 You're welcome back to the breakfast on PLOS TV Africa. Our first big conversation is what's been trending in the past few days in the Nigerian political space. The Minister of Communications and Digital Economy Issa Pandemi has been in the eye of the storm. Many Nigerians are asking him to resign. Over past messages, he preached as a cleric, showing support for terror groups. Here's a report on the issue. The controversy started from his name purportedly on a terror watch list by the United States. In Pandemi's response, he claimed that some cabals in the telecom sector affected by the ongoing reform required SIM card registration with a national identity number were behind his ordeal. After some of his past radical comments went public, he owned up of being naive at that time in reference. Once you're 80 years of age, you're not done. You're not done. Anything you say or anything you do, you will be held accountable for it. Is it telling me that at that time that he made that comment, if he had gone and committed armed robbery and he was caught, they were not going to prosecute him because he was a child? It just doesn't make any sense. This guy has extremist view. He wants to, he wants a giard in Nigeria. The students with us, when they join politics today and they meet for children and their loved ones, they are more careful and they know more about the world around them. In any case, what are they, if you are accusing the minister of abusing power, committing an offense while in office, abuse of power, official misconduct, we can understand that. We can ask him to resign. But what he did has nothing to do with his job. The DSS has also been questioned here. My endurance are asking if the agency did a proper screening before the minister was appointed and what this means. They also saw videos of debates between Pantami, the minister, and Mohammad Yusuf, the former defense leader of Vukuhara, who was killed by the police. Pantami talked with him as stable in public, with light headings, debated with him and disputed him. They should not be violent. If DSS saw that video, do you think DSS wants to stop that kind of person from becoming the minister? Well, the implication is that you have a system that is a sham, is a sham system. You know, so for us to be crying wolf about national security and we are not doing what we are supposed to do to improve on our national security is very dangerous. It means that the DSS is compromising its responsibility of ensuring national security of this country. For some of his critics, this is not one of those cases that should be swept under the carpet because of the sensitivity of the position he holds, which has to do with data of many Nigerians. Thank you for that report. And joining us to take a look at this matter is a lawyer. Good morning. Thanks for joining us. Good morning. Thank you for having me. Good morning to you. This discussion over alleged sympathy to terrorist groups and calls for Pantami to resign. It's been a very heated one. Nigerians are divided. There's the Pantami must go. There's the Pantami must stay hashtags trending on social media. The divide is so glaring. But let's bring in the angle of the law. You're a lawyer. What does the law say about things like this regarding people in power and statements that seem sympathetic to terrorism? The first point I want to make is that every Nigerian under section 39 of the Constitution have the rights to freedom of expression. And in the under section 38 of the Constitution, there is also the right to freedom of conscience and religion. So to the extent that Mr. Pantami or Sheikh Pantami or Dr. Pantami or Malampantami or Imampantami express views on issues. It can be protected to the extent that those views were or are not inconsistent with extent laws do not offend the interest of public order, public safety and public peace. Those views do not by implication seem to give support to criminal elements, to terrorists, to agents who are working to subvert the integrity of the Nigerian state. He also had the right to religion to profess his faith either alone or in community with others. That is also section 38 of the Constitution guarantees. But what is important in this case is for us to look at some of the comments he has made. And I light them within the framework of the law, within the framework of acceptable public communication, within the framework of speech that is tolerable under a legal system. When somebody goes on public record to say that to publicly express support for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, like the Taliban, the Taliban in Afghanistan has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of members of the Afghan forces, for the killings of women, for the violation of the rights of women, under the Taliban rule, of course before the the lost power, women had no right in Taliban in Afghanistan. Till date the Taliban is still killing females or women who express views on issues, women who take interest in politics, and women who want to exercise rights that the Taliban believe they are not entitled to. Taliban is a terrorist organization, it has killed non-Muslims, it has killed moderate Muslims, it has killed innocent people in the hundreds and thousands, the same thing with Al Qaeda. So for anybody to go on record to express empathy for Samar bin Laden, who was the progenitor of a 9-11 attack, to even to the point of saying that you know Samar bin Laden is a better Muslim than him, and for somebody to come on record to praise Boko Haram, to whip and cry that Boko Haram was being killed, to say they are my fellow Muslim brothers, to basically give soft landing to Boko Haram, there are two issues. The first is that these comments, past comments of his may be offensive to the law, may amount to a contravention of the law. But even if what he said cannot be characterized as criminal infraction, those comments are