 The Presidency says Nigerian not interested in naming and shaming alleged sponsors of terrorism and Anduba, a Nigerian politician indicted in the U.S. and the United Kingdom, just might have a chance to become governor of Anambara State. This is post-Politik, a Diameric Anaconda. Presidential spokesperson Femi Adishina has stated that the federal government is not interested in naming and shaming sponsors of terrorism. He said the government is more interested in ensuring that those found guilty will be brought to book. He stated this while responding to questions asked by journalist. He said that they are interested in bringing those found guilty to justice. Specifically, the presidential aide was asked if the president will address the recent move by the United Arab Emirates to place six Nigerians on the terror list. The Nigerians are six of 38 individuals whom the UAE suspects to be financiers of terrorism. Now, on the issue of borrowing, Adishina assured that the Buhari administration borrows for the sake of developing the nation and not to steal like other governments. We're joining us to discuss this. Mr Johnson, let me start with you because you are a specialist when it comes to communications and the likes. What Mr Adishina has said obviously means that the federal government, in his words, will deal with the perpetrators but they're not interested in naming and shaming. But the question that has been on the mind of average Nigerians since that list by the UAE surfaced and the fact that these people have already been made to face justice in the UAE but then there's also a report by the United Nations addressing the fact that we also have people in this government who seemingly might be linked to terrorism. But Nigerians are wondering why the government seems to be tight-lipped about it and why they cannot be naming and shaming. So explain to us why government wants to do one and not the other. I was going to lay a solid background for the conclusion. But let me just do a recap. The government came in with the confidence of the people that they were going to end violent killing across the country and the activities of Boko Haram. Now not too long that the government came in, Boko Haram was, of course, had long face. Then the NETAMO force, with other fearing communities being attacked, farmers being attacked in the Irish study farms. And the force that the government did was to take a tactical side by coming through strategic communication and they called that process farmers and elders classes. Now these are innocent people in the Irish study farms and communities that some people would attack. Now if you understand communication, you understand clearly that that is attempting to minimize or to trivialize the killings and the issue. Then secondly, when it got beyond the elbow and it appeared they were terrorizing the nation and we expected the government to take a huge stand against them. Again, don't forget it was not the media that described them as bandits. It was the government that gave us the name and said we should not shake hands and act of banditry. Then suddenly, the same people who were attacked across the world as a thought, the thought most dangerous in a terrorist group in the world. We started calling them bandits. Then suddenly or gradually we became the second most terrorized nation in the world and the only factors are traceable to these guys. Yet, it used to call them terrorists, not the people, not the government. So if today the government say that they are not ready to name and say those who are involved. Now you can just trace the antecedents of the government stand on this issue from time and take a conclusion. Now what is that conclusion? When you take a group, are dictating for self-determination and you call them terrorists. Now nobody even raised their lamp. Of course, nobody wanted violence in the country. Now when you now take those who are constantly re-violent, killing people, kidnapping for ransom and you see governors coming out to tell us that they are only doing business that they are better off. Now, again you see people who rise against them being decimated day by day. I give you two quick examples. Sometimes they go in bandwidth state. The government cried out that they heard that they were going to attack a starting community and he rose to the president. He complained. He gave them the intel. Now nothing was done. But as soon as the attack was made and the people were slaughtered. Now when the people wanted to mobilize to attack back, you remember what happened? Now they moved into that community and disarmed them. Not just that. The government did not want the state government to make anything out of those killings. Now go to your state. When some people rose against those who were really killing them, ripping their women. Now the government also moved there and disarmed everyone involved. Today, those guys are in prison cells. But the men people that they are moving, who are they killing us? One governor told us that they can move around with arms across the country, have been protected. So what does that tell you? That's a tactical support. And I'll give you one close example to tell you also. So you're alleging that there's a constructed effort or a combined, synergized effort by governments at all levels, states and local, to protect terrorists? Because this is what your analysis seems to be pointing to. Now, I'm attempting to, let me give you the busy, you are free to make your conclusion. Now check for example, when a state governor rose against them, even via law and pronouncement, the government immediately moved and disarmed these people tactically. Now have you noticed that not too long ago, a few weeks ago, when an enemy made a pronouncement and said that they were going to drive these killers out of their community, now suddenly you see the Mietyala handing over some of them that they said were the one perpetrating the acts. Now what does that tell you? Now, they've been harboring them all along and they never gave them up until an enemy made a pronouncement and after that pronouncement, there was no support from the government. Quickly these people did behave themselves. Now each time you see that there is an alarm against them and the government gave tactical support, now they get involved in them all. They get daring them all. Now, I'm just giving you the history of this government, of this government poster. Two words, these same people. So it is just an extension of the poster to say they would not name and shame them. In any case, when the US offered to do that, Nigeria never accepted the offer. They were expecting the government to accept the offer and said, please name them, let's shame them together. Now if we say that we do not want to name and shame them and we are not seeing any trial in the court of law, now should that not tell you that perhaps the government is unable to see us about, do they need anyone involved in