Chief Albert K. Horsfall is the former Director-General of the State Security Service (SSS) and the Chairman of the defunct Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission (OMPADEC). In this interview with Lawson Hayford, he shares his views on the current insecurity rocking parts of Nigeria, the reasons why Boko Haram should not be labeled as an international terrorist group and his advice on the best approach to tackle the group’s insurgency.
How do you define Boko Haram activities, can we really say it is a political tool in the hands of some privileged northern politicians or just a terrorist group?
On Boko Haram, let me say that we have, during my own tenure in the security service, dealt with Boko Haram before. The Boko Haram is presented as an extremist religious Muslim sect. We have in the past dealt with such extremist religious sects before as was in the case of Maitasine and similar sects. We successfully restrained and sorted out their problems both by applying robust police methods and tactical security measures. In the end, most of the Maitasine members, including the Christian fanatics who emerged in parts of Plateau State and other places, were correctly dealt with and the problems they posed were peacefully put to rest and many of those involved including the Maitasine have subsequently decided to follow the path of peaceful coexistence with their neighbours and remain good Nigerian citizens.
The issue of the Boko Haram cannot be too different. The only problem is that unlike in the past cases, Boko Haram appears to be the foot soldiers of certain top political interests. These political interests or groups must by now be very well known to the security and intelligence services. If there have to be any discussion at all, then the government or its political organ should negotiate with the political sponsors of the Boko Haram and agree on a political deal with them to resolve the problem in a political manner. I think it will be overloading the task of the security service to let them be the ones to solve a political issue which might be the undertone behind the Boko Haram rebellion.
If, on the other hand, the political leadership is unable to do this successfully, then it will still be its responsibility to direct the security intelligence agencies to properly identify the political leadership behind the Boko Haram rebellion and arrest them and deal with them appropriately through interrogation and prosecution.
To my mind, to attempt a negotiated settlement with the foot soldiers, who are the Boko Haram, will be fruitless. What do you negotiate with them? Let us assume that they are religious fanatics, and if you discuss issues of politics with them, what would their demands be? They will ask for mainly one thing – imposition of Sharia rule on this country. But this demand will be impossible to meet. The constitution of this country declares Nigeria as a circular state and no government will be permitted to negotiate on the issue of inalienable political status of Nigeria. If you try to do so then the Christians will come up with a demand for Canon Law. The end result of such a treacherous path of negotiation or dialogue will be confusion and lawlessness.?
I have said in an earlier interview months ago that there are areas where the Boko Haram must have a case, a good case. For instance, the alleged summary execution of their leader after he was arrested alive and put in detention was totally unjustified and illegal. If the story is true, then those behind that illegal execution should be immediately arrested and tried according to the law of the land. But to unduly stretch this question of Boko Haram and make it look like a monster which does not have a human face and cannot, therefore, be restrained or warned over is totally unacceptable.
I believe the proper combination of security and political action will effectively resolve this issue of Boko Haram. I must assume that the bulk of the Boko Haram members are Nigerians and as such they will not allow their country to be destroyed or dismembered over some fanatical agitations which is contrary to the constitutional law of their country and which if followed through, will take this country back to the middle ages in the modern world of science, technology, space and democracy.
?
What in your opinion is the best approach to handle the Boko Haram insurgency in the northern Nigeria because the federal government appears to have exhausted its strategies? More so, is it right to term the sect an international terrorist group?
I have said the Boko Haram and its kind have been us with us. It is not new and I have enumerated the tactics we used at that time to tackle it when I was the head of operation in the then NSA. Every security threat has its own peculiar aspect and dimension. Those who are wearing the shoes now are in a much better position to assess and dissect and react on what they are facing. The Americans have their own problems and we too have ours. I am not quite sure the tendency of inviting top officials to Washington to explain to our internal affairs happened in our days. It did not. All of these are new phenomena and those who are wearing the shoe now will be able to deal it more adequately than I can.
You will get it wrong if we all should reason that Boko haram should be termed an international terrorist group. The American government knows how to tackle international terrorism characterized by themselves, not problems peculiar to Nigeria. Again, I want to repeat that Boko Haram is not new. The people have been living with us. First, it was Maitasine. Then, there was this other fellow called El Zak Zaki and so on. They are still there. From time to time, they re-surface in this particular case and time. This is because some politicians who think they can intimidate the rest of Nigeria had invoked them. This is like one invoking the spirit of the ancestors in any crisis situation. This means that they are always there, nobody manufactured them. Nobody says that Boko haram came from Benin, Niger or Chad. It is when the local elements arose that these external elements who are their kith and kin just across the border came to join them.
I do not think that we should allow anybody to declare Boko Haram international terrorist organization because we can solve this problem by ourselves. We have done so before and the capacity and the experience to do so still reside in our own system. As Boko Haram has resurrected from Maitasine or El Zak Zaki and so on, we also have our people, our records, our experience on these issues which can be tapped and used to neutralized the threat of Boko Haram threat. It is an internal threat other than international threat. I just wonder what some Nigerians think of this international intrusion into the affairs of Nigeria.
?
Do you foresee an early end to this Boko Haram crisis given the huge budgetary allocation earmarked in this year’s budget to tackle insecurity in the country?
Yes, of course. It has been done before. It is our own people who did it. We didn’t seek for any external aid or assistance. In fact the security services are more sophisticated today than they were in my days. They have all the gadgets in the world for modern intelligence gathering and penetration. Some of the young men operating today are the boys I trained. They know the tricks and should be able to handle it if they have all the necessary support of the public and of the government. If they have the support of the government, the public has to rise together to support the security services because security concerns everybody. If you bring the FBI or the CIA or the American Marines here to fight Boko Haram, it will take them quite some times to understand the problem to tackle it. Soon, the local population will raise an outcry that they are encroaching on the privacy of the womanhood particularly in the northern part of the country. And this is highly regarded in the Islamic world. We have one problem now and we should not try to escalate it because I feel very strongly this problem of Boko Haram can still be solved.
?
Buhari recently threatened that 2015 will be bloody if Jonathan and PDP rigs the poll apart from other provocative comments by him in the past, do we need such threats at this time?
Buhari, as far as I know him, is a responsible and patriotic Nigerian. It is quite possible that those who heard his speech, and I did not, had chosen to narrate it with their own bent and from their own angle. But I know the General and I do not think that he will be the person to threaten violence for his beloved country Nigeria.
I recall that not too long ago, I met him in front of the Transcorp Hilton Hotel. He was waiting to board his vehicle and I was waiting to board my vehicle as well, and we greeted each other and I said to him “General, I hope you have given up this partisan political ambition”. And he said to me he thought I was going to contest the next round myself and I said to him no, that I have since left the field for this new generation. I made this remark with all due respect and sense of responsibility because he himself is a younger man and I think he was born in 1942 or thereabout.
By 2015 I think he will be slightly over 70 and I thought that for all the useful contributions he has made to this country, after 70 he should perhaps call it quit otherwise this new generation will deliberately twist whatever he says and misrepresent his intention, which may be the case in the present issue.
?
?