totally incompatible with the nature of the Nigerian state that is supposed to be secular, those comments are offensive, those comments are not suitable for somebody who should hold a public office. In fact, in one of the records, in one of the statements that he made, Pantami publicly decried it and deprecated what he claims were Muslim clerics accepting appointments in government. And he belongs to this Salafi school and a part of that ideology is the belief that it is better to destroy the government from within. These reports are available, the evidence is there. So if Pantami and the past are publicly deprecated, so-called faithful Muslim clerics or people within the Muslim community for accepting to work in a secular state, what is his business in the federal executive council? Well, let me jump in here. It's not about saying that he said it in the past. Even the comment that he has not really renounced those comments. Well, I think that's what I was just going to get into. You've already established that he hasn't necessarily broken any laws based on the freedom of expression that he is guaranteed. But speak on the point where he says that he was young and naive when he made those statements and he knows better now. Can we cut him some slack because of that fact? Is there any way that he can show that he has a different mentality or different ideology now? Let me clarify. I didn't say that those comments are not necessarily criminal. I'm just saying that I don't want to draw conclusions. I don't want to make conclusive remarks on whether what he has done is a criminal. Those comments can be seen as criminally natural. I just gave you a spectrum from two dimensions of what you should look at to say that even if the argument is made that those comments are not criminally natural, there are other grounds on which it should be held accountable. Now, has he renounced those comments? My answer is no. All that he did was just to an attempt to pull wool over the eyes of Nigerians by saying, oh, I was naive. Naive on what point? If you are renouncing, if you are recanting, if you are reneging from your pro-terrorist pedigree, from your antecedents of exuding and demonstrating sympathy for groups and organizations that are known to be terrorist groups, if you are renouncing them, you should be very clear about it. And it should be absolute. You shouldn't make excuses. If you say you were naive, you were inexperienced, at what age? One of the comments he made was in 2006, and at that time it was 33 years. So if Pantami is saying that at 33, he was a kid, he was naive, I think that is a very responsible thing to say. He shows how insensitive he is. He shows how much he underrates the people of this country. You cannot say, oh, you were a kid. But comments have consequences. Actions have consequences. The point is that, other than today, we have an ongoing war with terrorism. The Nigerian security forces are fighting Bukwara. Nigerians are being killed on a daily basis. People are being kidnapped by different soldiers. So when you have somebody who had in the past demonstrated by his comments, by his speech, by his sermons, that to some extent he had the affinity with this group. What is he doing in the public office? What is he doing as Minister of Communications and Digital Economy? Some other thing that has... I listened to what the Moorik director said in the podcast that you play. He was basically blaming Nigerians saying that what he said has nothing to do with his public office, come of it. You cannot say that. Pantami has no business occupying public office. Because those comments he made are still life. Those comments he made are still responsible for why these insurgents are still killing people. If you're saying that Pantami has no business in public office, the question is how did he get there in the first place? This brings us back to the screening process for ministerial nominees and basically makes us ask questions and look at all the lineup of all the ministers we have now in the country to say, if we dig deep enough into their past to reveal what stands they took before they became ministers, what would we find? How rigorous really is the process of screening with regards to the DSS security and all of that? Should we begin to look into that area as well? And how competent really are the people carrying out those screening? Well, we can begin to look at it when we have another government, but as long as the president of Nigeria is Mohamed Buwari, you can't forget about it. We are just wasting our time. This is not the government that is interested in doing thorough investigation, inverting people for public office to begin with. When Buwari came in 2015, it took him six months to come out with this list of angels. At the end of the day, they were the same familiar faces that we have always known in the public domain, in the political arena, the same individuals, some of whom have been ridiculed like the allegations of corruption. So where is the torrentiness? Which security agency in particular are you asking the dispute to face? As far as I'm concerned, pantermists, extremists, and pro-terror comments could have even been the reason for his appointment. I'm not saying these comments slightly. No, I'm not saying it slightly. Why am I saying it? Who is the president of Nigeria, Mohamed Buwari? What is his past? What have been his comments in the past? Buwari is known as having gone on public record to say that Boko Haramem Bagway being killed himself has made similar comments in the past. So you can see the ideological parity between the president and his minister. You don't expect that president to now come and say, oh, I'm not going to have somebody in my cabinet who has endorsed- These are serious claims, Mr. Effion, that the presidency is in on this, and that's even the reason why he got them ministerial points in the first place. Serious claims, and