•It’s time for the National Peace Committee to go
As its name may suggest, the National Peace Committee for the 2015
General Elections has probably outlived its usefulness. The elections
have been won and lost across the country. So why is the group still
going about with a sense of relevance and giving the impression that it
is busy making efforts to maintain peace in the polity?
In particular, the critical March 28 presidential election that
produced President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress
(APC) is now history. Considering that the committee was constituted in
response to palpable public fears about a possible eruption of disorder
arising from the presidential election, the concrete reality of a Buhari
presidency should imply closure for its business.
The committee has been useful as an agent of peace, especially in
getting Buhari and then President Goodluck Jonathan of the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP) to sign an agreement to maintain the peace,
irrespective of the result of the presidential poll. With that chapter
over, it is puzzling that the committee seems to have promoted itself to
another level of keeping the post-election peace. An explanation by the
group’s spokesman, Bishop Mathew Hassan Kukah, concerning its meeting
with President Buhari on August 11 is instructive: “We gave a bit of
update about the relevance of the Peace Committee itself and how we can
help to nurture what God has given to us.”
Curiously, the committee’s visit to Buhari came barely three days
after Jonathan had paid him a secret visit, raising public suspicion of
its motive. Kukah compounded this suspicion by what he said about
Buhari’s anti-corruption crusade, which many interpreted as
pro-Jonathan. Kukah said: “I think what we are concerned about is
process. It is no longer a military regime and under our existing laws
everybody is innocent until proven guilty.” Certainly, the Buhari
administration didn’t need such a lesson. Also, the logic appeared to be
corruption-friendly.
Public criticism of this posture has been vigorous, and it is
unlikely that the committee can regain popular confidence. This
development is further proof that the committee is no longer regarded as
a vehicle for peace. Having lost its initial raison d’ĂȘtre, it should
be put to a deserved rest.
Elongation of the committee’s life would mean a continuing
association between the Buhari administration and its members, which may
have negative implications because some of them have been linked with
suspected large-scale scams. Furthermore, the committee’s variegated
membership reflects various interests and tendencies, which are likely
to create internal divisions outside the primary purpose for which it
was started – preventing chaos in the aftermath of the 2015 presidential
election.
Present at the meeting with Buhari were former military ruler General
Abdulsalami Abubakar, the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Sa’ad Abubakar III
and President of the Christian Association of Nigeria, Pastor Ayo
Oritsejafor. Also in attendance were Primate of the Church of Nigeria,
Anglican Communion, Most Reverend Nicholas Okoh, Catholic Archbishop of
Abuja, Cardinal John Onaiyekan, former President of the Nigerian Bar
Association, Mrs Priscilla Kuye, and Senator Ben Obi.
‘The committee has been useful as an agent of peace,
especially in getting Buhari and then President Goodluck Jonathan of the
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to sign an agreement to maintain the
peace, irrespective of the result of the presidential poll. With that
chapter over, it is puzzling that the committee seems to have promoted
itself to another level of keeping the post-election peace’
Evidence of conflicting ideas among the committee’s members
manifested when the Sultan of Sokoto said at a well-publicised event
after the meeting with Buhari: “It is our belief that all those found
guilty should not only have their entire assets seized and forfeited to
government but also face jail sentences.” It is noteworthy that the
Sultan didn’t sound like Bishop Kukah.
There is also the issue of nomenclature as Buhari reportedly referred
to the committee as a council, which suggests an institutional capacity
that it lacks and should not be invested with. In the final analysis,
instead of complicating the peace, it is time for the committee to cease
to exist.
Comments
Post a Comment