Since this incident happened I've pondered and wondered what could have gone wrong that the four boys weren't bold enough to talk and challenge those who beat andparaded them in public, leading them to where they were eventually killed. Now the whole issue is clearer; the boys "ignorantly"got themselves involved with a cultist who operates with a gun, all in a bid to get their money back from a debtor. Below is what actually happened according to an insider.... An indigene of Aluu owed Ugo some money and had vowed not to pay back. Ugo who was popularly known as Tipsyhad gone to meet with a fearless University guy (namewithheld) to help them track the debtor who had been on the run. ‘Mr Fearless guy’ (a cultist) who was feared by many in τ̲̅ђƺ school ad accepted to accompany his friends to get the debtor tracked down in exchange for a percentage of the debt. They were joined by their room-mate, Chidiaka. On theirway to the place, they met one of their friend, Tekena, who knew nothing about the plan, and he joined, just for the hype as is normal with young boys of juvenile age. That made 5 boys - Ugo, Lloyd, Chidiaka, Tekena and ‘Mr Fearless Guy’ that got to the debtor’s compound. Unknown to the other four, ‘Mr Fearless Guy’ who wascontracted to intimidate the debtor just to get the moneypaid, went with a gun. When they got to the debtor’s house around 12am, a fight ensued, as the debtor confronted them. A next door neighbour, a woman started shouting on top of her voice, that they were thieves, attracting other bad boys around τ̲̅ђƺ area, whom were mainly “vikings”, the rival cult group of τ̲̅ђƺ one on contract. They swung into action by tipping the vigilante group who confronted the boys, referring to them as thieves. In τ̲̅ђƺ process of beatingthe boys, while they were trying to prove their innocence, the fifth boy, ‘Mr Fearless Guy’, who is a cultist, brought out his gunto scare the people, and he escaped, leaving the rest four at the mercy of the villagers. The explanation they tried togive fell on the community’sdeaf ears as the people insisted they must be killed....and unfortunately theywere lynched! Note:- this story is an eyewitness account from the 5th boy who escaped. He narrated this to Ugo and Lloyd’s friend who has pleaded that his identity be kept secret.

Suicide bombings:Questions we must ask by Zainab Sandah(and i quite agree)

We spend intellectual capital
analysing the character of Boko
Haram in terms of ideological
radicalism and/or subsequent
politicization. In the face of non-
receding attacks and ever
increasing suicide-bombing
recruits, it is essential that when
we do a top-down examination
of theories (from balkanization,
to deadly local political games)
we also consider the negative
social dynamics and likely impact
in terms of ideological appeal and
spread of the phenomenon,
particularly suicide attacks. Say,
how does it fit in the context of
politics, and if you were able to
establish that suicide bombing in
northern Nigeria was indeed
politically induced, how would you
attempt to curtail a bottom-
level appeal of its misguided
heavenly promise, also, will it
cease to exist the moment
politicians turn off the tap?
Consider though the negative
psych-impact of a video clip
showing the grinning face of a
would-be suicide bomber right
before he crashes his explosives-
laden vehicle into people with
the firm conviction that that’s
his ticket to heaven. Also the
satisfaction gleaned from the
now too familiar voice of the
narrator as he prays for the
heavenly acceptance of the soul
of that suicide bomber on the
fulfilment of God’s will. Right
now, you might be thinking
‘come on woman, all of that
could be politically engineered,’
but think instead of the net
effect of both actions on morally
weakened, ideologically
corruptible and persons. Could
the courage exhibited in that
divine sacrifice appeal to more
people? Which still begs more
questions, is heaven or politics
the motive for suicide bombing, if
heaven, how do we prevent
impressionable heaven seekers
from being impressed and
impressive? If heaven, how do
we disincentivise the path to
heaven through suicide? Politics,
heaven, or both, what leads a
man to that radical end?
Case in point, they continually
leverage Islam which is gut
wrenching and unacceptable.
