body-container-line-1
06.06.2016 Opinion

The Price Of Peace

By  Abdulrazaq O Hamzat
The Price Of Peace
06.06.2016 LISTEN

Few months ago, the International Center for Transitional Justice made a publication titled peace versus justice: A false dilemma in which it noted that, for a long time, making compromises on justice with powerful perpetrators of mass atrocities has been an integral part of peace negotiations in ending conflicts. The immediate concern of ending the violence often resulted in amnesties for war crimes and crimes against humanity, sometimes even presenting the calls for justice as obstacles to peace.

It noted however that in recent years, there has been marked shift away from the practice of providing immunity from prosecution to those responsible for mass atrocity. This has parallel a growing understanding that the two goals of peace and justice, rather than being exclusive, are mutually reinforcing. Peace, when understood as enduring and long- term peace, goes beyond the immediate goal of ending a conflict and relies on justice and accountability to ensure sustainability. Where mass crimes are not addressed, when the root causes of conflict are not sought out and removed, when victims calls for justice are not heard, the danger of violence recurring remain high.

Few weeks ago, while on social media encouraging friends to join our new peace advocacy campaign tagged, ‘’ promoting peace through social media’’, a maiden project by our new Ngo’ Foundation For Peace. A respected senior friend, Barrister Samuel Opeyemi made some remarks on the promotional post which later led to an elaborate interaction between me and the respected human rights lawyer.

According to him, the name of our new organization ‘’Foundation For Peace’’ didn’t appeal to him, instead, he wrote, ‘’Maybe foundation for justice would have interest me’’. He ended the first comment by saying, ‘’there can be no peace, where justice is denied’’.

From that point onward, our interaction became a little bit more elaborate.

As much as I believe justice cannot be made a secondary priority if lasting peace is to be achieved, i pointed out that, ‘’there can’t be justice, unless there is peace, because even justice need a peaceful atmosphere to take its due course.

Not satisfied with my response to his comment, the human rights lawyer responded with another critical poser in which he asked a very important question. He said, ‘’where did you see peace reign in the midst of Injustice except the peace of the graveyard?

My response to his question followed similar pattern as I wrote, ‘’where have you also seen justice done in the midst of violent conflict or war? I maintained that, the first step is temporal peace, and then, justice should follow for durable and sustainable peace.

Again, not convinced or comfortable with my response, the respected barrister countered once again that, ‘’we are not at war and if there is bickering as we have in Nigeria now; it was caused by injustice perpetrated by others. He maintained that, except there is redress, no peace can be achieved.

While I agree with him completely that the bickering in the country is caused by injustice and that there must be redress for us to achieve lasting peace, I equally maintained that, we are already in the state of war and violence. From war against boko haram, to war against kidnapping, herdsmen, militancy etc, all these are issues that cannot be adequately addressed unless there is an atmosphere of peace. I concluded that, justice cannot be done, in midst of all these conflicts and violent confrontations.

It is important to note that, to address any real or perceived grievances and bring under control, any kind of war or violent conflict, there is need to facilitate or give room for temporary peace, so as to ultimately bring about true justice. There must be peace, whether durable or temporary, for justice to be done. For without peace, even those who seek to do justice may become victim of violence.

After our engagement on the social media, I reflected over our interaction which circled around peace and justice, and I asked myself once again, is it peace or justice that we need to live a fulfilled life as a community of people?

It occurred to me that, finding an appropriate answer to the question seems to be an uneasy task because, for every resolution one arrived at, there is something vital still missing. It was this observation that me concludes that, peace and justice are two sides of the same coin, and one cannot be relegated for the other as both are mutually complimentary. Where durable peace is enjoyed, justice made it possible and wherever justice prevails, that's where peace resides.

I must however note that, peace attain more importance in the sense that, a peaceful atmosphere is needed for justice to take effect. Violence never solves a problem, it compound the problems and breed more violence. This universal truth was embraced by all civil right leaders in world history and it ultimately accounted for their success in social crusade. Those who did the contrary were eventually consumed by the violence they perpetrated.

Let us consider the example of Niger Delta militancy in Nigeria. In 2010, former president Umaru Musa Yaradua, while searching for peace in the Niger Delta region granted amnesty to militants involved in all sorts of criminality without holding them accountable for their crimes. Ensuring justice at that time was considered an obstacle to peace, forgetting that without justice, peace cannot be sustained. The region got 13% derivatives, a specialized Niger delta development commission to address development in the region, amnesty program which sent the militants to all sorts of training abroad and their States earn more than every other states, despite their small sizes. Yet , the militants are back in their usual acts of criminality, but whether the government would pursue peace or justice this time remain to be seen.

My view however is that, government must use justice as its guiding principle towards peace. For no reason should government grant amnesty for deliberate criminality in the name of peace, as such peace can only leads to more criminality. Whenever any group engage in acts of criminality, I hear this statement over and over again from people who said they wish the country well. They say government should dialogue with cruel insurgents, dialogue with destructive militants, dialogue with inciting ipob, dialogue with heartless treasury looters, but nobody is talking about dialogue with the peace loving Nigerians and men of integrity.

If those who are destroying the country continue to get required attention over those who are working to build peacefully, the country would most likely not head to the right direction. This is so because, for every special attention accorded to criminal elements in the society, more than 10 of such elements would emerge. Ugoji Egbujo, a public analyst had stated that, peace makers often have heavy moral burdens imposed on them by the complexity of the endeavor. Because, many times, peacemaking involves some compromise with justice, fairness and other lofty values. And justice trampled or shortchanged, leaves the conscience a bit sore. But without peace, does anything else really worth it? We must ask, can there be true, sustainable peace without justice?

Social contract theory would support the view that justice serves to preserve and promote societal peace. Justice and peace are therefore not mutually exclusive entities. However, social situations sometimes demand that justice in legality be sacrificed to further peace.

This led to the questioned that, Is it just to allow a few corrupt people go unpunished in exchange for tranquility for millions of Nigerians? Is it just to grant Boko haram, mass murderers’ amnesty and stop the killing of thousands of innocent people, if the government cannot contain boko haram immediately? Is it just to enter into discussion with militant’s committing treasonable offenses through act of economic sabotage? And should we accept the sort of peace purchased at such ransom? Ugoji concluded by asking that, what precedent would we set, if leaders must retire to peace and comfort with their loots while poor Nigerians die from easily curable and preventable diseases? Let me also add that, what kind of peace can be achieved by granting militants amnesty, when they can simply wake up tomorrow and pick up arms again?

It is clear here that these militants are not in anyway, interested in peace, justice or development to the Niger Delta region, all they wanted is access to state resources for personal benefits. Many of those who benefitted from previous amnesty programs didn't invest in the region, they went outside the country. One of them even boasted of owning a University in Benin Republic. So, should the entire resources of the region be handed over to these elements, they would not only complicate the already worse situation of the people, they people would have no hope whatsoever in a better future.

And to make matter worse, all the sympathy they get now would no longer be there. Let it be known that, no matter what is done to develop the Niger Delta region, provided it would not place state resources directly in the hands of these militants and their sponsors, whatever is done won’t be enough to make them renounce militancy. Government must therefore deal with these militants using justice as its guiding principle to achieve peace.

Abdulrazaq O Hamzat is a peace Professional and Conflict Transformation Expert. He is also the President, Foundation for Peace Professionals. He writes from Abuja and can be reached on [email protected] .

body-container-line