socio-economic implication of the boko haram insurgence in Nigeria

socio-economic implication of the boko haram insurgence in Nigeria 2009 to 2013

Introduction

Background to the study

The entire world today is confronted with a plethora of challenges emanating from conflicts that pose direct threat to international and national peace, security, and development. Doubtless, despite their local origin, these conflicts constitute global concerns because when they occur, their impact can spread across borders. Societies irrespective of location value security as it’s the bedrock upon which socio-economic growth and development take place, hence, society must evolve ways of maintaining security whenever conflicts occur.

To order for a complete Project Material, Pay the sum of N3, 000 to:

BANK NAME: ZENITH BANK

ACCOUNT NAME: NNAMDI H. ECHEM

ACCOUNT NUMBER: 2081865318

After Payment, Text the Project Topic, Your Email Address and full Name to 07035441589

Before the 19th century, terrorism was based on political, religious, or ideological or socio economic events which occurred within the national borders. However, by late 19th century, the world had witnessed an upsurge in political violence by terrorist groups, which respects no national borders and aim at undermining targeted sovereign states or re-ordering life according to their chosen ideological world view (Parachinni, 1999).

The attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 by a terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda re-awakened the world to the threat posed by the phenomenon to international peace and security. In view of this, many nations both developed and developing that had never considered terrorism as a serious social and political issue began to do so after the September 11, 2001 attack (Mbanefo, 2005). It also renewed the interests of stakeholders in fighting terrorism anywhere it could be found in the world (Bolaji, 2010:208). However, fighting terrorism is no tea party because it entails a lot of financial commitments. Corroborating Bolaji’s submission, Akanji (2007) asserted that while terrorism was not a major issue in the past, its present-day widespread use has generated unprecedented efforts to understand it. The terrorist acts of 11 September 2001 transformed the general global attitude towards terrorism, and were a major factor in causing both local and international communities to agree about the need to address it. Terrorism is now an international security issue which has united the United States and its partners across Europe, Africa and Asia in mobilising their resources to combat it.

On September 11, 2001, nineteen members of the al Qaeda terrorist group hijacked four U.S. commercial airliners and flew two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and one into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania. More than three thousand people were killed and thousands more injured as a result of these devastating attacks, which caught the United States and the rest of the world by surprise. After spending years on the back burner, the term “terrorism” captured the world’s attention. It caused a media frenzy and spread fear and insecurity among the American public at a rate unparalleled since the early days of the cold war.

Dobbins (2011:15) agreed with the above by submitting that:

The September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was unprecedented in the scale of its destruction and the immediacy of its visual impact. Americans had heard or read about other historical disasters, but this was the first to be witnessed by hundreds of millions of citizens as it occurred. The impact on American policy was correspondingly dramatic and long lasting.

The United State September 11 attacks made the United States to respond with the declaration of the War on Terrorism. The United State invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harboured al-Qaeda terrorists. As a result of this event many countries also strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. The 9/11 attacks saw America taken some very drastic steps like the enactment of the Patriot Act in 2001 and the listing of some organizations as terrorist groups. Late Osama Bin Laden who lived in Sudan before he left in 1998, was said to have sponsored the attacks. In 2002 the US declared the War on Terror (WOT) and she states that any country or continent that is not with America is definitely against her and so will be treated as an enemy. The War on Terror was sold to all countries in the world and through the United Nations Organization (UN) all member nations were co-opted into the WOT (Mohammed, 2011:12).

Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, President of the 61st session of the General Assembly Launching the United Nation Global Counter Terrorism Strategy on 19th September 2006 declares:

“The passing of the resolution on the United Nations Global Counter Terrorism Strategy with its annexed Plan of Action by 192 Member States represents a common testament that we, the United Nations, will face terrorism head on and that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, must be condemned and shall not be tolerated (UN General Assembly plenary, 2010:19).”

This was indicative that the war against terrorism is not just an American war as people tend to ascribe it, but a global war which all and sundry are part of.

There exist divergent views as regard the history of terrorism in Nigeria, while some believed that it dated back to 1952 when there were severe killings in Kano powered by misconstrued and misdirected politicians (Eboh, 2010), some argued that terrorism in Nigeria started with the Niger Delta militants (Tunde, 2007). Today, terrorism in Nigeria like some other parts of Africa has now become a front burner issue to social scientists, media and even to the circles of Nigeria Government and politics. This could be traced to year 2009 when violence erupted in some Northern states led by the dreaded Islamic sect Boko Haram (a Hausa term for “Western education is forbidden”). It officially calls itself “Jama’atul Alhul Sunnah Lidda’wati wal Jihad” which means “people committed to the propagation of the Prophet’s teachings and jihad.” As its name suggests, the group is adamantly opposed to what it sees as a Western-based incursion that threatens traditional values, beliefs, and customs among Muslim communities in northern Nigeria.

