I don’t think they have hand in how Boko Haram emerged and how Boko Haram has been successfully taken over by other political forces. So you can’t blame them for that. But there is a possibility that they have their strategy, because there are some of them who think critically. They think the foolish way things are being conducted today by the federal government can even make them more powerful. For instance, if the federal government becomes completely on the verge of collapse, there should be no basis for anyone to express grievance, since power is reasonably shared.

For instance, they may be opposed to what Jonathan as President of Nigeria from the Ijaw is doing; but if they advise him he can dismiss it. No matter how powerful he is, he is not working alone, he’s working with every section of Nigeria. So why can’t they put Jonathan on the correct path? Perhaps, the strategy they are adopting is to let him overwork himself, so that they can easily take over power from him. Of course, the northerners have the numerical strength and now, unlike before, they have the resources. In fact, the richest person in Africa comes from the North. What more can you say about sharing resources and economic power?

 There are also allegations that some governors and individuals who are powerful in the North are sponsoring Boko Haram to destabilise Jonathan’s government . How true is this?

They cannot do it because the amount of money and organisation required to sustain Boko Haram is beyond the power, economic and otherwise, of a governor or even a combination of governors. These governors actually cannot unite themselves because they have differences in religion, ethnicity and money power .There is no way they can coordinate a policy against the Federal Government.

That’s why the elders you’re talking about can come in; but the elders are not as powerful as the governors and some of them will not accept dictation from the governors. I don’t think in the whole of the North there is a governor who has the credibility, capacity and power to inspire people, gather meaningful elders and talk to them. Some of them would regard him simply as someone using his incumbency, some would regard him as immature – I mean, they knew how he came to be and so on.

Now it appears that we are at a crossroads, what would you suggest as the way out of the current insecurity ravaging the North?

I don’t think the President has the moral and political power to do a thing like this. And this is one thing he should be told. He should be a true Nigerian, concerned with the position, unity and progress of Nigeria, irrespective of where he comes himself. If he can to do that, he will win the support of the rest of Nigeria to solve the problem.

For example, virtually all sections of Nigeria, except very few, are in favour of dialogue and amnesty to Boko Haram. If there is a referendum today, those who are advocating dialogue with and amnesty to Boko Haram will win because, they know how to arrive at peace. Secondly, they know what dialogue and amnesty did in the case of the Niger-Delta militants. But the President is against Boko Haram, dialogue and amnesty to Boko Haram, because even though he has been mentioning it, foreigners don’t want him to do so.

The assumption is that even if Boko Haram insurgency continues, he will be unable to deal with this exploitation of Nigeria’s resources by foreign interests. For instance, look at our oil resources, if the President has peace and unity in the country he will not allow this level of exploitation of our oil resources to serve the interest of foreigners, because it is these foreigners that are responsible for advising Nigerian government to embark on this ruinous privatisation, commercialisation and deregulation and minimum government.

It is they (foreigners) who advised him on what to do in the interest of their own economies. So, to solve the problem Jonathan must accept to dialogue and if possible, start implementing amnesty policy.

The National Conference has come up with its recommendations. Are satisfied with the level of discussions and outcomes?

I am not satisfied with the level of discussions and even the outcome because all these dealt with the secondary issues. What is the socio-economic and political system controlling all developments in the country and the political leadership inevitably produced by this system?

For those who are informed observers and patriotic, the root of the problems we are facing, which the National Conference attempted to deal with, is the socio-economic and political systems controlling all the developments in the country and the particular political leadership inevitably produced by the system. Both the system and leadership are based on the self-interest first, public interest second or even incidental. Until you reverse the situation and have a system based on public interest first, self-interest second, you will continue to have this negative state of the nation.