That is why we need to soul-
search, and while or when we
finger-point, we need to also
begin to lay down a new kind of
social and moral infrastructure
that would douse the message
of the path to heaven through
suicide, or any form of killing
(both very un-Islamic by the
way). We have to promote
simpler but heaven-worthy
examples like that of the
prostitute that has been
promised heaven for only being
kind to a dog (!), or how a smile
is the best form of charity and
earns you heavenly favours, or
how ridding a path of harmful
objects (that could harm
someone/anyone/anything)
makes Allah happy with you. We
need to frankly ask ourselves
about the consequences of our
collective and sequenced
disengagement from our
communal morals. For the love of
God and regardless of motive,
how did we graduate from
clutching the Hadeeth and
degenerate to wielding
explosives?
BH is all shades, arguably one of
the most inexplicable
phenomenon in the life of our
country today, defiant even to
the most astute or discerning
mind in its religious, economic and
political colorations (the
president, Goodluck Jonathan
says the group has infiltrated
the government – a senator, Ali
Ndume, has been indicted and is
cooling his heels in the senate
chambers of NASS(?) - the
president himself was fingered in
a bombing activity). Inundated as
we are with this confusion, we
should not lose focus of the
danger posed by the likely
spread of the ideology of suicide
bombing or terrorism as a whole.
And for that, we need more
social than political will/focus to
begin an incremental but
onerous process of rewinding
the depraved appeal of suicide
bombing. A social strategy/
focus synonymous with cutting
off a tree from the roots, that
is, through efforts of positive
messaging and re-messaging
made at the grass-roots by
families, mosques, communities,
you and I. And of course political
will too, which is tantamount to
killing a snake by chopping off its
head or just ‘bringing the
perpetrators to book’, once
and for all. Easy to do, since the
government claims to know who
they are, - but a tall order still.
If we do both and with some luck
we may not have any residual
transmissions since both edges
i.e. the head and the roots would
have been clipped. Lets note
that doing only one, or the
latter would be hopeless, we
tried that when we summarily
executed Muhammad Yusuf, and
look where that has led us. More
and not less body count. The
truth (or a theory) sometimes is
inconvenient, scary or not the
truth at all, but faced with an
iota of reasonable doubt, you/we
may want to be cautious. There
are certainly more questions
than answers, more ‘who’ is
behind it, but not enough
‘how’ to prevent the next
grinning kid from becoming canon
fodder, (or more critically)
‘how’ to generally try to kill
the appeal of suicide bombing
and terrorism. If we want
relative everlasting peace, we
may need to consider more of
the ‘hows’.
I will leave you with a quote from
an article by Mallam Nasir el-
Rufai in relationship to the case
of Mutallab, the young Nigerian
that attempted to blow up
himself and 289 people aboard
an aircraft belonging to
Northwest Airlines:
‘It is right that Nigeria and the
global community should seek to
understand how a single wealthy
student could become so
radicalised as to be deployed as
a pawn in an attempt to bring
down an airliner on Christmas
Day. We must dissect the incident
and explore its roots, the
enabling network and the
systemic and human errors that
nearly cost 300 innocents their
lives. We must shut down the
teaching of hate and we must
strip extremists of their tools of
destruction and make sure our
freedoms are not exploited by
our enemies.’ (Emphasis mine,
and that’s exactly what we
need to do).

Check out this article on Jonathan's diplomacy plans by Reuben Abati

The gains of President
Jonathan’s diplomacy are often
overshadowed by
misrepresentations of the size of
his delegation, ignorance about
the value of his foreign travels,
and the positives of his constant
engagement with the
international community. I have
had cause on more than one
occasion to expose the lie about
published figures about the size
of his delegations. I intend to
deal here with what is
overlooked.
