Bola A. Akinterinwa
Since the 1990 Franco-African summit held in La Baule, France, during which the French President, François Mitterrand, made democratisation a conditionality for the grant of development assistance to African countries, emphasis has always been placed on the need to have a change of government only through the ballot box. Coup d'état is seen as uncivilised and therefore generally considered unacceptable. In fact, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) evolved a policy of zero tolerance for unconstitutional change of government in its region.
ECOWAS Authority sees military take-over of power is an unconstitutional change of government and pays little attention to other means of unconstitutionality like manipulation of the constitution, sit-tightism, and people-sponsored or supported coups. The problem of people's involvement in coup-making raises in whose interest is the protection of constitutional change of government and democracy? And perhaps more importantly in international relations, protesting appears to have become a new method of compelling a change of government. A protest-induced change of government not only creates a fear of change of government but also an additional fear of insecurity. Policy stakeholders, rightly or wrongly, believe that protests can be taken advantage of by hoodlums. As a result, no government wants to condone any protest even if purportedly it is meant to be peaceful.
Consequently, the right of protest is often sacrificed at the altar of fear: fear that hoodlums may hijack the protest; fear of insecurity; fear of shop looting; and fear of governmental incapacity to control the hoodlums. More interestingly, what happens when force is used by government and the aftermath still results in the resignation of the elected president? In this type of situation, is protest an unconstitutional means of change of government?
Protests and Hoodlums
Polemologically, a protest is a revolt with a varying typology. There is a differentiation between and among three types of non-violent direct action: symbolic protest, non-cooperation, and intervention. While symbolic protests are about vigils, protest meetings, marches, posters and picketing with the objective of garnering the viewpoint and support of others, non-cooperation protests involve strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, refusal to pay taxes, etc. This type of protest has the potential to prompt and escalate direct confrontation with the government. Regarding intervention, it involves occupations, blockades, and obstruction of works both of which can 'cause disruption and protesters hope to make political gains in the drama of increased confrontation,' to borrow the words of Claire Runciman of the Department of Sociology, Australian National University (vide her article, "The Right of Protest: Responses to the Franklin Blockade," HRC_assembly, p.153 et s.).
In terms of right of protest, there are three types of rights: civil rights, political rights, and social rights. Civil rights deal essentially with individual freedoms and liberty, such as freedom of speech, legitimate self-defence through the due process of law, etc. Political rights are about the rights of participation in political governance either in the capacity of membership of a political party, organisation, or as a member of an electorate. Social rights include the right of economic support which enables people to live according to the prevailing standards in their society.
What is noteworthy about protests and the right to protest is simply the fear of protests. It is about the implications of any given protest. In general, the right of, and right to, protest is generally accepted as a principle. People believe such a right should exist and be allowed. In practice, there is no consensus on the justification for any protest. For instance, no one wants any loss in production in business dealings during strike, disruption in goods and services, and particularly the loss of innocent lives and inconveniences to people during any riot.
In Nigeria, for example, it is useful to note that there have been seven types of revolt-protest: the 6 December, 1929 Aba Women's Riot; the 27 November, 1947 Abeokuta Women's Revolt; the 17 April 1978 "Ali Must Go" riot; the 25 May-June, 1989 "Anti-SAP" riots; the "June 12, 1993 Protests"; the 2-14 January 2012 "Occupy Nigeria" riot; and the 20 October, 2020 "End SARS" protests. Without doubt, many are the other protests like those of the labour union but they are not like reactive protests. Labour union protests are organised to acquire new benefits when Governments appear not to be cooperating. The seven protests identified above are a form of counter order to government's order of non-cooperation.
In 1929, the protest was majorly against the colonial government's imposition of tax levies in the then Eastern Nigeria. Again in 1947, the causal factor of the protest was the imposition of tax considered to be unfair in Abeokuta at the Alake Palace of Oba Sir Ladapo II. The protest led to the abdication of the king and eventually to the abolition of the tax regime. All the other protests were held in rejection of unfairness in political governance and political chicanery and in rejection of foreign imposition of tax levies. The 1989 protests were against the Structural Adjustment Programmes prescribed by the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The IMF wanted the Government of Nigeria to stop some subsidies and to introduce restructuring programmes as defined by the IMF. And true enough, the Government accepted the advice of the IMF, but the bitterness in the effects of the introduction of the SAP prompted the general protests.
The 1993 protest was in rejection of the annulment of the Presidential election result by the military president, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida. In the same vein, when President Goodluck Jonathan removed the fuel subsidies, the 'Occupy Nigeria' protest was organised and the subsidy was reinstated. The 2020 End SARS that took place at the Lekki Toll Gate in Victoria Island, was a revolt against the known brutality by members of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad. Thus, there was always a reason for revolting. Revolting always took place the moment people believe that Government did not have the intention to listen to the concerns of the people.
