John Campbell

Africa in Transition

Campbell tracks political and security developments across sub-Saharan Africa.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Fallout from Qaddafi’s Death in Northern Nigeria

by John Campbell
October 25, 2011

Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi (C) leans on the shoulders of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (centre R) and President of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh (centre L) as they laugh during a photocall before the second Afro-Arab Summit in Sirte October 10, 2010. (Asmaa Waguih/Courtesy Reuters)

Libyan strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi’s relations with Nigeria were ambiguous and complex. He maintained a regular dialogue with both military and civilian governments in Abuja, though usually outside normal diplomatic channels. Nevertheless, within the past year, he gratuitously called for the splitting of Nigeria into two countries, one Christian, the other Muslim.

Among Nigeria’s Muslims, he was praised for providing significant financial support for Muslim institutions, including the Murtala Mohammed mosque in Kano. Many Nigerian Muslims were repelled by Qaddafi’s murder and the subsequent desecration of his remains, saying that because of his work on behalf of international Islam he should be forgiven.

Among Nigerian Christians, Qaddafi was often something of a bogeyman. They suspected him of financially supporting radical Islamic groups in the North, as well as legitimate Muslim institutions and charities. However, at the time, his call for the breakup of Nigeria received some support from anti-Islamic, often Pentecostal clergy.

The chairman of the Nigerian Council of Ulamas expressed the ambiguous views of many Muslim Nigerians about Qaddafi: “The killing of Qaddafi should serve as a lesson to Nigerian and world leaders ranging from local government chairmen to governors and so on. They should know that the most important thing a leader should do is to continue to be just to his followers, going by what has happened to a renowned leader like Qaddafi who had made his mark in the international community. Look at how he has ended in the hands of criminals who call themselves liberators of the Libyan people.”

Nigeria, a current, non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, voted in support of the resolution authorizing NATO action to protect Libyans from Qaddafi. However, as the NATO mission unfolded, many Nigerians, especially Northern Muslims, became increasingly critical of it.

According to the press, negative reaction to Qaddafi’s killing in the predominately Muslim North has resulted in the Nigerian security services taking “proactive measures” to “forestall the breakdown of law and order.” In particular, the police have increased their check points, especially in Kaduna and Maiduguri. According to the Kaduna state police commissioner, “In view of the news of the demise of the hitherto strongman of Libya and its condemnation in some quarters of the society, the Kaduna State Police Command has increased its patrols both foot and vehicular in the entire state so that mischief makers will not cash in and take advantage to cause mayhem.” A spokesman for the State Security Service said that surveillance of religious leaders, especially preaching, had increased: “We have identified some people who had started devising tactics to cause havoc in the state, but we are closing in on them and we will make sure they are isolated.”

Northern Nigeria remains a tinder box, with regular killings that the government blames on “Boko Haram,” a radical Muslim movement, and widespread alienation from the Abuja government. So, the enhanced security measures are no surprise. But, rough security service behavior – including allegations of extra-judicial killings and ubiquitous shake-downs at police checkpoints – has probably made the security situation worse in Maiduguri and other parts of the North. For many Muslims, the “face” of the Abuja government is the police, who are widely hated and are often targeted for killing by radical groups. Therefore, it is legitimate to ask whether further beefing up the police and the military now in the North is wise or whether it will merely increase that region’s alienation from the Abuja government.

Post a Comment 2 Comments

  • Posted by Maduka

    Ambassador Campbell,

    It is very easy to criticise the Nigerian Government, but what exactly would you have them do? The only tools at their disposal are the Nigerian Police and Security Services.

    Events of the past decade have shown that Northern Nigeria is the region most prone to mindless violence – (Miss World riots, Danish Cartoon Riots, riots triggered by US invasion of Afghanistan etc).

    In fact, the Government response is atypical and welcome – i.e. proactively deploying security services to prevent violence. That was clearly not the case in 2002, when something as trivial as a careless statement by a journalist in Lagos, triggered an orgy of killing during the Miss World pageant.

    There is a world of difference between dealing with the so-called “alienation of the North” and maintaining law and order in Nigeria.

    The Nigerian Government can only use the tools at its disposal. Police reform is a topic for another day. But today, tomorrow and next week, the Nigerian Government needs to deploy the Nigerian Army and Police Force to prevent the kind of violence we witnessed in 2005 in response to the Danish Cartoons and reprisal attacks in the South of Nigeria.

    My sister-in-law was passing through Onitsha in 2005. Her bus was stopped by youth brandishing the heads of slaughtered Hausa people. They were looking for more Hausa people to kill in retaliation for the killing of Igbo in the North.

    When writing your next analysis, resist the temptation to jump to your default position: Abuja is bad and the North feels alienated. Nigeria is more complex than that. Violence in Northern Nigeria predates the Obasanjo and Jonathan administrations.

  • Posted by John Ojeah

    Maduka, violence in the North actually predates Nigerian Independence. Remember the 50s violence during deliberation for independence.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required