The facts are not in doubt that though insurgency may not be at its peak in the BAY states and the rest of the Sahel but because of the need to close down the many internally displaced persons (IDPs) camps due to donor fatigue to the troubled region, the IDPs situation may be perfectly described as people that are thrown to the sharks in a raging storm to lighten the ship, Michael Olugbode reports.
"The statistics from the ECOWAS Early Warning and Response Network (ECOWARN) paint a sobering picture. Between January and May 2024, our region has witnessed over 7,000 deaths as a result of more than 800 terrorist incidents.
"Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali have been particularly devastated by this relentless violence. This stark reality highlights the staggering human cost of insecurity, and underscores the urgency for a coordinated and decisive action to combat this menace."
These were the words of Nigeria's Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chair of Council of Ministers of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Amb. Yusuf Tuggar, few days ago while officially declaring the two-day 92nd Ordinary Session of the ECOWAS Council of Ministers open in Abuja
To buttress Tuggar's point and to truncate the argument that the IDP camps should be vacated just few days ago, the non state actors, Boko Haram staged audacious multiple attacks on Gwoza, their once declared Caliphate, killing several people and injuring much more persons.
The attacks were suicidal in nature with one of the attackers a female even having a baby on her when the explosive device on her detonated. As if that was not enough to announced their return with reign of terror, a day later there was another explosion on a farmland in Monguno where two persons were killed.
Most of the camps in the three most affected states of the Northeast, Borno, Adamawa and Yobe (BAY) have been closed down with the IDPs made to return to their homelands that may likely be unsafe.
Borno Governor, Babagana Umara Zulum, on the reasons to shut down IDP camps in Borno made these statements: "The IDP camps were being used for criminal activities, including prostitution and drug abuse.The camps were being used for armed robbery and theft.The IDP camps were becoming slums. The IDP camps were not meant to be permanent structures. The closure of the camps would allow for the dignified economic and social development of the people.
"The government would provide monthly stipends to support the returnees. The government would provide resettlement packages, including food and other items. The government was not forcing anyone to leave the camps, but the camps must be closed to ensure peace and stability in the state. The return of IDPs to their ancestral homes was a key objective in restoring peace in the state and the closure of IDP camps would allow for the rebuilding of lives in Borno State."
One thing that was not said in all these was that before the closure of the camps, they were embarrassing protest across some of them on the mismanagement of humanitarian assistance and that hunger was ravaging many of the IDPs who were sometimes compelled to go to the streets to beg for alms.
Now that they were made to leave the camps with what may not last long, with dangers still lurking in the dark, the situation of the IDPs could best be described as throwing into the sea excess baggage to safe the ship from sinking in a storm or other emergency.
It is normal under the maritime rule in order to reduce the weight of a ship in emergency situations, such as storms, to improve its stability and buoyancy things are thrown into the sea; this is called "lightening the ship" or "lightening the load."
The allowance is that to lighten the ship, the crew might: pump out water from the hold or tanks; Jettison heavy cargo or equipment overboard; Remove excess fuel or oil; Cut loose anchors or other heavy gear; and even dump water from the ballast tanks.
By reducing the ship's weight, it becomes easier to manage and more likely to stay afloat in rough seas. This tactic has been used for centuries to help ships survive severe weather conditions.
But nowhere was it allowed for the throwing people into the ocean, it is never an acceptable solution to lighten a ship in times of storm. This practice, known as "sacrificing" or "sending people overboard," is a historical concept that has largely been abolished and is considered inhumane and illegal, but in past, there have been instances where passengers or crew members were forced to abandon ship in lifeboats or were even thrown overboard to reduce the ship's weight and improve its chances of staying afloat.
However, this practice is no longer accepted and is considered a violation of human rights and maritime law. Modern maritime regulations and safety protocols prioritise the safety of all individuals on board, and ships are designed to withstand harsh weather conditions without resorting to such drastic measures. Instead, crews use other methods to lighten the ship, as mentioned earlier, such as pumping out water, jettisoning cargo, and adjusting ballast. The safety of all on board is the top priority.
It is unfortunately true that enslaved people were thrown overboard by slave traders in the past as a brutal measure to lighten the ship's load during emergencies or to avoid capture by authorities. This horrific practice was a part of the transatlantic slave trade, which was a devastating system of exploitation and oppression.
The most infamous example is the Zong Massacre in 1781, where the crew of the British slave ship Zong threw at least 138 enslaved Africans into the ocean to collect insurance money. This event became a symbol of the atrocities committed during the slave trade and fueled the abolitionist movement.
Such acts were not only inhumane but also a stark reminder of the dehumanising nature of the slave trade, which treated people as cargo rather than human beings.
But could the closure of the camps not have the same signposts as the reason for its closure may in actuality have been not to continually belaboured deprecated resources with the care of the IDPs.
It is on record that they (the IDPs) might have not been adequately shielded from attacks, there are reported attacks on communities where IDPs have been returned to in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa States.
