The federal government has remained silent on a 2020 legal brief reportedly written by the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Amupitan, in which he described the Boko Haram insurgency and attacks by “Fulani herdsmen” as part of a coordinated anti-Christian campaign that warranted international intervention.
Calls and messages to the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, seeking the government’s comment on Amupitan’s legal brief, were not responded to as of press time.
This is even as Amupitan is yet to react to the issue since it was reported by Saharareporters on Friday. He could not be reached on his mobile telephone line when Daily Trust called several times. A text message sent to him was also not replied to. His Chief Press Secretary, Dayo Oketola, could not be reached either.
Sources close to the INEC chairman, however, said he was preoccupied with the conduct of the weekend’s Anambra governorship election.
Amupitan was sworn in as INEC chairman by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on October 23 following his confirmation by the Senate.
He was listed among the contributors to a publication titled ‘Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter: Genocide in Nigeria and the Implications for the International Community’, released in 2020 by the International Committee on Nigeria (ICON) and the International Organisation on Peace-building & Social Justice (PSJ).
The report chronicled alleged systematic killings of Christians in Nigeria and called for international intervention. Amupitan’s 80-page chapter was titled ‘Legal Brief: Genocide in Nigeria.’
Also when contacted for comment on whether the Senate was ever aware of Amupitan’s claim on Christian genocide before confirming his appointment, the Senate’s spokesman, Yemi Adaramodu, told Daily Trust that the upper chamber was unaware of it.
“I have never seen it. We are not privy to it, something that I have never seen, something that the Senate has never seen.
“We have never seen, maybe you are the only person who is privy to it. This is something that is not before us; something we don’t know,” he said.
The legal brief, accessed through the website of the publisher over the weekend, alleged that the scale and pattern of killings and displacement in Nigeria met the threshold for genocide under international law and accused the federal government of complicity by failing to protect affected communities and ensuring justice for the victims.
The federal government had, last week, dismissed similar allegations after American President Donald Trump re-designated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) and threatened military action; a move tied to an alleged Christian genocide.
Nigerian authorities had maintained that the security crisis affected all religious groups and was not targeted at Christians.
Amupitan’s 2020 position, which contrasts sharply with the government’s long-standing stance, has prompted a call by the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria (SCSN) for his removal.
Amupitan’s position, recommendations on ‘genocide’
In the paper, Amupitan, who was then a faculty member at the University of Jos, Plateau State, said, among other things, that “it is a notorious fact that there is perpetration of crimes under international law in Nigeria, particularly crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide.
“One word that the Nigerian authorities and international investigators and rapporteurs have not mentioned (or simply refuse to mention) in respect of the protracted violence in Nigeria is ‘genocide.’ Is this a deliberate omission or an oversight?”
He added that the “alleged involvement of the state and non-state actors in the commission of crimes under international law in Nigeria has complicated an already complex situation. Consequently, the situation beckons the urgent need for a neutral and impartial third-party intervention, especially the UN and its key organs, the military and economic superpowers, and regional or sub-regional international organisations of intergovernmental character.
“In a globalised world, international law serves as a binding cord; state sovereignty diminishes to accommodate the common interests of the global community concretised by a mixture of consent, consensus and compelling norms.”
He added that “Boko Haram sect is a desire for the Islamisation of Nigeria. The Fulani ethnic militants, on their part, have engaged in the same anti-Christian violence as their Boko Haram counterparts.
“Since it is the agenda of the Fulani to Islamise the whole of Nigeria, they have used the machinery of the State, deliberately handed over to them by the colonialists, to advance their course at all times. The period of the military regime was used maximally to create states and LGAs, and set boundaries, in a manner that gives economic and political advantages to the Hausa-Fulani ethnic group. The military regime ensured that major strategic appointments went to the Hausa-Fulani group, while their promotions in the public service, especially in the military, police, and customs, were accelerated. The well-orchestrated plan paid off for them because the other ethnic groups did not realise their agenda to Islamise the whole of Nigeria, and by the time the plan was being understood by some, though not all, of the other ethnic groups, the damage had already become too much. The military, police, customs, and the public service as a whole have been taken over completely, with Islamic fundamentalists planted in strategic positions to supervise the final phase of the agenda.”
In his legal brief, Amupitan had advising that the U.S. Department of State refer the case to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.
He had also called on the United Nations Security Council, its relevant organs, and major world powers to, among other recommendations, urge contracting parties to the Genocide Convention to sue Nigeria before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for failing to prevent and punish genocide as required under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention; and consider military intervention by the UN, the African Union (AU) or ECOWAS forces as a last resort, in line with Article 42 of the UN Charter.
Daily Trust