Given the damage that the
Nigerian interest suffered a few
years ago, the same interest
needed to be clarified and
strengthened. We are living
witnesses to that short, critical,
phase in Nigeria’s foreign
relations when the country failed
to show up at important
international meetings, lost many
positions in multilateral
associations, forsook obligations,
and found itself in a situation
where many of our allies started
wondering what had gone wrong
with Nigeria. President Jonathan
has brought the much-needed
change in this arena, and has
launched an operational
framework for Nigerian
diplomacy, which continues to
strengthen the place of Nigeria
in the world.
In 2010, as Acting President, he
embarked on a number of
diplomatic shuttles, as part of a
deliberate attempt to reassure
the world that Nigeria was well
and secure despite the trauma
of succession that it had just
experienced and the divisive
politics of zoning that
threatened to scuttle the
country’s political transition.
Many may have forgotten,
selective amnesia being a
dangerous national malaise, that
President Jonathan’s
statesmanship, his humility, and
the maturity that he displayed
during that momentous season
proved to be a strong stabilizing
influence on a nervous Nigerian
community. He had promised that
Nigeria’s next general elections
to be conducted under his
watch, in 2011, even with him as
a contestant, will be free and
fair, and that nobody’s blood
was worth being shed for him to
win an election.
That promise was kept. The
elections were not only free and
fair, they were adjudged the
best ever in Nigeria’s modern
history. The achievement was
not merely one of legitimacy; the
applause from the international
community was redemptive.
Nigeria, at that point, almost a
typical case study of the
challenges of democratic
consolidation, became yet
another success story. President
Jonathan has since taken many
steps further to build on this.
One of the very early steps was
a four-day, August 2011,
seminar on Nigeria’s Foreign
Policy Process, with inputs from
the Presidential Advisory
Committee on Foreign Affairs led
by Chief Emeka Anyaoku. The
seminar and the foreign policy
experts, recommended, inter
alia, a robust diplomacy, driven
by Nigeria’s economic interests.
This accent on self-interest had
shown up during the Obasanjo
years. It reflected an increasing
awareness that Nigeria’s
foreign policy should not be
driven by the vainglory of being
a certain brother’s keeper, or
the Father Christmas
pretensions that dominated it
for years, rather, hard-headed
pragmatism. The world had
changed a lot since Nigeria
distributed its oil wealth to
other countries and asked for
nothing in return. The new
strategy called for partnership,
mutual respect, enhanced and
innovative diplomacy, and
constructive exchange. In this
context, President Jonathan
leads a foreign policy process
that has been fruitful and
meaningful, and properly linked
to domestic policy.
His foreign travels fall into three
categories: state visits (formal
state to state activity),
courtesy visits (attendance at
ceremonies, burials,
inaugurations) and working visits
(trips to attend multilateral,
bilateral and regional meetings).
Each of these visits is official, the
ultimate gainer is Nigeria, and it
is well worth noting that since
his assumption of office,
President Jonathan has not gone
on any unofficial or private trip
abroad. It is a trite point that a
strong foreign policy process,
one which involves constant
interaction and openness brings
a country much goodwill,
promotes understanding and
strengthens the country’s
friendship with other countries.
Closed countries are often
treated with suspicion; their
leaders are subjects of mystery.
President Jonathan has worked
very actively in the last two
years to promote Brand Nigeria.
His foreign travels are usually,
carefully chosen. He has equally
played host to Heads of State
and Governments and
delegations from around the
world including high profile visits
by Britain’s David Cameron,
Germany’s Angela Merkel, and
US Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton.
On all of these occasions,
Nigeria’s interest is
strategically promoted. The
President is accompanied on each
of his trips by members of the
National Assembly and Ministers
who attend the relevant
meetings and make necessary
inputs for follow up action. Trade
and investment always tops the
agenda. The President personally
leads the campaign of inviting
investors to set up industries in
Nigeria, and produce locally if
they wish to take advantage of
Nigeria’s huge market
potential. Interestingly,
Nigeria’s domestic security
challenges have not proved to
be a disincentive.