Observing lato sensu, women of Nigeria, particularly those in the south, have always taken active parts in public protests. The organisers of the 1929 protests were the Igbo women of Aba in the Eastern Nigeria. It was the turn of the Abeokuta Women's Union, with Madam Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti playing a leading role in 1947. Apart from the women, the role of the Nigerian students was also significant. It was mainly the students, the National Union of Nigerians Students (NUNS) nationwide, that led the resistance to the SAP. And naturally, the Nigerians in the South West led the protest against the annulment of the June 1993 presidential election result. The election result was adjudged to be the most credible in Nigeria's electoral history, especially in light of the fact that it was devoid of religious bigotry and ethnic chauvinism. It was in light of this consideration that Nigerians kicked against the annulment.
The 2020 End SARS protest was quite interesting because of its contradiction. The SARS was set up to fight armed robbers and ensure public safety. However, the unit became an instrument of brutal extortion of people, coercive arrest of people that had nothing to do with crimes, and the attachment of their property. The youth, especially those returning from overseas, were the main victims and they organised the protest and operated in a decentralised manner. In fact, women leadership in the peaceful protests was noteworthy. Particularly noteworthy was the detribalised character of the protest.
Many people hold the belief that every protest is not only political but also driven by tribal interests. There are some social media videos saying that it is better for the Yoruba Southwest to vote against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) than protesting against him. The rationale is that the national protest being planned to begin on August 1, 2024 is believed not to be about hardship but about political machination. More interestingly, if there is a right to protest, is there no right limiting the scope of areas of protest? Agreed, protests are tolerable to the extent of their peacefulness. If the Government admits that any peaceful protest can easily become violent with the infiltration of hoodlums, what prevents the Government from directly evolving a counter-hoodlum strategy to ensure law abiding people to exercise their right of protest? Is it that hoodlums cannot be controlled and prevented from intruding into peaceful protests?
The national protests being planned for August 1, 2024 has the character of an intervention protest because of the political demands inherent in it and because of the potential to generate an increasing confrontation with the government. The nature of the political demands may not be easily comfortable to comply with. The
Protesting and Unconstitutionality
PBAT appears to be handling the protests in the making in a manner of confrontational policy which may have the outcome that is not good for him. As reported, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Kayode Egbetokun, told journalists in an address to them that "we acknowledge the constitutional right of Nigerian citizens to peaceful assembly and protests. However, in the interest of public safety and order, we urge all groups planning to protest to provide necessary details to the Commissioner of Police in the state where the protest is intended to take place.'
More importantly, the IGP noted further that 'to facilitate a successful and incident-free protest, they should please provide the following information: state the proposed protest routes and assembly points; expected duration of the protest; and names and contact details of protest leaders and organisers.' Without doubt, in the thinking of the IGP, having the foregoing requirements will help to 'establish clear communication channels with protest leaders to address any concerns or issues that may arise, minimise the risk of violence, property damage, or criminal activity' (vide "Breaking: IGP Egbetokun to Hunger Protest Organisers: Submit Your Names and Addresses to Police," Phoenix, Thegenius media.com, July 26, 2024).
A closer look at the statement of the IGP clearly suggests a non-seriousness of purpose of the Government. First, the IGP statement was presented by the media as an address to the 'hungry protesters'. By interpretation, the August 1-10, 2024 protest is simply to quench thirst, to have food to eat. If it were to be so, is there any goodness in the collection of addresses that would have been more meaningful in terms of food distribution to the protesters? The demands of the protesters are more political than economic. In fact, the IGP himself reportedly told the journalists that there were pointers to the likely involvement of foreign mercenaries. Do the protesters need mercenaries to press for food or to solve the problem of hunger? Which type of mercenaries are we talking about?
As the IGP put it, 'we note those who have spoken out against any form of protest at this critical juncture, fearing enemies of our country may be manipulating the process. We confirm their fears are genuine, as we have credible intelligence on foreign mercenaries' involvement in this planned protest. The Nigeria Police urge all Nigerians to exercise caution and think twice before joining any protest group.' Good enough, if Government has credible intelligence about the likelihood of involvement of foreign mercenaries, does that not suggest that there is an apparent strategic miscalculation in the expectations from the protesters? Where is the protester that will come into the open to declare his or her address, particularly if he or she is hiding any mercenaries?
The thinking of the Nigerian public in the management of protests in the country is that Government has a wrong policy belief that dividing the rank and file of protesters, as well as arresting their leaders can largely help to contain protestation. Most unfortunately, threat and use of force can only help to stop the demonstration in the immediate but not in the medium and long term. The people also believe that governments are the very stakeholders that plant hoodlums amongst the peaceful protesters. Where do the hoodlums suddenly come from? How do we explain the fact that the Lagos State Government claimed, on the one hand, that no one was killed during the 2020 #EndSARS, and, on the other hand, the same government accepted to settle the burial bills of more than 100 dead people according to a credible source?
In other words, the APC administration does not have integrity and credibility of purpose. There is the need to polish the image of government at various levels. There is the need to also remove the taints on the image of PBAT. In this regard, the best approach is for PBAT, as a president elected on the basis of universal suffrage, to speak directly to the protesters, be they mercenaries or otherwise. The responsibility is to focus on every aspect of the demands of the protesters before the commencement of the protest, and then tell the whole nation, especially the electorate, about how he wants to address the economic and political demands of the protesters. He should seek to convince his followers and stop the unnecessary statements that infuriate people rather than pacifying.
