The Coalition of Niger Delta Youth Stakeholders/Chairman, Board of Trustees’ Izon Cultural Heritage Centre (ICHC) has said Dr Dennis Otuaro, the Administrator of the Presidential Amnesty Programme, has injected credibility, transparency, and fairness into the Amnesty Programme.
This was as the group maintained that he is committed to unity across the Niger Delta and will not be cajoled or blackmailed by or any ethnic group bent on playing tribal cards.
A statement on Thursday signed by Apst. Bodmas Kemepadei, Convener of Izon Cultural Heritage Centre (ICHC) and made available to newsmen added that Otuaro’s focus is on strengthening the Programme for peace, rehabilitation, and opportunity across all ethnic nationalities.
This is a response to a recent post allegedly made by Daniel Reyeneiju, in which he claimed that “the Itsekiris are under siege” and that the Amnesty Programme has been turned into a weapon of bias.
It was stated that he also went further to allege that he questioned Dr. Dennis Otuaro’s appointment and then threw the insinuating question of whether Dr. Otuaro will be complicit in sustaining it or dismantle what he termed an “engine of injustice.
The statement reads:”The attention of the Coalition of Niger Delta youth stakeholders has been drawn to a recent post by Daniel Reyeneiju, in which he claimed that “the Itsekiris are under siege” and that the Amnesty Programme has been turned into a weapon of bias.
” He went further to allege that this so-called bias predates Dr. Dennis Otuaro’s appointment and then threw the insinuating question of whether Dr. Otuaro will be complicit in sustaining it or dismantle what he termed an “engine of injustice.
” Such statements, laced with ethnic undertones, are not only misleading but a deliberate distortion of historical facts. It is therefore important to remind Daniel, and the general public, of what truly transpired.
“When the Federal Government first declared amnesty during the disarmament stage, the Itsekiris openly rejected the offer. They boldly declared that they had no issues with the Federal Government, that their areas were peaceful, that they were comfortable with the International Oil Companies operating in their communities, and that they were not disenfranchised in any way. They insisted they were not militants and therefore would not accept amnesty.
“At that time, the Itsekiris even celebrated the Federal Government’s decision to disarm the Ijaw people, whom they accused of using weapons against them. They maintained that they would not accept amnesty, branding it as something meant for “criminals,” and vowed to use what they had to defend themselves.
“The Itsekiris themselves rejected amnesty at inception. No amount of propaganda can erase that fact. What the region needs now is support for Dr. Otuaro’s leadership, not revisionist campaigns.
“Fast forward to 2013, after the demobilisation process was completed, the same Itsekiris returned to demand inclusion. Their request was tabled before the National Assembly. After deliberations, the Assembly made it clear that nothing could be done since the window had long closed.
“Nonetheless, in the spirit of fairness, they were granted 500 educational slots as compensation. Many Itsekiri students benefitted from these opportunities, and some have even been employed through the programme.
“It is therefore deeply misleading for Daniel Reyeneiju, speaking in the shadow of the Olu, to now turn around and weaponise propaganda against Dr. Otuaro.
“Dr. Dennis Otuaro has injected credibility, transparency, and fairness into the Amnesty Programme. He is committed to unity across the Niger Delta and will not be cajoled or blackmailed by Daniel or any ethnic group bent on playing tribal cards.
“His focus remains to strengthen the Programme for peace, rehabilitation, and opportunity across all ethnic nationalities. Frankly, history cannot be edited to suit propaganda; the truth will always stand.
“Therefore, the letter he flaunts was nothing more than an appeal for inclusion after the process had ended; an appeal that was considered and declined. Twisting this history into a narrative of bias is not only dishonest but also divisive.” The statement concluded.
