IN 1983, when the current Head of State led a military coup to overthrow the government of Alhaji Shehu Shagari, one of the main reasons for the military intervention was corruption and near collapse of state system resulting in tortuous hardship on the citizenry. When the coup was announced, it automatically received overwhelming support of Nigerians across ethnic and religious divides.
The Buhari military regime further drew massive support from the civilian population when many of those perceived to be responsible for inflicting the said hardship, the political office holders who served in the Shagari government, were taken into custody. But one man managed to escape out of the country after the coup, Alhaji Umaru Dikko, who bolted to the United Kingdom. Dikko was Shagari’s son in-law and Minister of Transport who was said to be the generalissimo of the then presidency. He also doubled as the Chairman of the Presidential Taskforce on Essential Commodities, a position through which he was alleged to have used to ‘loot’ billions of Dollars from the national purse. Because of this singular allegation, which he had always denied until his death, the Buhari government was desperate to take him in.
Thus, on 5th July, 1984, a Nigerian Airways plane was waiting at the Stansted Airport ready to ferry home crates containing human beings but identified as Diplomatic luggage. There were two persons in one of the crates, one of which is Umaru Dikko and the other an Israeli Mossad hired doctor, an anaesthesiologist, Lev Ariel Shapiro, whose job is to ensure the abductee is alive till Lagos. Unfortunately, the alertness of Dikko’s British secretary, Elizabeth Hayes, who had witnessed the abduction from a window in the house and quickly informed the police; foiled the successful transportation of Dikko to Nigeria from London.
For the operational and diplomatic blunders, three Israelis and a Nigerian were convicted and sentenced to between 10 to 14 years imprisonment for kidnapping and drugging fugitive Dikko in an attempt to smuggle him to Nigeria, while the British government severed diplomatic relations with Nigeria.
Before this diplomatic imbroglio, the Nigerian government during the regime of Olusegun Obasanjo had also failed to extradite General Yakubu Gowon from the UK on the allegation of been linked to the coup that consumed General Murtala Mohammed. This previous failure and the difficulties of effort needed to extradite a fugitive may have dictated the current Buhari’s decision to go unconventional this time and dare the diplomatic damages that may follow to get back her fugitives.
Although, Kanu is a British citizen, the British government is not likely to pursue the cause the way it followed Dikko’s or Gowon’s cases because, typical of western approach, diplomatic infractions involving African states, what matters is not the individual, but the overall interest of the kingdom. The past instances under reference involved very big fishes whose presence in Britain represented huge diplomatic, economic and political gains for the United Kingdom. I doubt if Kanu will be able to benefit from the privileges enjoyed by Gowon and Dikko to warrant the UK expending so much energy and resources that could affect her diplomatic relationship with a nation like Nigeria with little or nothing to gain.
There is the adage which says that stumbling twice on the same stone is a proverbial disgrace, and so when providence throws the same burden on the same man again, he bided his time to ensure he is not defeated the second time, his target having taken solace in the same UK. This time, the man is Nnamdi Kanu. He kept tabs on him, but avoided any contest in the UK. The opportunity provided itself when Nnamdi Kanu strayed away from his safe hole to an African enclave in Kenya for reasons best known to him where he obviously was a neat prey. Here the predator does not need any crate to ferry the prey and Kanu was taken down with the ease of a good hunter to Nigeria in a circumstance not fully disclosed to the public yet.
According to the seasoned writer of our time, Chinua Achebe, when a man is at ease with his Chi, he breaks his palm kernel with ease. That is what has been the fate of the current government as just in days after this success, Sunday Igboho, the champion of Oduduwa Republic found himself in the same trap in Cotonou, Benin Republic to the joy of the Nigerian government. Many Nigerians believe that the tribulations of these boys replicate ‘the hands of Esau and the voice of Jacob’. Kenya has denied any knowledge or having hands in the arrest of Kanu but in diplomatic circles, the practice is to speak the lie while telling the truth or speak the truth when saying nothing.
Igboho’s case appears to be a bit more complex in the eyes of extradition law, but those interested, the big brother, may just ask their friend for a favour, to just keep him there while his office wanes back home.
Although, Kanu is a British citizen, the British government is not likely to pursue the cause the way it followed Dikko’s or Gowon’s cases because, typical of western approach, diplomatic infractions involving African states, what matters is not the individual, but the overall interest of the kingdom. The past instances under reference involved very big fishes whose presence in Britain represented huge diplomatic, economic and political gains for the United Kingdom. I doubt if Kanu will be able to benefit from the privileges enjoyed by Gowon and Dikko to warrant the UK expending so much energy and resources that could affect her diplomatic relationship with a nation like Nigeria with little or nothing to gain.