The Islamic sect Boko Haram has been a security challenge to Nigeria since at least 2009, but the group in 2011 expanded its terrorist attacks to include international targets.  The Nigerian radical religious sect claimed responsibility for several attacks, including the bombing of the UN headquarters in Abuja on 26 August, 2011 which claimed 24 lives, their first attack on an international institution. Also, the group went on a bombing spree, setting off explosions and gun battles in Damaturu and Maiduguri, the Yobe and Borno State capitals (TSNchat.com). Their attack capabilities have become more sophisticated, and there are indications that members of this group may have received training in bomb-making and other terrorist tactics from Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in the north and/or east of the continent (Forest, 2012). An Algerian Minister submitted that:

“We are convinced that there has been some co-ordination between Boko Haram and al-Qaeda. The way in which the two organizations operate and reports from intelligence services clearly show that there is co-ordination” (TSNchat.com, 2011).

This is what the former Nigerian Air Force Chief of Staff, General Oluseyi Petinrin says, in a report presented by the Vice-Admiral, Sa’ad Ibrahim, at a meeting of the heads of security of the Countries of the Economic Community of West African States:

“We were able to link the activities of Boko Haram to the training and logistical support that the sect receives by Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQMI).”(NEWS.VA, 2012)

  • Statement of the problem

Although terrorism has haunted the global political landscape for centuries, never in the entire history of man has it assumed the power and ugliness it displays in the present century. Terrorism has imposed a new strategic climate on the present global system by making every human a potential victim of its various forms. Hardly a day passes without news of some acts of terrorism in one or other trouble spot on our planet. If it is not a car bomb, suicide bombing, hostage taking, plane hijacking, kidnapping or an assassination by an aggrieved person or persons, it is the indiscriminate bombing of selected targets by state authorities or agents. The point is that we are now living in a world that is constantly being traumatized by continuous doses of terrorism. As a result, no one any longer feels completely safe whether at home, at work, walking along the streets or relaxing in a beer-parlour. Most worrisome is the fact that despite the world being awash with all sorts of activities to address the problem, terrorism has not abated in any significant manner (Imobighe, 2007).

READ  Assess the impact of private domestic saving on the economic growth of Nigeria.

The last three years or so in Nigeria could easily be described as the worst period of unprecedented terror-related violence and general state of insecurity in which thousands of innocent Nigerians have lost their precious lives and property especially in Northern Nigeria. Because of the increasing spate of bomb attacks targeted at churches, government institutions and other flashpoints in the North East and North West of Nigeria by armed Islamic rebels, most Nigerians are now apprehensive and fearful of the unknown.

The rise of terrorism in Nigeria has implications for peace, stability, development and overall national security, unity and cooperate existence of the country. It is gradually creating impression to citizens and international community that the country is no longer safe for investment. Bamidele (2012) argued that almost every day television broadcast, shows, newspapers, magazines and internet websites run and re-run pictures of dramatic acts of violence carried out by this ferocious sect. It is often hard not to be scared when we see gruesome pictures of people killed or maimed by Boko Haram in office buildings, public buses or trains, and on the streets. The federal government seems weak in maintaining law and order in Nigeria and lacks a viable strategy to contain the Islamic sect from carrying out its atrocities. Retired generals in the country’s foremost security industry are talking loud, and in the process, creating more anxiety or fear in the minds of citizens. The nation’s most sophisticated merchants of terror are making the high and the low feel unsafe in a country that is not officially at war. They are also making innocent citizens feel that their country is evaporating by the day (Sekoni, 2012). Nigeria seems to meet the criterion of a “failed states” such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen, where terrorist groups are often able to operate freely, plan sophisticated attacks and stockpile weapons not because the government officials sponsor them but simply because they lack the political will to bring them to book.

Arguments and counter-arguments have continued to rage over the plan by the Federal Government to consider granting amnesty to the Boko Haram sect. Even while the amnesty initiative is being celebrated particularly in the northern part of the country, it has come under severe criticisms from some other sections where people argue that an amnesty programme for the insurgents would simply be rewarding them for the misery they have brought upon many in the country.  Such people contend that their terrorist campaign has led to the death of hundreds of innocent souls and left many families in ruins (Usigbe, 2013).

