“The police must refrain from the molestation of journalists who are merely reporting the protest. It is imperative that security agencies exercise restraint while enforcing law and order,” Atiku said. “Security agencies are encouraged to identify and isolate the minority elements who are resorting to violence and looting, ensuring that the actions of a few do not tarnish the majority of peaceful protesters.”

“To the government, I admonish you to heed the voices of the people and come down from your high horses. It is time to demonstrate a sincere commitment to addressing the demands of the protesters.”

But at a meeting of heads of security agencies in Abuja on August 6, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Kayode Egbetokun, said the police, military and other security agencies involved in the management of the #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria didn’t use live ammunition during the protest.

Egbetokun said: “The police and the military – and indeed other security agencies involved in the management of this protest – have not deployed excessive use of force. Instead, what we had were attacks on security agents during the protest. From our record, there were no shooting incidents by the police.

“The police or military did not use any live ammunition in the management of these protests. Instead, we have had cases where our officers were injured and are in critical condition, as we speak.”

In his national broadcast on July 4, President Tinubu urged the protesters to cease their actions, as his decision to remove the fuel subsidy and unify the foreign exchange systems – key demands for reversal by the protesters – was necessary to eliminate the exploitation by smugglers and rent-seekers, and that he’s fully focused on “delivering governance to the people – good governance, for that matter.”

In a statement same day, Atiku – who even went after the First Lady, Mrs Oluremi Tinubu – noted that the president’s broadcast overlooked the severe economic challenges that Nigerian families had faced since the start of the Tinubu administration, the PUNCH reports.

Atiku said: “This address lacks credibility and fails to offer any immediate, tangible solutions to the Nigerian people. Given the extensive publicity surrounding the protests and the threats issued by government officials against demonstrators, one would have expected President Tinubu to present groundbreaking reforms, particularly those aimed at reducing the exorbitant costs of governance.

“But alas, no such announcements were made. The President ignored the protesters’ demands, such as suspending the purchase of aircraft for the President, downsizing his bloated cabinet, or even eliminating the costly and burdensome office of the First Lady, who has been indulging in extravagant trips at the nation’s expense.

“In his lacklustre recorded speech, President Tinubu offered a superficial account of his so-called reforms, revealing his own tenuous grasp of policy as he failed to convince his audience. While the President has spoken, it is unfortunate that his words lack substance and respect for the protesters’ sentiments, leaving Nigerians with little faith in his reform agenda – if one exists at all.

“We urge the President and his team to own up to their failures over the past 14 months and abandon the absurd theory that the protests are orchestrated by the opposition. This administration has failed on all fronts, even in the simple task of keeping a presidential speech confidential.”

And on August 6, via his X handle, Atiku warned service chiefs and military commanders against authorising the use of lethal force against protesters, saying they’d be held liable for the shooting of peaceful civilian protesters by soldiers and other security operatives.

Atiku’s apparently reacting to the August 6 killing by a soldier of a 16-year-old protester, Ismail Mohammed, in the Samaru community in Zaria, Kaduna State, which the Army said wasn’t authorised, that the suspect soldier had been detained, and high-ranking officers had condoled with the victim’s family and attended his burial.

Atiku’s words: “I wish to convey a stern caution to the distinguished service chiefs and military commanders of Nigeria’s armed forces that those who authorise the use of lethal force against peaceful civilian protesters will be held responsible for committing crimes against humanity, even in the years following their retirement from service.

“The constitutional right to engage in protest is firmly established within our supreme law and reinforced by the judiciary. It is the solemn duty of the government and security agencies to ensure a safe and protected environment for individuals exercising their right to peaceful protest.”

While Atiku’s caution was timely, his galvanising and encouragement of the protesters was less than stellar, considering that the protest eventually got out of hand – a scenario Atiku overlooked while rallying support for the demonstration – such that the protesters called for internal and external overthrow of the Tinubu presidency.

Did the call for unlawful overthrow of a democratically-elected government sit well with Atiku? It might, as Tinubu defeated Atiku to the second position in the February 25, 2023, presidential election; and wanting Tinubu replaced illegally won’t be a new-wish by the Atiku-led opposition.

Recall that while at the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC) in 2023 – in efforts to overturn the declaration of Tinubu as President-elect by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Atiku led a PDP protest march through Abuja streets, ending at the Defence Headquarters for an unmistakable coded message to the military high command!

Calls for a regime change were rampant during the protest, with brazen displays and waving of Russian Flags in major cities and towns across Northern Nigeria – a treasonable offence that Atiku didn’t condemn. Nor did he reproach the massive and wanton attacks, destruction, vandalisation and looting of public and private property in all seven States of the North-West.

Ironically, the six states of the North-East – particularly Atiku’s homestates of Adamawa and Taraba that formed the defunct Gongola State, which Atiku won for the governorship in 1999 before retired Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo tapped him as running mate in the 1999 presidential poll – didn’t witness the scale of havoc the protesters wreaked on the North-West. Why? We should ask Atiku!

Yes, President Tinubu – in investigating the overall protest that turned subversive and treasonous – must look into the alleged killing of protesters by security operatives, which invoked memories of the October 20, 2020, reported massacre by the military at the Lekki Toll Gate in Lagos State. Atiku’s zeroing in on security agents’ activities during the protest is akin to an exhumation of the ghosts of that Lekki tragedy!

While the government strives to meet the protesters’ varied and wide-ranging demands, and takes stock in human and material costs, to gain knowledge of the protest-turned riot, the authorities should shift attention away from identifying the small fries in the chain of execution of the protest, and focus on the big fishes that gave oxygen to its birth, nurturing and sustenance.

It’s welcoming for Atiku to warn against killing of protesters by security operatives. It rankles the sensibilities for security agents, detailed to protect the protesters, to fail in that regard, and expose the protesters to attacks by hoodlums and/or the security operatives themselves. Government should get to the bottom of the alleged complicity and high-handness of the security operatives in dealing with the protesters.

Yet, as they’re at it, the Tinubu administration must grow the balls to ask the hard questions about what Atiku knew about the agitation, planning, organising and execution of the protest that shook the consevative Northern Nigeria, which, over the years, looked docile, reticent, and even complicit as governance went awry in the country, and specially in the region.

Besides what the “unknown leaders” of the protest advertised, what did Atiku, as leader the PDP – and the unofficial head of the opposition in Nigeria – know about the protest that he became the powerful force that encouraged, defended and protected the protestants? Did he merely cash in on an opportune moment for a political Hail Mary?

Was Atiku’s full backing of the protest part of an alleged broader plan to gain the presidency through the backdoor in an overthrow of the government, which many of the protesters actually called for? These questions flow from Atiku’s sequential utterances and statements throughout the protest that destroyed a large swathe of his backyard in Northern Nigeria! A self-inflicted destruction, that is!

* Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria.