Govt should name, shame and indeed prosecute Boko Haram financiers, not just identify them

Ordinarily, the revelation by the Minister of Interior, Mr. Rauf Aregesola, that over 100 high-risk financiers of the Boko Haram terrorist group that has been waging a protracted insurgency resulting in large scale deaths, destruction and displacement of persons and livelihoods in the North-East region of the country have been identified should be heart-warming. Indeed, it should normally be taken as indication of the determination of the Federal Government to deal decisively with the menace. Speaking at the 3rd Ministerial Conference in India on Counter-Terrorism Financing with the theme, ‘No Money for Terror’, the minister poured encomiums on the Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) for unmasking the suspects who he said have links with 10 countries. According to him, “The unique ability of the NFIU to work with counterparts in the region and across the world, particularly through the framework of the Egmont Group of FIUs is a key asset to our country…In 2019, the NFIU commenced an in-depth analysis of the financing of the Boko Haram group. This analysis which took almost 18 months to complete, resulted in the identification of almost 100 high-risk financiers and identified links to 10 different countries…Ultimately, the results of the analysis resulted in the arrest of 48 of the financiers and the ongoing prosecution of a number of them”.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to blame most Nigerians who will take this information with skepticism because this is not the first time such disclosures will be made by high public officials, with nothing meaningful being done to prosecute those involved in such nefarious crimes. For example, in March 2021, presidential spokesman, Mr. Garba Shehu, told the press that the Nigerian government had arrested 400 bureaux de change operators for allegedly funding the Boko Haram insurgency in the country, emphasising that the suspects were transferring money to the terrorists. Surprisingly, the identities of these suspects were not disclosed and there has so far been no report made to the public on the progress made in their prosecution. Indeed, Shehu’s colleague, Mr. Femi Adesina, had stated that the government was more interested in prosecuting the terrorism financiers than in naming and shaming them as being demanded by members of the public.

It is thus pertinent to wonder if Mr. Aregbesola’s disclosure in the current instant is not following this unproductive pattern. We cannot fathom why the minister kept mute as regards the names and other details of the terrorism sponsors. If 48 of the suspects have indeed been arrested and are being prosecuted, why are their identities being kept secret? In which courts are they being tried and why is there no coverage of such cases in the media? In any case, if the NFIU has its facts correct that 100 of such persons have been identified, how come that only 48 of them have been apprehended and purportedly being tried? The minister’s applause for the NFIU is, in our view, decidedly unjustified if as he said the agency only began investigating the financing of the Boko Haram group in 2019. The group had begun its destructive campaign over a decade before then. Surely, if the sources of Boko Haram’s funding had been seriously probed and blocked at the inception of its insurgency, it is not unreasonable to assume that it would have been prevented from transforming into the monster it has become today.

Responding to earlier demands by the public that those the government claimed had been identified as financiers of terrorism be named and shamed, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), had sought to justify why the authorities could not accede to such requests. In his words, “Naming and shaming of suspects is not embarked upon as a policy by the Federal Government out of sheer respect for the constitutional rights of Nigerians relating to presumption of innocence. It is a product of constitutionalism and the law. It is rooted in the law and the names of the suspects will accordingly be made public at the point of judicial arraignment while the trials are about judicial processes and not media sensations…We must strike a balance between constitutional presumption of innocence and evidential proof of reasonable ground of suspicion in making disclosures with terrorism funding and financing”. We find this resort to legal technicalities to justify a refusal to do the rational and needful in naming suspected financiers of terror unconvincing, especially given the high casualties and massive destruction the country has suffered from these destructive activities.

If indeed the relevant agencies had been thorough and diligent in their investigations as well as sure of their facts, why the hesitancy to name identified suspects? Disclosing their identities does not preclude them from undergoing fair and credible trial through our judicial system where they have ample opportunity to prove their innocence. Rather, hiding their identities suggests that the prosecutorial agencies are unsure of their facts and the solidity of evidence at their disposal. Why indeed the rush to announce to the public that the alleged terrorism financiers have been unmasked when their identities would be hidden?

We recall that before his arraignment in court on July 29, 2022, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for alleged fraud to the tune of N109 billion, the former Accountant-General of the Federation, Mr. Ahmed Idris, had been exposed in the media by the anti-graft agency, which did not wait for the commencement of trial before availing the public of the necessary information.

Again, early in the life of the President Muhammadu Buhari administration, in its first term, security agencies carried out raids on the residences of some Justices of the Supreme Court for alleged corruption and their identities were not masked even before they were arraigned in court. The cases of Mr. Nnamdi Kanu of the now proscribed Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) as well as Mr. Sunday Igboho, an agitator for an independent Yoruba nation, are also well known. They were named and branded as engaging in alleged treasonous acts ever before being charged to court. We thus find it difficult to comprehend why the case of alleged financial sponsors of terrorism who have caused much more havoc to lives and property should be an exception.

Only recently, the Acting Theatre Intelligence Coordinator of the North-East Joint Operation, Hadin Kai, Colonel Obinna Azuike, disclosed to the media that 886 Boko Haram inmates are currently awaiting transfer to Giwa Project in Kainji, Niger State, for prosecution. He said further that 323 detainees were transferred to Operation Safe Corridor in Gombe State for the Deradicalisation, Demobilisation and Rehabilitation (DDR) programme of the Federal Government. According to him, over 82,237 terrorists and their families had surrendered since July 2021 and that of these, 16,577 were active male fighters while 24,499 were women and 41, 161 are children. Can it be that the emphasis of the government is to get these terrorists and their financiers to surrender and repent rather than to face the legal consequences of their horrendous crimes? We sincerely hope that this is not so as it would be tantamount to shielding terrorists, which is nothing but condoning terror. It is detrimental to law and justice.

Update news