Foreign Direct Investment
generated in the last year alone
according to UNCTAD’s 2012
Investment Report was $8.9
billion making Nigeria No 1 in
Africa and a top quartile
investment destination in the
world. During a recent trip to
Rio, Brazil, Nigeria signed an MOU
with Electrobras to invest in the
generation of 10, 000 MW; since
then, there have been
subsequent visits to Nigeria by
Brazilian investors interested in
infrastructure, food and
beverages and consumer items.
In October 2011, when President
Jonathan met with the
Australian investment community
in Perth, on the sidelines of
CHOGM, the Australia-Nigeria
Trade and Investment Council
(ANTIC) was established to
facilitate the flow of investments
into agriculture, mining and the
petrochemicals sector. Australian
Council members have since
visited Nigeria, and there is an
agreement in place to provide
technical support for the local
mining sector. In April 2012, the
President, in the course of an
official visit to Germany, got
Siemens to commit to investment
in power generation, and turbine
maintenance and repair in
Nigeria. Generally, there has
been massive support from
governments and investors for
the President’s policies and
strong interest to invest in the
country.
The corollary to this is the
search for opportunities for
Nigerian investors in foreign
markets. The President often
times travels with Nigerian
businessmen who are looking for
in-roads into foreign markets:
the Nigerian private sector is
involved in banking and insurance
in Rwanda and other parts of
Africa (Access Bank, IGI, GTBank),
in manufacturing in Ethiopia, and
Southern Africa (the Dangote
Group, LUBCON) and so on. Such
investors often require the
support of the Nigerian
government, which has been
readily and consistently provided
by the Jonathan administration.
The class of Nigerians who have
probably benefitted most or who
stand to do so, would be the
Nigerians in Diaspora. Wherever
President Jonathan goes in the
world, he insists on the local
embassy organizing a meeting
with the Nigerians in the
country. He likes to exchange
views with them, find out how
they are faring and even ask
them to raise issues they may
want him to take up with the
host country. Such issues usually
range from immigration to
Nigerian issues, particularly
absentee voting, and in one
instance, request for the
airlifting at Government expense
of Nigerians who are willing to
return to home, but cannot
afford to do so.
President Jonathan never fails
to acknowledge the importance
of Nigerians abroad and the
invaluable resource that they
represent. To prove the point,
many members of his
government were sourced from
the Diaspora. The Jonathan
administration has always had
cause to defend the interest of
distressed Nigerians in diaspora
in pursuit of citizen diplomacy,
famously the evacuation of
distressed Nigerians from Libya
(more than 2,000 between
March and November 2011) and
Egypt (more than 1, 000 in
January 2012). It continues to
engage with several
development partners to ensure
managed migration in the overall
interests of all sides, including
Nigerians. The fifth Nigeria/EU
dialogue on Migration and
Development was held in Abuja in
January 2012. Thus, the welfare
of Nigerians in their relations
with other countries has also
been given the top most priority.
Government has stood up to all
countries in upholding the
principle of reciprocity and by
insisting that Nigerians be
treated fairly.
Multilateral institutions usually
have vacancies to be filled by
nationals from all over the world.
Even when the positions are
rotated on a regional basis, the
relevant countries still have to
compete for such positions. It is
not always an easy struggle as
each country jostles for the
positions with the highest
possible visibility or influence. It
requires sharp diplomacy to
secure the support of other
countries and to get the
required number of votes for
your candidate. When your
country is not eligible for the
post, you become one of the
brides to be wooed to deliver
the vote in favour of a
particular country’s candidate.
It sounds like routine diplomacy,
but it is high-wire politics. In the
past one year, President
Jonathan has devoted
considerable energy to lobbying
and campaigning for Nigerian
candidates to get into positions
in international organizations.
The achievement in this regard
has been remarkable: Dr.
Bernard O. Aliu, President of the
Executive Council of the
International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) based in
Montreal, Canada; Mrs.
Theodora Oby Nwankwo,
member, UN Committee on the
Elimination of All forms
Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW); Dr. Aisha Laraba
Abdullahi, AU Commissioner for
Political Affairs.