So, for Kanu, Britain will surely be in the fight without actually entering the ring for the bout especially as this fight has to be fought in two fronts – by asking Kenya for explanation as to how it turned in a British citizen to Nigeria by way of abduction, and asking Nigeria to explain how it abducted her citizen from another country without following the process of extradition if it has any reason to do so. There are equally those who believe that Britain may not after all be completely innocent or ignorant of the entire incident. Britain, up to date, has not made any issue out of the crisis or raised any query either to Nigeria or Kenya. As a result, there is a school of thought that believed that if Britain was offended by, or in conflict with, Nigeria over the Kanu affair, Buhari’s visit to the country where he is now attending the Global Education Summit (GES), after which he is billed to receive medical check-up, would have been problematic.
In addition to the above extenuating circumstances for turning down extradition request, the provisions of the United Nations Convention, The African Charter on Peoples Rights and other similar conventions to which Nigeria is a party does not make agitation for freedom, self-determination or independent state a criminal offence which will stand against Nigeria’s desire for extradition a wishful thinking.
In the Dikko affair where Britain was offended, the country did everything to ensure that the culprits were brought to book in spite of her robust relationship with Israel whose citizens were the major culprits. In fact, in the instance of Gowon, Britain instantly broke relationship with Nigeria just as it did in the case of Dikko. We are yet to witness such menacing belligerence from Britain! I am sure that Britain will not confront Nigeria in this case beyond mere diplomatic rhetoric to curtail criticism; and Kenya will stay on the fence by denying involvement.
So this time, the Buhari government may be victorious and may already be celebrating. Igboho will be given a moon tale trial in Benin and kept at bay to satisfy the brother who is economically very important to the country. This is because it is not likely that Nigeria will be able to satisfy the cumbersome conditions needed to be able to extradite Igboho from the country.
When the abductors of Dikko were being sentenced, the judge said, Britain took it as a grave offence that a fugitive under her roof will be abducted. But surely, it will not be so in this case, if the body language of the British government is a sufficient indicator.
At the level of international law, a state will file for extradition because the individual demanded by the state is charged with a crime for which he is yet to be tried, or tried and convicted but the accused escaped and reached the territory of the other sovereign state. In this case Igboho is not facing any trial for a crime committed yet and his claim is that he ran away from home to avoid being killed by the state. When evidences are tendered, it is likely to weigh in his favour that his house was invaded by the state security apparatus and his aides were killed while others are in detention.
It will be assumed that if he was found, probably he would have been killed and the state which has declared him wanted could use the apparatus of state strength to do the untoward even still. The case of the state is that he is wanted for murder, inciting public violence, among others, but it is generally believed that he is been hunted for his agitation for a nation for the Yorubas; the Oduduwa nation just like Kanu’s Biafra.
In respect of these victories over these two major actors, Buhari may have won the battles, but the main war rages because of the inherent insincerity of purpose over the security challenges facing the country where it is perceived that if half of the strength expended in the trailing and arrest of the two is mobilised towards remedying the overall insecurity in the country, especially in the North, Nigeria wouldn’t be in the current quandary.
In addition to the above extenuating circumstances for turning down extradition request, the provisions of the United Nations Convention, The African Charter on Peoples Rights and other similar conventions to which Nigeria is a party does not make agitation for freedom, self-determination or independent state a criminal offence which will stand against Nigeria’s desire for extradition a wishful thinking.
The main objective of extradition, which is the protection of both international and domestic criminality, will not be proved in this case. The lack of extradition treaty between Nigeria and Benin Republic worsens the possibility of Nigeria’s case which must have dictated the country bidding its time to place a formal request up till now.
In Kanu’s case, a request for extradition will meet a brick wall being a citizen of Britain and the fact that Kanu claimed he left home to save his life when his home was invaded by the military to kill him. Even if he was not a citizen, he most likely will be granted political asylum upon application. But it is most probable that in the current incidents, there will be no diplomatic row and nobody will be imprisoned either for conspiracy or accessory after the facts of these arrests and deportations.
In respect of these victories over these two major actors, Buhari may have won the battles, but the main war rages because of the inherent insincerity of purpose over the security challenges facing the country where it is perceived that if half of the strength expended in the trailing and arrest of the two is mobilised towards remedying the overall insecurity in the country, especially in the North, Nigeria wouldn’t be in the current quandary.
Thus, arresting the agitations is one thing, but addressing why the agitations exist in the first place would definitely serve the best interest of Nigeria and Nigerians.
Alleh (Ph.D.) writes from Abuja.
