By Hamidu Mohammed Gobir
Nigerian citizens, Sokoto state indigenes and the people of Sokoto state generally are still grieved by the murder by bandits, of the traditional ruler of Sabon Birni Mohammed Bawa. He was held captive by the bandits for nearly a month. In the aftermath of the incident, the attention of stakeholders and the public has, as usual, focused on certain individuals and the Sokoto state government, while the kidnappers, the very criminals, who carried out the dastardly act, remain a subject of scarce reference.
In the first line of fire is the Sokoto state government, to which criticism is directed for allegedly failing to promptly provide the ransom of N60 million to rescue Bawa from captivity, until he was killed by the bandits. The ire of the public, particularly of the natives of Sabon Birni, is not so much caused by the failure of the relevant authorities, namely, the security agencies and, by extension, the federal government, to deal with insecurity in the area.
Also, targets of the people’s anger are the prominent sons of the district, especially those holding public offices in Sokoto state. Chief among them is the state’s deputy governor, Mohammed Idris Gobir, who is hails from Sabon Birni town.
The mood of the people, especially those closest to the deceased monarch, is understandable. Under such circumstances, frustration and ager are a natural public sentiment, especially towards individuals and authorities that are looked upon to avert the situation, even if it is not their responsibility to prevent it.
In such occasions, past commitment are easily forgotten and have no value in opinion, even though people like the deputy governor must have made previous contributions to deal with the problem, even before they assumed official responsibility.
It is, however, inconceivable that the indigene of a community would purposely refuse to avert or mitigate a calamity that is befalling his own people. There is nothing about human nature that can explain why Mohammed Idris Gobir would fold his arms and watch matters get so bad in the very society he hails from; the place all his relatives live and where he will retire to, when his life’s sojourn is over.
In these nine years, there must have been, among the victims of this tragedy, Gobir’s relatives, friends or close associates. Thus, the man must have been somehow touched by what is happening in his home community and he has no reason to think that he will not, by struck of misfortune, be (God forbid) a direct casualty of the menace of banditry anywhere in the affected area. Gobir has, therefore, no cause to be unconcerned about the situation.
Some commentators would hold Gobir and his principal, the current Governor of Sokoto state, Ahmed Aliyu, to the fact that they were very active agitators for the fight on banditry, when they were in the opposition and it is true that politics might have induced them to assume that posture. But being in government now, the issue of banditry will have no political value. It is to them, a real problem, which they most certainly feel obligated to the people to solve.
If peace and tranquility are the first prerequisites for smooth governance, then it is illogical that the Sokoto state government, the governor and his deputy would spare anything to deal with insecurity in their domain, a fact that raises questions about the belief that the government “refused” to raise the ransom to secure the Sarkin Gobir from captivity. That is not considering the issue of the principle that the institution of government cannot use public funds to finance a criminal enterprise.
Principle may lose its value in times of extreme crisis, especially in matters of life and death. And no one can fairly fault the subjects and the immediate family of late Sarkin Gobir for holding their opinion on the matter, particularly on the matter of the deputy governor giving them hope that was dashed by the final outcome of the whole incident.
Nevertheless, the conduct of the state government in its interaction with the late monarch’s family, through the deputy governor, is logical. Under the principles of such engagements, as enshrined in both secular and religious ideologies, the authorities are not expected to pursue options that could alarm its subjects but rather, under all situations, seek means of inspiring hope and confidence.
The unfortunate saga of Sarkin Gobir Muhammad Bawa is, indeed, a tragedy, the climax of the situation of insecurity in the North-west zone. It also more clearly than ever brings out an irony: with every incident, the ire of the people of the banditry ravaged states is not so much directed at the failure of the relevant authorities, namely, the security agencies and, by extension, the federal government, to deal with insecurity in the area. The masses of the North-west are, instead, embroiled in local dispute over a situation that can be solved only by powers beyond their states.
Those powers ultimately rest with the federal government and there were clear indications that that tier of government was involved in the Sarkin Gobir matter. It is expected that the upper echelon of the nation’s security structure would get involved and even as negotiation with the bandits was exigent, only the central authorities could give any guarantees, especially on the demands of the criminals that required more than the ransom money to meet.
One of them was the populist demand that Fulani herders must be allowed to graze freely in Hausa settlements without being harassed. It is obvious that this is a condition that the Sokoto state government could not have the power to meet, even if it is a situation that it ordinarily desires but that solely depends on the attitude of the inhabitants of the area in question, which the authorities at state and national levels cannot at any time determine, let alone control.
Another precondition for Bawa’s freedom from the bandits was the release of their comrades in the custody of the law. This was also beyond the state government to grant and as time ticked away towards the gunmen’s ultimatum, there was no certainty as to the willingness of the federal authorities to accede to this demand because it is not the nature of governments to give in to such wishes of terrorists.
The last two preconditions clearly explain why the Sarkin Gobir was the bandits’ target. They chose Muhammad Bawa because he fitted the role as a captive. He was prominent enough to draw attention and being a respected natural ruler in an area most affected by banditry, he symbolised the institution that the gunmen tend to defy.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is obvious that the Sokoto state government did have a dilemma on its hands. The deputy governor as its main representative in the matter and a son of Sabon Birni must have had sleepless nights, while the problem degenerated to its tragic conclusion. And he now suffers the double trauma of losing his district head and taking the flack for the tragedy.
Hamidu Gobir writes from 152, Kurmi Avenue, Kabala Costain,Kaduna, Kaduna state
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Sky Daily
