Communal Clashes and Avoidable Losses

Nigeria is bedevilled by challenges that lead to many avoidable losses to lives and properties. One of these worrisome challenges is communal clashes. In Nigeria, communal clashes are regular occurrences that only gain much attention as the memory of the last incident fades. There are Tiv and Jukun clashes in Taraba and Benue states, Ife and Modakeke intercommunal conflict, Aguleri-Umuleri conflict, clashes between communities in Cross River and Ebonyi states, and boundary disputes between Enugu and Kogi states\’ communities. Although these conflicts happen periodically, they are usually fatal in most cases, and also lead to grievous body harm, destruction of properties and displacement of people. Yesterday in Anambra state, a communal clash between Urum and Achala communities reportedly left many injured and several houses burnt.

Communal clashes in Nigeria however episodic is not a new phenomenon. But over the years, government at the federal, state and local levels are failing to nip the situation in the bud.  The focus should be for governments to examine the innate factors that act as enablers of the communal conflicts. First, governments efforts should not just be reactionary to the clashes, which is followed by efforts to restore peace. Such efforts will only achieve fleeting normalcy. It is important to have a thorough understanding of the triggers of violence in these areas prone to communal clashes. Second, it is not also news that Nigeria is a union of many divergent groups of people. The creation of geo-political zones, states and local governments may not have comprehensively considered the peculiarities of people but rather majorly for political and administrative convenience by both colonial and military governments at the time. With this in hindsight, some of its fallouts such as boundary delineation promote the possibility of social instability which culminates into violent clashes. With such possibilities in mind, governments should collaborate with relevant stakeholders who are at the fore-front of engendering community cohesion.

Again, focusing on early warning signs is very important.  Governments’ engagement should not end as the last incident fades. Early warning signs may not guarantee sustainable peace, but it will help to curb fatal disputes. A more sustainable approach according to a 2019 publication of Nextier SPD is to promote dialogues and efficient criminal justice system as effective peaceful mechanisms for resolving conflicts. The concept of peace is fast becoming an illusion as many people would rather carry out their ideas of justice than seek redress through appropriate channels. Government must restore public confidence on its ability to protect its citizens, ensure that offended parties get the justice they deserve. Arguably, conflict situations are likely occurrences as human interactions are unavoidable. However, the idea of government is to ensure that people go about their duties and pursuit for survival in a way that it does not threaten the existence of others. 

Conclusively, peace initiatives targeted at communal conflicts should be an all-inclusive affair. For instance, a report by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) on Myanmar, has it that land disputes (one of the factors causing communal wars in Nigeria) are resolved traditionally by engaging village elders and customary authorities. This strategy may not be new to Nigeria but there is a loophole in it. Majority of perpetrators of violence during communal clashes are youths. Peacebuilding initiatives that fail to include youths who are at the heart of violence may not be sustainable. In peacebuilding, all the stakeholders involved in the conflict have an important role to play and their cooperation is vital to the success and sustainability of the peacemaking process. Communal clashes in Nigeria may happen occasionally, but government must prevent it, and ensure that people do not die from avoidable deaths.