The Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN), widely known as the Shiite group, has vehemently contested the police account of a clash that occurred during their procession marking International Quds Day in Abuja, Nigeria. While the police maintain that the IMN initiated the violence, attacking security personnel with an array of weapons including firearms and petrol bombs, the IMN accuses the police of excessive force, unlawful arrests, and concealing the true number of casualties. This clash highlights the ongoing tensions between the Nigerian government and the IMN, a group that has been proscribed and faces frequent accusations of inciting violence.
The official police statement, delivered by FCT command spokesperson Josephine Adeh, reported two security operatives severely injured and one fatality as a result of the confrontation. Adeh claimed that 19 IMN members were arrested and asserted that the Shiite group instigated the violence. She pointed to their alleged possession of weapons as evidence of their intent to attack security forces. This narrative paints the IMN as the aggressors, justifying the police response and subsequent arrests.
However, the IMN offers a starkly different version of events. Professor Abdullahi Danladi, speaking on behalf of the IMN’s Resource Forum, alleged that the police significantly underreported the number of arrests and casualties. He claimed that 380 IMN members, including women and children, were detained, and at least six were killed. Danladi further accused the security forces of concealing the bodies of the deceased, thereby obstructing a full accounting of the violence. He refuted the police allegations of IMN members carrying weapons, characterizing it as a fabricated justification for the police’s actions.
This discrepancy in the reported numbers of arrests and casualties forms the core of the dispute. The IMN’s claim that the police are hiding bodies raises serious concerns about potential human rights violations and the need for an independent investigation. The IMN insists on its long-standing history of peaceful protests and argues that violence only erupts as a result of police intervention. This claim directly contradicts the police narrative, creating a complex and contested understanding of the incident.
Adding further complexity to the situation is the legal status of the IMN. The group is officially proscribed in Nigeria, meaning its activities are deemed illegal. While the IMN is challenging this proscription in court, its legal standing remains precarious. The police cite the group’s proscribed status as further justification for their actions, arguing that the IMN’s activities are inherently unlawful. However, the IMN contends that even if the proscription were valid, it does not give the police license to use excessive force or commit extrajudicial killings.
The conflicting accounts from both sides underscore the deep-seated mistrust and tension between the IMN and the Nigerian authorities. The demand from the IMN for proof of casualties and their insistence on the peaceful nature of their procession directly challenges the police version of events. The police, in turn, point to the IMN’s proscribed status and alleged possession of weapons as reasons for their response. This ongoing cycle of accusation and counter-accusation makes it difficult to ascertain the complete truth of the incident and highlights the urgency of an impartial investigation into the clash.