What, for instance, does Major General Edward Buba, the Director of Defence Media Operations, intend to make people believe when he warned that 'while citizens have the right to peaceful protest, they do not have the right to mobilise for anarchy and unleash terror'? We do agree without qualms with the Major General that protesters do not have the right to mobilise for anarchy and unleash terror. In this case, who in Nigeria has the right to mobilise for anarchy or unleash terror? Is it even lawful for the Government of Nigeria to mobilise for anarchy and unleash terror? Within the frameworks of Article 2(4) and Article 51 of the UN Charter, and particularly in light of the principle of International Responsibility to Protect (IR2P), the PBAT administration cannot afford the luxury of mistreating protesters that are protesting lawfully and peacefully. It is always in a country like Nigeria that protesters can be killed and consciously denied, a situation that has never been helpful, but has only served as an agent provovateur for the deepening of Nigeria's politico-security problems. If PBAT wants peace of mind, it is the demands of the protesters that should first be objectively taken and addressed before the ten-day protest begins.
Perhaps most notably, the choice of a ten-day protest may not be simply set aside. In the likely strategic calculations of the protesters, government is seen to be most likely to use heavy force on them to undermine the protest and possibly kill some people under the pretext of containing hoodlums. In the event of this likelihood, protesters cannot but have a stronger basis to harden their demands and position and to prolong their protest until PBAT is removed. It is therefore a constructive dialogue and personal diplomacy of PBAT that is required at this juncture. By implication, the law enforcement agents must also further sharpen their eagle eyes to fish out hoodlums during protests. It is not and cannot be the responsibility of peaceful protesters to assume the responsibility of maintaining security orderliness at the level of the hoodlums. Protesters have demands and the demands are what should attract governmental attention.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Additionally, the Major General said 'the level of violence being envisaged can only be described as a stage for anarchy. The Armed Forces on its part will not stand by and allow anarchy to befall our nation.' We cannot agree more on this matter. The implication of this statement is that the military has foreseen a war in the making which is technically called anarchy for the moment. The political sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nigeria is seen to be under threat. In other words, the problem is not simply about removal of PBAT. In this regard, how does the preparation of an imagined war help in the dismantlement of an impending protest? How does the military fit in well into protest management and addressing the demands of the protesters? The hullaballoo is still at the level of crisis and not conflict, quo vadis?
For instance, as revealed by one of the reported organisers of the protest, Omoyele Sowore, the former presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, the protesters want PBAT, at the socio-economic level, to re-adopt the policy of fuel subsidy, pay workers a minimum wage of N250,000, 'invest heavily in education and give Nigerian students grants, not loans, aggressively pursue free and compulsory education for children across Nigeria, and rationalise public owned enterprises sold to government officials and cronies'.
At the politico-cultural level, the protesters are demanding the release of Nnamdi Kanu the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), from the DSS detention; enable Diaspora voting during the general elections; replace the military constitution of 1999 with a people-made constitution, 'through a Sovereign National Conference followed by a National Referendum;' toss the Senate arm of the Nigerian legislative system and make law-making a part-time endeavour; probe former and current Nigerian leaders who have looted the treasury and put recovered loot in a special account to fund education, restructuring of Nigeria; reconstitution of the INEC to remove corrupt officials; as well as engage in massive shake-ups in the judiciary to send out the 'cabals of corrupt generation of judges and judicial officers.
Without any whiff of doubt, many of the demands can be very difficult to deal with. The implications of a sovereign national conference can be too risky for a PBAT that does not want the dismantlement of Nigeria. There is no demand that has not been addressed in the 19-volume 2014 National Conference report. For once, policy makers should seek to address the main issues rather than dancing around them.
Instead for PBAT to sit down with his advisers and reflect on every demand, to ascertain which is possible to entertain, then provide needed explications on why some demands may not be possible, and then address all Nigerians beyond the political class, governors are frolicking around, giving the impression that they are seeking solutions. Political and traditional elite are begging the protesters. The law enforcement agents are speaking in the language of manu militari and braggadocio. Unfortunately, Nigeria's enemies are, à priori, not the protesters, but the countries that would like to ride on the back of PBAT to aggress the Member States of the Alliance of Sahel States which shamed out France and the United States from Niger Republic. The reported infiltration of al Qaeda terrorists into Nigeria is another enemy. This means the eventual strengthening of the Boko Haram. PBAT's chairmanship of the ECOWAS is less of an enemy but more of financial and security burden for Nigeria. Consequently, what PBAT needs currently is the understanding of the people of Nigeria. Advisers should not be engaging Nigerians on his behalf. A special, widely covered presidential chat with the people of Nigeria is what is necessary. It is likely to drastically reduce the animosity vis-à-vis PBAT and his government. Above all, the immediate problem is protest. The long term problem is the issue of protest as another means of change of government in Africa. There is therefore the need for caution.