  • Research questions

We shall be guided in this study by the following research questions:

  1. What is the genesis of terrorism in Nigeria?
  2. What are the efforts attempted by the federal government of Nigeria to quell the Boko-Haram insurgence?
  3. What are the social implications of the Boko-Haram insurgence in Nigeria?
  4. What are the economic implications of the Boko-Haram insurgence in Nigeria?
  • Objectives of the study

Broadly, this study seeks to examine the socio-economic implication of the Boko-Haram insurgence in Nigeria (2009-2013). In more specific terms, it is intended to achieve the following objectives:

  1. To explore the genesis of terrorism in Nigeria.
  2. To identify the efforts attempted by the federal government of Nigeria to quell the Boko-Haram insurgence.
  3. To examine the social implications of the Boko-Haram insurgence in Nigeria.
  4. To analyze the economic implications of the Boko-Haram insurgence in Nigeria.
    • Justification of the study

The significance of a study of this nature cannot be overemphasized; this is so because of the spat of insecurity experienced in the country presently. The research will provide useful information and clear understanding of the genesis and effects of terrorism in Nigeria. It will also contribute to knowledge and increase the level of awareness that national security and corporate existence is everybody’s business. This will hopefully improve the democratic stability of the country and eliminate, if not totally eradicate, mindless killings, massive destruction of lives and properties in the country.

  • Scope of the study

The scope of this research is centered on the socio-economic implication of the Boko-Haram insurgence in Nigeria (2009-2013). This is based on the fact that the outbreak of the Boko Haram uprising in Nigeria started in July 2009 and marked yet another phase in the recurring pattern that violent uprisings, riots and disturbances became the other of the day.

  • Methodology

This research is literature-based and, therefore, descriptive. It will be based on secondary data which will be collected qualitatively. The data will be generated from books, journals, magazines, newspapers, official government publications and the internet. The data will be analysed using content analysis and the descriptive analytical method.

  • Possible limitations of the study

This work is limited by the fact of the sources of information or data collected. Governmental sources cannot be hundred per cent objective since governments don’t reveal all things about themselves.

  • Outline of chapters

Chapter One: This shall introduce and provide the overall plan of the study.

Chapter Two: This includes the review of literature and adoption of a theoretical framework to serve as the basis of this study.

Chapter Three: This chapter will explore the history of terrorism in Nigeria.

Chapter Four: Examines the socio-economic implication of the Boko-Haram insurgence in Nigeria (2009-2013).

Chapter Five: This chapter shall finally provide the summary, conclusion and recommendations for the study.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.0     Introduction

This chapter deals with the review of relevant and related literature as well as the theoretical framework which will serve as a guide to this study.

2.1     Literature review

Terrorism is a concept that has seemingly penetrated all quarters of international society, especially in the wake of the September 11th attacks and the subsequent “war on terrorism” (Franks, 2005). The concept of terrorism like most other socio-political concept has proven difficult to define. Most analysts find it much easier to define whether a specific act is terrorist in nature than to find a broad definition of terrorism itself (www.libraryindex.com). The difficulties related to defining the concept led Charles Kegley (Jr.) (2003) to state that “The scholarly literature that has emerged to deal with terrorism, while voluminous has not produced a definitive conceptualization”. The reason for this is probably related to the fact that the concept is very subjects as a result of its close association with the moral values of justice and freedom. Stepanova (2008) believes that the lack of a universally recognized definition of the term is to some extent predetermined by its highly politicized, rather than purely academic, nature and origin. This allows for different interpretations depending on the purpose of the interpreter and on the political demands of the moment. However, apart from these subjective factors, there are objective reasons for the lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism namely, the diversity and multiplicity of its forms, types and manifestations.

READ  oil price instability and industrial sector output in Nigeria

Franks (2005) attested to this by submitting that nevertheless, despite the historic existence and the apparent global omnipresence of ‘terrorism’ in wars, politics, the media and society in general, there is no commonly accepted understanding of what actually constitutes ‘terrorism,’ as no clear and universally acknowledged definition actually exists. ‘Terrorism’ is essentially a contested concept.  Özdamar (2008) added that terrorism is the kind of subject on which people tend to get involved in polemics. Due to its politically critical nature, who is a terrorist and what is ‘terrorism’ are very complicated to define. A fact which is made evidently by the popular cliché is that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (Hoffman, 1998). Nonetheless, two common elements are usually found in contemporary definitions: (1) that terrorism involves aggression against non combatants and (2) that the terrorist action in itself is not expected by its perpetrator to accomplish a political goal but instead to influence a target audience and change that audience’s behaviour in a way that will serve the interests of the terrorist (Laqueur, 1999).