we're yet to even hear from the president regarding this, is just the opposition party right now. You know, the PDP really saying that, you know, pantermists should resign, his breaching national security, or if we're talking about Nin here that he's spearheading, we're seeing that, you know, the data of millions of Nigerians basically is in his hands. And we're seeing Nigerians saying they don't feel safe if their data is with him really right now. Why do you say you have not heard from the president? You know, the problem I have is I don't know where these strange expectations are coming from. Why would you even expect to hear from somebody who has made up his mind not to talk to Nigerians? So if I say, oh, I'm waiting to hear from the president, it shows I'm not a serious person because this president is not talking to Nigeria or anything. I don't expect him to speak on any matter. The higher view we will see will be one irrelevant or offensive comment by a spokesperson on the point, or one dismissive comment by the minister of information. But the point is this, let us not be distracted. We have currently a national security council that is overly, overly made to favour a particular section of the country. Buari has now hidden the fact that he's running in the party government. The appointments have showed him. Look at the security chief, where do they come from? So when you have a president who has shown open religious bias, a president who has governed with so much divisiveness, it is not that kind of president that we should keep having this expectation. I think it has now been proven beyond doubt. We are the ones even making excuses for this man. This president, look at recently there was a credible report that the SSF had recruitment, and that recruitment was queued to also favour a section of the country. So you have this ethnic, this religious sentiment that has creeped into a national council in an unprecedented manner under the leadership of this president. So when you now have people say, oh, go and register for NIN, NIN was there before pandemic became the minister. It has nothing to do with NIN. In any event, how many sponsors of Buari have they not used NIN? Because I heard Murik say, oh, people are saying, oh, that it is a burden in the telecom sectors who against its reform come of it. That is pure deception. The campaign of Colombia. What is his business with a national data? He has not renounced his affiliation. He has not totally renounced his support for terrorist organization. There's no business keeping my data. I'm going to bring in, we actually hope to have you speaking this morning with the executive director of Murik, Professor Shaka Kintola. But for some reasons, we can't connect with him this morning. But I hope that before we end this conversation, you'll be able to respond to some of the things that he also said. Some of the people who are fighting the minister are those robbers and criminals who want him out of government. But I also want you to address the concerns by people that one of the reasons we may have been unsuccessful in the fight against insurgency and terrorism is because there might be people in the government who somehow are apologists to these terror groups who have similar mindsets and have made the fight against insurgency difficult for Nigeria to win. Do you agree with that possibility? Absolutely. The one terror cannot be won by guns, by AK47, by bombs. No. There is also the ideology that has to be fought, that has to be tackled. And I have given you facts. I have stated why that for what may not be won under this precedent. Because there is this ideological priority. There is this semblance of opinion. Look at what are we talking about as we speak, as I'm talking to you now. An organization that calls itself his bar. It's arresting people for not fasting in camp. In Nigeria, it's so-called secular state, you're arresting people for not fasting. Doesn't make any sense to you. So what is the difference between that and what book Aram claimed they are looking for? An Islamic state that you are saying because somebody have not fasted. You want to arrest the person. The other time we read all they went to a school to arrest. We still have this problem that we are not ready to address at the country. Okay. Mr Effiong, I wanted to- Apologies to button Mr Effiong, but I wanted to bring in the angle of something that happened yesterday. We saw a group sympathetic towards Pantami supporting that movement. They put a picture of a Nigerian journalist and they put an X sign on his face and wishing him dead. And we saw a comment by Issa Pantami on Facebook endorsing that death sentence. When people reacted to that, he came on to say that his account was hacked. I don't know if you would interpret that as a retraction or Nigerians now are concerned that if it's not, why should I feel safe about you holding my data as the minister in the position that you hold if you can't secure your own Facebook account? This is a conversation right now on social media regarding this. And if that's not true, really, people are saying why would he, you know, a legend that he's possibly lying when he should not be doing that in a holy month, you know, and a holy time as this, you know, in the Muslim calendar. I don't know how you react to that, Mr Effiong. Well, as far as I'm concerned, I think sometimes we, you know, we just become a bit too diplomatic about these issues. Pantami has no recounted. He has no renounced the views he expressed in the past. Somebody who has shown contrition, somebody who has retraced from his past, somebody who wants to be forgiven, somebody who wants people to give him the benefit of doubt, is the same person that made that comment on social media. What does that tell you? And to make it worse, he had the density to say, oh, my account was hacked. By who? And you're the minister of