Barely a month after the Federal Government sealed an amnesty deal to end the protracted violence and other criminal activity in the Niger Delta region of the country, an apparent threat of resumption of violence against the state was made by one of the principal beneficiaries of the package, Mr Henry Okah.

In an interview with the Dubai-based Al Jazeera television channel late last month, Mr Okah, whose treason and other criminal, including gunrunning, charges were dropped by the government, claimed that the arms so far surrendered by the main militia organ, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), as part of the amnesty deal, were a tip of the iceberg. He said that the group was ready to return to the creeks and pick up their arms again and fight what they see as their cause.

"There will be a resumption of violence very soon", Mr Okah promised. Mr Okah's main complaint in that interview was that foreign oil companies were still operating in the Niger Delta, and he and his group wanted them out. We are amazed at Mr Okah's new tune. We are equally perplexed that he would slip out of the country on the pretext of obtaining medical attention after his detention on those heinous charges, only to emerge from his South Africa safe haven and make his threats. We have perused the terms of the amnesty offer that President Umaru Musa Yar'adua made to the militants and other criminals in the region, and cannot find any clause that commits the Federal Government to giving the multinational oil companies quit notice. Unless there was indeed an agreement to that effect, and we think it would be unthinkable to contemplate such a scenario, Henry Okah's threats do not make any sense, unless he desires to stir up violence as cover to perpetrate the acts for which he was incarcerated in the first place.

It is noteworthy that some of Mr Okah's kinsmen and fellow ex-militants have denounced him, and have sought to distance themselves from his inflammatory comments. They have also reaffirmed their commitment to abide by the terms of the amnesty that gave them freedom and full rights as bona fide citizens of Nigeria.

Rather than seek to rock the amnesty boat, we call on Mr Okah to reaffirm the renunciation of violence that he committed himself when he signed the amnesty package. From our understanding, Mr Okah is not in a position, after appending his signature to the deal, to pick which terms he should abide by, and which not.

We have only recently advised those in charge of implementing the amnesty package to be up and doing in ensuring that the underlying causes of the rebellion and insurgency in the area are tackled and dealt with in a holistic way. We also canvassed transparency in the conduct of disbursing all proceeds from the amnesty fund. It is crucial, in the light of Mr Okah's threat, that such issues are handled in a way that would convince the ex-militants, Nigerians generally and the international community that the government is serious in addressing the problems of the Niger Delta.

Henry Okah's threat can only have resonance among ex-militants if there are any hints they have been short-changed by officials charged with the responsibility of resettling them and find alternative means of livelihood for their families.

Mr Okah has demonstrated bad faith is his attitude, and given himself away as someone whose words-and signature-should be taken only at face value, and not be trusted.

We believe that he can still change course, and be a useful citizen to this country that has bent over backwards to forgive his crimes-and those of his compatriots- and turn a new page. Otherwise, we think that the government should not be unduly alarmed at such antics. No country in Africa, least of all South Africa, can allow renegades, be they Nigerians resident there, to threaten armed insurrection against their own country.