A great media debate is currently raging on the management of the sit-at-home dilemma by the Enugu State government. Expectedly, the debaters approach with a mix of legalese and political gamesmanship that show them as protagonists and antagonists of Peter Mbah and the policy itself. This is therefore an attempt to untangle the web of sophistry and commonsense that the combatants are weaving to clarify and sometimes further complicate the issue. In doing so, it is important to establish a background and a context for understanding the debate. But before we do this, let’s invite you to listen to the arguments marshalled by both sides, arguments that sometimes look like a political rather than a public policy debate.
The controversy is about the Governor Peter Mbah policy to persuade citizens of the State to defy illegal order by non-state actors that keeps them indoors every Monday weekday since. This Monday sit at home is a feature of Southeast life for the past two years, since Tuesday 25 July 2021, when it was first instituted. Like those living and doing business in Southeast, non-state actors force citizens of Enugu State indoors every Monday since then. And they comply, lest the violent kill or maim them. At various times, the non-state actors proudly identified as Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Autopilot (a splinter group of IPOB), and Unknown Gun Men (UGM), a faceless gang of anarchists and murderers let loose in the region. Autopilot and UGM operate like terrorists, exerting maximum fear and inflicting heavy casualties to force people indoors on a whim.
How sit at home began in Southeast
Originally, the forced sit-ins, code-named sit-at-home, was the idea of the authentic leadership of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a rag-tag assemblage of diverse actors agitating for separation of Igbo ethnic group from Nigeria. It was first announced on 25 July to take effect from Monday, 9 August 2021. To implement the order, they employed a combination of coercion and limited physical violence to force citizens indoors on scheduled dates. “Nobody should attempt to flout this directive as doing so may come with huge consequences. Anybody flouting this order is taking a grave risk,” IPOB spokesperson Emma Powerful said in the statement announcing the imposition.
In the beginning, these forced holidays were a Monday week observance. However, following a public outcry, IPOB modified the order and restricted the observance to dates that their leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, appeared in court to defend federal allegations that he committed treason. It soon developed into whimsical impositions as the followers of Kanu engaged in leadership supremacy battles. Their peremptory impositions gradually damaged the economy of the Southeast. Most affected were Onitsha and Aba, the economic nerve centres of the region, which have now transformed into commercial ghost towns as national and international visitors turn to safer markets around the region. The Igbo loss became the gain of markets and businesses in adjoining Delta, Cross River, and Rivers States.
IPOB loses initiative
Following public outcry, the authentic IPOB relented and allowed citizens to go about their business on Mondays. This however created a vacuum and IPOB lost the initiative. A rogue splinter group, Autopilot, rose to fill the vacuum created by the incapacitation of the IPOB leader. This splinter group, led by fugitive Simon Ekpa, invited more mindless violence to enforce its whimsical sit-at-home orders. They progressively transformed the region from a damaged economy to a lawless zone where cultists, ritualists, highway bandits, kidnappers, and hired killers (aka unknown gunmen) roam freely. Coupled with poor management of the economy by federal and state governors, life in the Southeast became “nasty, brutish and short” especially for citizens unfortunate enough to fall into the hands of Autopilot and UGM savages.
Their Autopilot and UGM acts of barbarism extended to burning down public buildings, killing and maiming motorists, murdering security agents, and rounding up citizens described as saboteurs to murder and behead them. Although scaled down, these bestial acts continue to this day.
The Enugu Sit at home Debate
It was under this horrible situation that Nigeria’s 2023 electioneering took place. Naturally, the situation became a campaign issue for Southeast governorship candidates. In their various platforms, all of them pledged their readiness to banish the people’s fear of UGM and restore security to their various states if elected. For Enugu State, Gov Mbah borrowed but modified the Anambra playbook to confront the insecurity challenge. The difference was that while Gov Chukwuma Soludo took the battle to non-state actors in their identified enclaves, Enugu decided to persuade and, where necessary, compel citizens to work on Mondays, while promising them security protection. The government believes the situation has become a matter of fear over potential existential threats. In other words, government concluded that citizens are refusing to work on Mondays for fear of potential but unlikely attacks by Autopilot and UGM enforcers.
The Enugu Sit at home Debate is therefore a disputation on the propriety and effectiveness of the government policy. There are two sides to the debate – those for and others against the governor’s strategy to manage the Monday sit-at-home in Enugu State. They are antagonists and the protagonists.
The Antagonists oppose the policy on the bases of morality and the law. In their view, it is morally wrong for a government to force citizens into an action that could potentially lead them to harm, including risk of death and permanent injury. In addition, this is downright illegal as it infringes on the rights of the people to pursuit private business, including how and when to conduct such businesses. Last week they shared a viral video of a security officer saying that it is not the responsibility of the police to force people out of their homes but to protect from harm all those who make the decision to venture out. Finally, they drew attention to unfortunate citizens who fell victims of violence when they obeyed the government order and ventured out.
Supporters of the government action also relied on morality and law in advancing their arguments! They conceded that police are right not to force people out, but contended that governance imposes rules and responsibilities. As my former colleague, Dr. Ambrose Akor, put it, “you are under a different obligation if you have a different employer (for example a state government), rent a shop from the state or local council to serve the public, have students to teach, are a student/pupil, and have the sick to cater for. Even Nnamdi Kanu knows it and says it … Igbos can’t keep drinking poison and expecting our enemies to die from it.” Those in public employment or operating with government license should fulfill their commission to provide the services. If government provides protection, it is morally wrong and a breach of public duty not to provide the service.
A proxy fight
Without being aware of it, the antagonists and protagonists are fighting a proxy war on behalf of the people who provide both public and private goods and services. The debate is therefore essentially on the effectiveness of the strategy and potential outcomes of the government policy for these stakeholders. The stakeholders are therefore the agencies with the primary responsibility to manage the positive and negative outcomes of the policy. They include business owners and public sector managers who make life easy for citizens. As a collective, we do not hear their voices in the debate, understandably; disagreeing with government over a policy carries unintended consequences, unless there is unanimous people support behind it.
These stakeholders owe a responsibility to keep their staff and customers safe while waiting to access their goods or services. They can only be efficient at this through prior collaboration with public safety authorities. It is particularly in their interest for the illegal and thoughtless sit-at-home to end. Stakeholders need to join the debate, including working through back channels to engage with the authorities.
Resolving the Debate
Both arguments come down to a disagreement over method rather than objectives and outcomes. They address a common question – how to remove fear that paralyzes citizens and makes it challenging to lead normal lives in Enugu. Who is surprised that humans disagree over strategy and methods on a public policy issue? This is normal, and expected. However, rather than lead to the sort of acrimony that is developing among citizens, shouldn’t this encourage citizens to more clarity of thought to achieve an effective, if not efficient outcomes for the good of all?
At the end of the day, both sides recognize that they pursue a common goal. This should lead to more constructive debate to give policy makers practicable ideas to adjust and streamline the policy. Secondly, the arguments ought to be positive and productive, not negative and reactionary. Protagonists, antagonists and stakeholders earnestly yearn for peace to return to Enugu and the southeast. It is therefore in everyone’s interest to promote actions and behaviour that open opportunities for citizens not only to enjoy safety but also to move about with feelings of safety in the region.
related
Author