this? Okay, let me go to Achike. Achike, do you support what he's saying? Because I'm trying to understand why a government who took an oath to protect and serve us, to protect our lives and our properties would want to support terrorists whom they have turned to be outsiders coming into Nigeria to perpetrate these acts of violence. Why would they be protecting these terrorists and not naming and shaming them, knowing how many people have fallen to the hands of these terrorists? It depends on the nature and character of the government. At some times you have all kinds of people who become governments, people with sundry interests, interests that are sometimes inimical to the interests of the state and to the interests of the people. So it is not uncommon for you to have people in government who might not exactly be patriotic and who may not be in view with the vision for the initial state. So what being that, you look at concrete instances, examples that gives people the impression this government does not have the political will or is not actually interested in putting an end. It's fortunate to come up with that kind of position but there are so many things to look at. For instance, when the United Arab Emirates the very first time destroyed Rukh that some Nigerians had been persecuted and convicted the response from the federal government you will think that it was supposed to be that of elation and happiness and joy that another country had done a job that we could not do. What was the response of the government? So government officials came up to say that while those have been convicted have a right to appeal to a higher court to overturn their conviction if the court so finds that they are not guilty. Now that was a very strange position for the government. It will be again when the government that they are not interested in naming and shaming you want to ask why? Because the international practice is that nations work together when it comes to intelligence sharing. That's the only thing. And so with the very top echelon of terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, ISIS and so on we knew who the leadership was. We knew who the number one person was. We knew who the number two person was and the number three person was in those terrorist organizations. So it's great to share intelligence and information with one another. But what do we have in Nigeria? You have the minister of information say that the Nigerian government is a terrorist in this international best practice. So when the additional now comes and says that there is no people and shaming all the intelligence in prosecuting these terrorists but the minister of information had already told us that the government does not have any interest in prosecuting them. So the government's position is just to give them. That is all. At what point did the information minister say that the government had no interest in prosecuting terrorists? Sorry? At what point did the information minister say this? It's just about two weeks now. It was carried in the national music. Are you talking about the repentant ones? Because of course the federal government has agreed with the army to reintegrate them into society. Of course that also has a question mark. But I don't know about... They're all connected now. If you say if the people have committed atrocities and the government says we are not interested in prosecuting them and that according to the minister of information it is international best practice and then the next day you're hearing stories about reintegrating them into the society and so on. You ask yourself what is going on. Of course the minister did not... It was a non-truth from the minister. It wasn't true when he said it was international best practice. It cannot be international best practice because if we look at... All along his history's trajectory the Nurebok trial for instance the trial of those who committed genocide in Rwanda the Arusha International Criminal Court I mean Tribunal and so many others who weren't involved in Kone and the large resistance army of Uganda and then Congolese counterpart who committed atrocities the same kind of atrocities that Boko Haram committed the looted villages, post-villages rich people, people en masse and then they were brought before the international criminal court and charges levied against them the governments really gave up these people to the international criminal court for prosecution but what you have in Nigeria the minister says it's international best practice it is not true there is no place where the international community called criminal terrorists and killers and then naftis are going to forgive them so any additional is not exactly the truth when he says they are going to prosecute them Nigerians believe immediately the United Arab Emirates believes the names of Nigerians and the people sponsoring terrorists in Nigeria what was actually of Nigerians everywhere Nigeria said on social media and so many others you know fora that they doubted the ability of the federal government to name these people so what does that mean that in this suspicion and people have always talked about it that the government is treating killers with these gloves because there are things we do not know look at the patami issue they came out and spoke in favor of patami perhaps the man has changed but the reality because these things are so high you don't want to leave that kind of person in government and because the issue of change is something that is psychological something that is also spiritual you cannot determine whether a person has a certain type of person has changed nobody has it so in order to be safe you make sure that the person is removed from the system but what did the government do the government did not was not interested in doing that let me come back to you Mr. Johnson we keep talking about the government yes the box stops at the table of Mr. President but then we have other arms of government we have the judiciary we have the legislator we even have states and local governments who also seem to be the ones mostly at the receiving end and I'm talking about parts of the country where their people are at the receiving end we're talking about better states we're talking about all of the states in the northwest we're talking about even the middle belt if the federal government seems to be unwilling what are the state governments doing to push or force the arm of government and where does this even leave the average Nigerian who seems to have lost family or our gallant soldiers whether they be the Air Force or the Army or the Navy or even the Joint Tax Force and the people who are policing in these areas what message is the government's passing to these people say this if the security police for instance had been decentralized you know and we are now in control under the control of governments and there's breakdown of law and order in the society and you have criminal elements