Why UK Must Not Ignore Nigeria’s Worsening Insecurity -By Dr. Konyere Adiele-Uzoma

The 16th century was when the British first stepped foot on the vast lands that had the presence of over two hundred and fifty ethnic groups. These groups, as independently diverse as they were, still managed to thrive as much as their capabilities permitted. Although scholars agree that the existing relationships between these ethnicities were not always the most cordial, there is a concluding view that irrefutably proves that those relationships were respectfully preserved.

By the time the trans-Atlantic slave trade was effectively declared illegal, the British moved from the illegitimate trading of humans to legitimate commerce. This would lead to the formal annexation of Lagos as a British colony in 1861 and would also mark the first territorial control before the 1914 amalgamation of these vast lands that was eventually called Nigeria. It is safe to say that it was, from this point onwards, that the political and religious trajectory of a people who were unequally bound changed.

The United Kingdom has been intricately tied to Nigeria, albeit predominantly on an uneven slope. It is a position that has never ceased from its first contact with the natives, in the 16th century to its presence engagement in today’s current affairs. This, invariably, means that their pre and post-colonial interests have remained the same. At the centre of their many interests has been the economics of any given situation. This is because economics has always driven a maximised overriding interest as evidenced in their financial and arms support for the Nigerian government during the Nigerian Civil War in 1967. In that war, the lgbo tribe moved to secede and did form a country called Biafra. The British had decided on which faction to support based on the country that they had carefully considered to be the most agreeable to protect their interests. It is this founded factor of interest that made them not to align with any of the founded reasons that the Biafran agitation presented.

The United Kingdom’s support for a unified Nigeria dates back to the aftermath of the 1966 coup where the British played a fundamental role in dissuading a cessation plot by the Northern part of Nigeria. In order to avert this cause, the United Kingdom deployed all of its diplomatic expertise, in order to ensure that the attempted cessation of the Northerners did not succeed.

The above scenarios epitomises classic examples of intentional commitments to engage, wholesomely, where there is a will. It is, therefore, safe to say that the UK government does have every infrastructure to collaborate with Nigeria to fight any form of insurrection or insurgency. This makes radical acceptance very strenuous giving the fact that the United Kingdom does appear to need everything that Nigeria has, less its baggage of resurging insecurity.

In examining precariously closer, the relationship between the United Kingdom and Nigeria has historically been more interest based than it has ever been morally, socially or emotionally based. This, invariably, means that issues bordering on Nigeria’s insecurity, have never really received as much attention as it should have. Whilst it may theoretically be plausible for the UK government to confine its concerns to the internal affairs of its own country, it is not ideally plausible for it to continue to ignore the recurring insurgency that has ravaged Nigeria. Where there was ever a will, much could have been done to establish joint channels with the Nigerian government to combat insecurity. The current state of affairs in Nigeria did not commence in the recent years. Schools of thought have successfully traced its timelines and causes back to the very early 2000s.

Boko Haram first came into existence around 2002. It started as a radical Islamic movement that had its main objectives as rejecting Western education and state corruption. It was not until 2009 that the group gained notoriety and indispensable prominence following the extrajudicial execution of its leader, Mohammed Yusuf. Most Schools of thought have generally marked this incident as the beginning of insurgency as we today know it to be.

By 2010, suicide bombings, prison breaks, police attacks, church and even mosque attacks sprung up.

By 2011, kidnapping was added to the mayhem and has remained a thriving business till date.

By 2014, 278 girls from a secondary school in Chibok Bornu state, would be abducted in the most infamous kidnapping case that Nigeria has ever witnessed. In spite of drawing global recognition, 82 girls still remain in captivity 12 years after the incident. Whilst it is true that Boko Haram stands as the most recognised terrorist group in Nigeria, it is also important to note that they are not responsible for the entire volatility of insecurity that is currently ravaging the country. Other groups, including the Fulani Herdsmen and Niger Delta militants, amongst many others, have all been participants in the act of banditry.

Whilst insecurity may have been a domestic issue for Nigerians, that position has gradually changed given its direct implications for the rest of the world, particularly the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom can not afford to neglect the current security crisis in Nigeria based on the long-term impact that it would have on its own security, economy and migration.

Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) have instituted global jihadist networks which are fast affecting the West. By treating Nigeria’s insecurity as a Nigerian issue, the United Kingdom is being not only complicit but short sighted. This is predominantly because it has failed to factor in the gravity to which Nigeria’s insecurity problems may affect it, in the long run. In other words, there has been a failure in looking at the bigger picture.

There are also economic implications which will ultimately be adverse to the UK’s longstanding trade ties with Nigeria. UK companies operating in the oil and finance sectors, within Nigeria, stand to lose considerably where insecurity continues unabated. It only takes a spell of disruption in the energy markets, supply chains and telecoms for the confidence of investors to be marred.

Nigeria’s insecurity has triggered an influx of migrants, which is something that has become much of an issue for successive UK governments.

It is for this reason that the United Kingdom cannot afford to ignore the insecurity problem in Nigeria. Ignoring it will be counter productive and have an adverse effect on their economy, in the long run. In addressing the issue of clamouring for the UK’s government engagement in joining forces to tackle Nigeria’s insecurity, one must be cautious in their expectations. Whilst putting the boots of their soldiers on ground may not be a viable expectation, sharing intelligence on money laundering, terrorist activities, anti-corruption enforcement amongst other measures, are truly reasonable expectations.

In a most concise final analysis, the United Kingdom should be seen to engage more in the amelioration of Nigeria’s insecurity in order to destabilize and dismantle structures that will ultimately affect global security. The United Kingdom is, indeed, part of that global content. As these criminal networks are not only getting stronger, more organised and technologically advanced, ignoring these threats would not only subsequently impact the United Kingdom’s economy. It would harm the secured existence of their investments stationed within Nigeria.

As Nigeria is a creation of the British and has enjoyed a considerable economic relationship with it, it is only right that the United Kingdom commits to deploy its advanced expertise. Where this is effectively executed, we might just be the nouveau witnesses that will see the final days of insecurity in Nigeria.

*Dr. Konyere Adiele-Uzoma, a UK-based legal practitioner is the CEO of AZU-ERI Mental Health Advocacy Foundation and has held administrative positions in both Case Progression and Case Officer roles in Her Majesty’s Courts Services (HMCS) and Her Majesty’s Prison Services (HMPS), under the Ministry of Justice.