Here are some instances: November 5, 2023: Suspected non-state armed group (NSAG) operatives killed at least 21 farmers and abducted several others in Monguno and Mafa Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Borno State; November 10, 2023: A clash between crop farmers and herders at Bayamari town in Bursari LGA of Yobe State resulted in one death and seven injuries, with several houses burnt and destroyed; November 18, 2023: NSAGs allegedly attacked the convoy of the Yobe State Governor Mai Mala Buni along Maiduguri-Damaturu Road, killing two policemen and injuring two others; November 27, 2023: Suspected NSAG operatives killed 11 people making charcoal in Bale, a village in Damboa LGA of Borno State.
These attacks and clashes highlight the ongoing security challenges in these states and the risks faced by returned IDPs. Humanitarian actors continue to advocate for the protection and well-being of affected communities in the region.
Displaced persons or refugees have the right to make decisions about their own lives, including where they stay. This is enshrined in various international instruments, including:
The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, which recognize the right of refugees to choose their place of residence.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13), which states that everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of their own country.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 12), which recognizes the right of all persons to liberty of movement and residence.
The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which emphasize the right of internally displaced persons (IDPs) to make decisions about their own displacement and return.
These rights include:The right to choose their place of residence, including the right to return to their home of origin;
The right to freedom of movement, including the right to leave or stay in a particular place; the right to seek asylum in another country; The right to be protected from forced return or displacement; and the right to have access to information and assistance to make informed decisions about their displacement and return.
It's however important to note that these rights are not always respected in practice, and displaced persons or refugees may face various obstacles and challenges in exercising their rights.
Since 2021, the Borno State Government has returned or relocated more than 170,000 IDPs from various camps in the State to their respective homes. Humanitarians had expressed concerns about the safety of the IDPs relocating to locations in areas in proximity to areas controlled by non-state armed groups (NSAGs).
Most of the places of return still lack rudimentary health care, access to education, and other basic services. Those returning to these areas also lack access to land and means of livelihood.
On a positive note, the Government has put security measures in place to ensure the safety of the returnees. These measures include the excavation of trenches, the construction of watch towers, the presence of military outposts, and the deployment of police to the locations of return. Humanitarian partners on the ground reported that despite the Government efforts, many of those returning to their LGAs and villages still lack access to farmland and means of livelihood.
There is definitely cries for assistance and the need not to be returned back to a home that may not be safe yet.
Some IDPs who ran to Yola in the thick of attacks on Gwoza about nine years ago have pleaded that they should not be compelled to move back to the town but be assisted to settle in the Adamawa state capital.
Speaking to our correspondent in Adamawa State, the leader at one of the camp, Jugule Hamed who fled from Bulamawaziri said many of the settlements in Gwoza are still unsaved and they cannot just return there.
He appealed to government and international donors to assist the over 100 people at the camp to settle in Yola as they have found peace in the land and are already farming.
Hamed decried that he lost one of his four children, two brothers to the insurgents, who equally carted away his wife and three other children. He said he has gradually heal from the horror of the attack and the forced marriage of his wife by the insurgents.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
He said: "It is definitely not the time to go back anywhere near Gwoza for me and the people on this camp as the place is not yet safe, we need assistance to keep this camp livable and for our sustenance."
But who would bell the cat, as there are some evidence of dwindling contributions to humanitarian interventions in northeast Nigeria.
In the 2024 Humanitarian Programme Cycle, resources for humanitarian assistance are dwindling, and the number of people targeted for humanitarian interventions has been reduced from 6 million to 4.4 million.
In 2021, the requirements for the Humanitarian Response Plan were not met as the available resources were not commensurate with the needs.
In 2020, only 55% of the required funding for the Humanitarian Response Plan was secured, recording the lowest funding level since the beginning of the joint response.
As of August 2022, the Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) was only 24% funded, with most sectors remaining underfunded.
Funding for humanitarian work in northeast Nigeria has remained stagnant in the past few years.
In 2024 the need for fund is $926.5 million and at July 7 only $199.9 million has been donated and there is little to show that the target will be met since the target has not been met since 2021 with projection at $1.01 billion and donation at $689.1 million, in 2022 projection was $1.13 billion and only $759.3 million, in 2023 it was projected at $1.4 billion but only $585.6 million.
The major humanitarian interventions over the years have been food assistance; Nutrition (preventive & curative); Health; Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH); Shelter; Camp Coordination and Camp Management; Early recovery and livelihood. Since donation has dwindled the United Nations agency and other humanitarian agencies have had to evolve strategies to manage the available funds by reducing the number of people reached with food assistance; closing of nearly half of the centres where malnourished children are treated; shutting down key humanitarian operations in areas where there are still high demand for such services.
The decision was taken with great pains but what else can international donor agencies do when the government that should take the lead have already thrown the IDPs into the ocean for the sharks to steady the boat due to economic recession and perhaps due to other priorities that sometimes inexplainable.
But can we just look the other way when the already traumatised IDPs are thrown into the ocean full of the Boko Haram sharks to feast, we can only hope that the world would not allow this to happen in our time and just like they stood to fight against the Zong Massacre in 1781, they will stand against what is turning to be Boko Haram feasting.