communications. Anybody, Effiong? Apologize. He has to resign. They are not to blame about it. Pantami has to resign. I kindly hold on. Great that you've stopped there. I want us to now bring in the director of Muslim Rights Council, Nisha Kakinthola, who's joining us on our phone. Good morning. Thanks for joining us, Mr Kakinthola. Good morning. Great to have you. So I want your quick response. I'm not sure if you've been following the program, but we're speaking once again on the minister of communications and digital economy, Mr Pantami. What's your response this morning to those who are asking that he resigns and that his comments from the past are enough reason for him to not hold public office in Nigeria? I don't see any of the communication with the people who resign. There's no reason. Pantami has renown statements he made as a teenager. And of course, we need to follow the line of history. History is not only with depression, but also with the past. Today was born from the warmth of yesterday. Those who are thinking of, those who are working what is said as a teenager, 25,000 years ago. I'm forgetting, I'm following a long line of thought. Mr Kakinthola, we're talking of 2000 to 2006. He wasn't a teenager. He tried somebody to speak, but now he's following the final thought. I just wanted to correct you that he wasn't a teenager in 2006. You let me finish. We want to bring another question. We once friendly interviewed. Why is it that when Muslims speak, you want to cut them off? Go ahead, Mr Kakinthola. I'm going to speak. I'll be telling you what this thing is fighting 25 or 30 years ago. Now, I want to refer to what Pantami did 10 years ago, 13 years ago. Before he became minister. When he didn't even know that he would be made a minister. He debated, he had a debate with Boko Haram leader, Mohammad Yusuf. And he did that then. The subject of the debate was terrorism. Mohammad Yusuf was angry in favor of violence. Pantami argued against it and cited verses of the prayer and they had it. He was able to defeat Boko Haram leader. And it was a public debate. The video things are still available. Now nobody's remembering that. The president just wants to bring a good communication minister down. All right. Number two. Number two, sir. The current Boko Haram leader, by name Shekau, threatened to kill Pantami, the same minister of communications. He threatened to kill him about two months ago. The threat was made publicly on video on February 24th, 2021, 30 months ago. The video clip is in the hands of new general, but you are ignoring it. Pantami's life was in danger. You are not thinking of it. We have your statement here with us, really. And I wanted to ask you, Ms. Akintola, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. How important is the issue of national security to the Moorik? National security is for all of us. Okay. National security is for all of us. How important is the war against anti-terrorism in Nigeria? It is important to all of us. We must defeat terrorism. Okay. Do you think that to defeat terrorism, we need to have people who are sympathetic to terrorists? We don't have a communication minister who is sympathetic to terrorists. That is very clear. Not a communication minister who has been threatened with death by terrorists. Not a communication minister who has been threatened with terrorism in Nigeria even 20 years before the 10th minister. Why are you not ignoring that? Ms. Akintola, we're not talking about a public debate that they held. I mean, we have debates all the time. We are talking about it. We are interested in it. Nigerians are interested in that debate. They are interested in the fight made by terrorists against Pantami. Okay. Ms. Akintola, I wanted to ask you, have you considered the hard facts that we've seen, the evidence, and the fact that indeed, Pantami has not recounted? He simply said that he made those statements as a teenager, which of all agreed that he actually wasn't a teenager, he was in university. He said he was an adult at that time. He said he had been trained. When he became one, he knew better. It is in his statement. You want to ignore it. Do you have to break somebody down by force? Put him down. He is in control. Well, it's not all about bringing it down. Well, asking questions, Ms. Akintola. No one's bringing anyone down. These are your follow-up questions that we're asking, Ms. Akintola. I am answering Ms. Akintola, I would like that you hold on. We have another guest. I would like that he quickly responds to your views. If you're still with us, go ahead, please. Well, the first thing that bubbles me about the comments of Mr. Akintola is when he started by asking me why you are not allowing Muslims to talk, I think in the spirit of Ramadan, such comments shouldn't be made publicly. This divisiveness is not good at all at all in the country. Why must we continually create this artificial or stoke this bias, create this tension between Islam and Christianity? It is not necessary. Now, Mr. Akintola has made his point and I've heard him. But the reality is that as of today, as of today, we have as a communication minister, somebody who publicly stated his support for Sama Biladi, somebody who publicly endorsed the Taliban. Recall, I've listed the atrocities that the Taliban has committed. Taliban has killed thousands of Afghan forces. He keeps talking about the debate. I have read the transcription of that debate. The disagreement were on basically strategy. Pantami did not disagree with Mohamed Yusuf on waging Jihad. He said it was not yet time. Pantami's view was that we needed to question for us to be able to wade that Jihad. So there was no disagreement on how it came. There was no disagreement. Pantami, like Mohamed Yusuf, in that debate also expected a version to the secularity of the Nigerian state. So he is talking about the area that they disagreed on strategy. He's not talking about the substance that