lane-search on the state do you think that anybody is going to call the president they are not going to call the president they are only calling the president the governor will be head responsible by the citizens because he has a primary responsibility you know and control over the the deployment of security of the police of police in his domain but it is because he does not have that power he does not have that ability so they can all the world would find a ready excuse in blaming the president for his inability to show security of the citizens and then he talked about the judiciary they all have rules to play but the judiciary is not the prosecuting agency of government they are not the ones cases have to be brushed before them by the government after the government has done his job then that is at that level that the judiciary will do its own we cannot show responsibilities if you don't bring the school before the judiciary they are not going to get involved in it you know and then look at the government and of course the issues of security is the total amount, the total amount of the federal government 100% but that is not to say that the citizens cannot have a responsibility or term asking for the government to make it possible for the citizens to be armed you know because you can't go up against terrorists with their bows and arrows it is suicide but the government has the very very lot of issues about it is that in certain parts of the north they are allowing it you know to carry arms you do not allow it so it is this double standard that a lot of people are worried about and that is why people believe there is something that is going on in the government that they are not telling us and that the government is not exactly in the sense of what is going on it is unfortunate that we have that feeling yeah Mr. Johnson, apparently this question was for you but Achike had to answer it so there is still the third part of the question where does this leave the victims soldiers who have died people who have lost friends and family people who their family members have been killed in custody those who have even had to sell their property to get their family members who were abducted by the mass of the hands of these kidnappers I mean the list is endless there are people who have been one way or the other driven away from where they used to call home and the government on the one hand is saying that these people are brothers and sisters to borrow the words of the presidency and we should learn to accommodate them and then the government is also saying that they need to reintegrate them and we are asking so many questions we have not been able to get answers to yet there are also governors and leaders who have said take up arms, protect yourself we need to result to self-help there seems to be so many dissenting voices and not one voice that is speaking to the calm that we are looking for let me attempt to contribute to the last question but I am moving to the one you just asked there are other bodies like state governments local government council and others although the box talk about the devil of the president perhaps others could do something or can do something now security has been placed on that exclusively that falls under the purview of the federal government and we have a very peculiar structure or what they will call security infrastructure or sorry architecture the federal government controls the armed forces the federal government controls the police the federal government controls even the people they think and the state controls practically nothing as a matter of fact we have advocated all the time for state police but of course, he hasn't stayed in its position against that so if those who are coming against us come with guns come with dangerous and those four can match them with arms are controlled by the federal government now logically it just follows that if nothing is or if not much is being done you don't blame people who are armed less who are not adding arms we take the blame to those who control those who have the arms even when we are not getting enough and we complain to the president he said the idea was not bad the former idea so it means he was doing enough we cried against the army chiefs for how long they were never changed each time some killings upon they enter the dealer they have some mentions and they come out and they said oh and you know we issue statement now see even when children were being kidnapped from schools what exactly did the government do let's quickly put a wrap on this conversation Mr Johnson so Mr Fermi Adishina has said that there are security different security agencies working on dealing with this issue and that the people that we are asking to be named and changed will finally appear in court they will have their day in court and of course they will have serious cases for them to face and justice will be served so in closing do we see this happening anytime soon or as you have said we should not hold our breath well I am a die hard optimist in this country so we will continue to hope for the better which means that we will hold that the government will prosecute these guys who are involved in this fight now this company is six years in power now are we saying we have not cost anyone I thought at a time like that who were raising some eyebrows that all we know those who are sponsoring each time in those days the government come out to say they are politically motivated does that mean that they didn't have their intel to know who motivated those things politically or were they just saying this to ensure that they divert attention from themselves now please note that I am not saying that the government is directly sponsoring terrorism but what we are saying is simple that the response of the government shows that there are questions to be asked and so if we will not name and shame them and we are not saying anyone in court or till today yet the government says that they will have their day in court is it those who don't even know that they will have their day in court or those that foreign nations help us to name and we are not taking responsibility to take it up from there the people in the UAE have already been prosecuted so they do not need to be prosecuted again if those ones have been prosecuted is it that they didn't name anybody back home here so those we have also identified so why are we not bringing them out it's a big question that needs to be answered unfortunately we have to wrap things up thank you very much for being part of the conversation we appreciate it thank you well we will take a short break and when we come back new reports will indicate that and you will have the candidates of the all progressive congress APC for the November 6th some years back for smuggling dollars to the US and pounds to the UK who was a subject of the UK investigation into an advance free front scheme known as 419 in Nigeria when we come back we will talk more