After three unsuccessful
attempts, Nigeria finally broke
the electoral jinx at the AU for
the first time in ten years. Mrs.
Salamatu Sulaiman, Commissioner
Political, Peace and Security at
the ECOWAS Commission;
Nigeria’s election to the
Executive Board of UNESCO for a
term of four years in November
2011; Nigeria’s election to the
Governing Board of the United
Nations Environmental
Programme (UNEP); Nigeria was
also elected to the Economic and
Social Council (ECOSOC) on
October 24, 2011; Election of Mr.
Adamu Mohammed, a Deputy
Commissioner of Police, as the
Vice President of INTERPOL
representing Africa at a meeting
held in Hanoi, Vietnam in October,
2011; Re-election of the
Attorney General and Minister of
Justice, Hon. Mohammed Bello
Adoke, SAN to the International
Law Commission on November 17,
2011. The election of Dr. Chile
Eboe-Osuji as one of the six
judges of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) in a tightly
contested election in New York in
November, 2011 and the election
last year, of Nigeria as the first
President of the Executive Board
of the United Nations Entry for
Gender Equality and Women’s
Empowerment (UN Women).
Our embassies abroad are also
better organized. Ambassador
Gbenga Ashiru, Jonathan’s
appointee as Minister of Foreign
Affairs is a career diplomat who
has been doing a good job of
actualizing the new framework
for Nigerian diplomacy. He is
collegial in approach, and
supportive of Mr. President’s
vision. Career diplomats used to
complain about their jobs being
taken over and messed up by
politicians. This year, President
Jonathan handed over letters of
commission to the country’s
new set of ambassadors, mostly
career diplomats, and because
he has thus encouraged the
professionalization of the
diplomatic service, career
diplomats are no longer
complaining. Many who have no
foreign postings have achieved
their career dreams as
ambassadors-in-situ; our
diplomats are reciprocating by
showing higher levels of
enthusiasm for the job. Nothing
can be more damaging to a
country’s foreign policy
process than a distracted
professional foreign affairs
cadre.
We have a leader who is
respected by the international
community. When TIME
international magazine named
President Jonathan one of the
100 Most Influential leaders of
the world in 2012, a fitting
acknowledgement of his
achievements, and the only
African leader to be so
recognized, the warm citation
was written by the Liberian
President. Our President also
holds one of the highest national
honours in Liberia. In the last
year, he has also been honoured
by people, governments and
institutions in Nigeria, Ghana,
Jamaica, and Trinidad and
Tobago.
At the regional level, Nigeria’s
voice now rings loud and clear;
its interventions are taken more
seriously. President Jonathan
served as ECOWAS Chairman for
two years, and received great
applause at the end of his
tenure in February 2012. Under
his watch, he led both Nigeria
and ECOWAS to put an end to
the threatened mayhem in Cote
D’Ivoire when Laurent Gbagbo
refused to hand over power,
after the 2010 Presidential
elections in that country. He
helped to check a similar crisis of
self-perpetuation in office in
Niger, and has provided support
for democratic efforts in Liberia,
Sierra Leone, Senegal, Mali,
Ghana and Guinea Bissau. He was
one of the first African leaders
to recognize the National
Transitional Council of Libya and
ask Muammar Gaddaffi to quit.
Since handing over as ECOWAS
chair, President Jonathan has
remained a respected voice
among his brother Heads of
State. At the moment, he is a
co-mediator in the crisis in Mali.
The relationship between Nigeria
and other countries in the
region, particularly Ghana, Chad,
Cote d’Ivoire, Republic of Benin,
Niger, Senegal and Liberia has
never been stronger.
Commentators often insist that
greater emphasis should be
placed on domestic policy, not
foreign policy. Our new
framework links both
strategically. The investments
that are flowing into Nigeria
create jobs, deepen competition
within the market, push the
drive for necessary
infrastructure further, and on all
fronts, Brand Nigeria is
strengthened.