they agreed on. So when he makes this comment and says, oh, we should not talk about it, we are trying to bring down a Muslim, how many Christians do we have in the National Security Council? How many Christians, as President Buahari appointed into sensitive positions, is Pantami the only Muslim in the cabinet if it's replaced by another Muslim? Is that a war against Islam? Is it Islam? Is it the position of Islam to endorse what the Taliban has done? Is Morik not the secreting Islam? It's not painting Islam in black light. It's like the Pantami's outrageous irresponsible comments with Islam. And you said that people are fighting him because he's a Muslim. I do not think such comments should be tolerated. All right, Mr. Efron, thank you. Mr. Akintola, I need to bring you in one more time regarding this issue. You mentioned in your press statement saying that people who have been calling for Pantami to resign have ulterior motives on something to gain. Could you shed more light on what you might mean when you said that? A quick objection to the comments of the last speaker. It went too far about Islam and Christianity. I didn't reflect on Islam and Christianity. I referred to myself as a Muslim. I said, you invited me to speak, you asked a question, and you talked too sensitive. After making too sensitive, you wanted to talk to me. I think you mentioned that we're not allowing the Muslim to speak. Yeah, that's what he's referring to also. He said that we're not allowing Muslims to speak. To go into politics, to go into government, the number of Christians in Muslim society, and all the data that these people have given out are false. They are fake. You know, time gave out those data, and the Nigerians broke out of Islamic affairs, confronted time, time has been silent. Because we have Christians and Muslims in government. I think we have over thirty-seven minutes left now. So why are you people always repeating the fact that Christians are marginalized in public? We wouldn't come here for that, not only come for community affairs. Mr Akintola, the issue remains an issue of national security. The bone of contention here is if we have someone in power that was an apologist to terrorism, we have no idea if his ideologies have changed since then. Because like we continue to insist, we have not heard a recount from the minister. We simply heard him say he made the statement as a teenager. I watched the video where he said that. So do you think that it is right, or it is good for the safety of Nigerians, for someone who held those beliefs in the past, and we have no idea if he still does right now, to be in a position of power and a position as sensitive as minister of communications and digital economy? That's the question I'm asking you, Mr Akintola. And if that is right, if that is right, Mr Akintola, would you then endorse that every other person who's spoken up about terrorism should even get ministerial nominations because they made those statements years ago. I repeat my statement which I made earlier. The critics of Kampani and those who want to break them down have ignored what's happened between, what happened from 13 years ago now. And they are insisting, they are repeating what happened 25, 30 years ago. History is continual. You can't bring in an equal regular in the biography of a man. If the history of Kampani's life is written today, you can't live out his debate with with with Muhammad Yusuf. You can't live out the threats made against him by Zekau. That is what you journalists, the section of the journalists are doing. And it is mean and petty, it's unfair. That is what the critics of Kampani are doing. It is mean and petty. It is unsure. All right, Mr Akintola. It is worst time. What kind of journalism is coming? You need to be sure. You have to balance that story. Well, Mr Akintola, I think you need to hold on. And of course, we need to end this conversation here. And it's not because we are being unfair. We're asking questions and we would like to get a fair response from every person that we have this conversation with. It's not in any way an attack on anybody or on fairness on our part. Indeed, it's okay. And he had a conversation with us. He had his own views also. The interview that occurred between Issa Panthami and Muhammad Yusuf, like you also referred to, there's many people who have their own interpretations of that conversation and of that public debate, like you've described it. But thank you very much, Issa Kankintola, for joining us. And of course, okay, I think I need to just, you know, buttress the point you mentioned. It's not about Panthami, so to speak. If any other person had made such statements, and is in a position of power, this would be the same process that the same process of inquiry that would happen to them. It's not about Panthami. There's nothing about Panthami that's making anybody attack him. If we find out today that one of the new service chiefs was sympathetic to terrorism, it's the same process of questioning that would happen. So it's not about Panthami. No one's attacking Panthami. That really needs to be put out there. And referring back to our poll, we did put out a poll on social media yesterday, asking Nigerians, you know, in light of the information we've seen, you know, that the current minister, you know, was sympathetic to terrorism, do you think that he should resign? We had a total of 58 votes, 81% of those people voted yes, saying Panthami should resign because he had preached, you know, messages, you know, advocating for, you know, the lives of terrorists. 14% of people said no, he shouldn't resign, while 5% of people, you know, are undecided about this. All right. We'll take a short break. When we come back, we're moving away from the minister and then moving to Jusun and the strike that is still ongoing. Of course, more conversations concerning that coming up right next here on the breakfast.