THE IPOB: TERRORISM AND SARAKI’S RENTED SCHOLARSHIP ON CONSTITUTIONALISM
By Professor S. A. Zuru
It is a contempt on legal logic and legal reasoning the position of Dr. Saraki on the illegality of the Nigerian Army’s declaration on IPOB and most unfortunate that, despite his credentials and pedigree, he could with, reckless abandon, display this degree of poverty of knowledge on the subject matter. I am pained to have to educate your bandwagon of buy-one-and-get-one-for-free legislators on the jurisprudence of terrorism.
According to Dr. Tarik Ali in his book ” the clash of fundamentalism” a terrorist is a terror merchant and a crusader of ideology of hate whose belief structure negates all entries of rational reasoning and sanctity of the society and human life, he went further to argue that such individual or groups are enemies of the state because they do not recognize the authority of the state and still went further to say that, such groups must not be allowed to exploit the benefits of progress of modern civilization because as a terrorist all he or they know is to undermine progress and destroy civilization”.
In a similar thesis on this issue, Dr. Christopher Huchinghson (another revered scholar of international terrorism, while reviewing the case of Timothy Mackvey, the Oklahoma terror bomber in his book “Regime Change” had this to say, ” Terrorism has lost the inherent accommodation of human conscience and common humanity and a terrorist is a person or groups whose ideology is anchored on hate, revenge, ethnic profiling, cleansing and destructive violence. Dr. Christopher argued further that, every terror cell and group represents a monumental existential threat to continuation of the human family and the concept of modern nation States and therefore every nation state has both moral and legal obligation as a member of organised international community to degrade, disrupt and destroy every vintages of terrorism.
However, it is obvious from your pre-emptive outburst that your pedestrian scholarship on the issue has denied you the benefits of sound educated judgement. The reality is that, in the case of hyper security emergencies, no nation has the luxury of politically correct niceties of legal synonyms and nomenclature. It is an exercise in futility the grand design to deploy the inconsequential legal technicalities inoder to undermine the power of the State and its resolve to destroy home grown terrorism. Without prejudice to your addictive naiveties, permit me to ask this question, if the military, after a clinical prognosis of the characteristics of a threat, can not define it accordingly in order to enable the country to develop a counter strategy to confront it, then who would?
I insist that your buy-one-get-one-for-free legislature with all it’s attendant burden of integrity is not, by every figment of imagination, in a position to do it.
When George W Bush Jr made his famous ” either you are with us or with them” speech at ground zero during the Sept 11 describing and indicting alqa’ida as a terrorist organization, he didn’t consult the US Senate, similarly, when Cameron, the British Prime Minister, in the wake of July 7 attack, described it as terrorism after the Metropolitan Police had done that, he didn’t seek clearance of the British Parliament to do that. Additionally, as a leader of a vital organ of the Government, you must understand that you can’t be in between an electric switch, is either you’re on or you’re off.
Finally, on the ruse and power of words, I would refer you to President Barack Obama’s campaign speech “just words”, lest I forget, the legendary Muhammad Ali had this additional advice for you “a man at 40 who still sees the world exactly the way he did at 20, has wasted 20 years of his life “