Historically, the concept of terrorism emanated from the period of the French Revolution in the 18th century when Maximilien Robespierre, one of the leaders of the revolutionaries, was quoted as saying “Without virtue, terror is useless; without terror, virtue is powerless” (The French word terreur means fear). The Jacobins were pursuing a value-driven terror, superintended by the people’s will against renegades and dissidents (Yoroms, 2002).

United States Department of Defence as quoted by Franks (2005) defined terrorism as the “unlawful use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce and intimidate governments to accept political, religious or ideological objectives”. To Goldstein and Pevehouse (2011), terrorism refers to political violence that targets civilians deliberately and indiscriminately. Corroborating Goldstein and Pevehouse’s definition of terrorism, Özdamar (2008) argued that the term ‘terrorism’ suggests political violence or insurgency primarily. Terrorists kill people or destroy property for political purposes. But Özdamar argued that using the concept of terrorism as a synonym for political violence, is a reductionist approach. According to Walzer (2000), “Terrorism is the deliberate killing of innocent people, at random, in other to spread fear through a population and force the hand of its political leaders”. This kind of definition which is highly popular has been dismissed by other scholars has been too simplistic and uncritical. A similar definition was provided by Jenkins (2010) who defined “Terrorism as violence or the threat of violence calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm and thereby bringing about some social and political change.

Özdamar (2008) posit that terrorists terrify people to force them to do what they want. This means that terrorists aim to create fear among a wider audience than the targets themselves. So terrorists actually do not ask something specific from their victims, but terrorize these people – kill, injure, destroy their property – to create the environment in which they can ask for political changes, usually from governments (Bueno de Mesquita, 2000). Therefore, a description of terrorism must include the actors in a terrorist act. There are at least five participators in the process of terror:

  • Primary actors are the terrorists of course who exercise violence.
  • Second, the immediate victims are those who unwillingly become a part of the process.
  • Third, there is the society, or wider audience that terrorists aim to intimidate.
  • Fourth, the neutral parts of the society as bystanders.
  • The fifth part involves international actors, or international community and its opinion (Wilkinson and Stewart, 1987).

The United Nations (UN) attempted a definition of terrorism in 2004 as “an act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. To Yoroms, (2007) terrorism can be defined as any act that is consciously and intellectually undertaken with no moral justification and is negatively intended to intimidate, harass and instil fear via shock values of the society in order to compel the primary targets to attend to their demands. This definition can be operationalized by using what Paul Johnson (as quoted by Yoroms, 2007) called the ‘deadly sins of terrorism’. These sins (to him) form the origin of contemporary waves of terrorism in Africa and include the following aspects:

  1. Terrorism is a deliberate and cold-blooded glorification of violence over all forms of political activity. Violence is used, not as a necessary evil for self-defence, but as a desirable form of action.
  2. It is a deliberate suppression of ethical instincts in man by the use of intellectual pursuit of ideology to render morally blunt the consciences of their recruits so that they can kill without empathy.
  • Terrorists are averse to politics as the normal means by which communities resolve conflicts. Therefore, the use of violence is not a political weapon in extremis, but a substitute for the entire political process.
  1. Terrorists actively and systematically spread ideology which sympathetic totalitarian states and groups will always support and defend.
  2. Terrorists are afraid of totalitarian states that are unsympathetic to their ideology, because such states will always use extra-judicial torture, killings and condemnation against them.
  3. Terrorists exploit the apparatus of freedom in liberal societies and thereby endanger it. As Waltz says, ‘states, like people, are insecure in proportion to the extent of their freedom. If freedom is wanted, insecurity must be accepted’.

Under these circumstances fear is fundamental to the use of violence. To terrorists, violence becomes an art rather than an act of defence. Fear is spread beyond the act of violence and makes it impossible for the victim to react and fight back, and necessary to struggle to survive. This is done by putting pressure on the authorities to give in to the demands of the terrorists or submit themselves to the services of the terrorists. In the course of violence, fear is instilled in the minds of the people.

Imobighe (2007) argued that to find a basis for an acceptable definition the present writer suggests that four critical elements of terrorism must be investigated. These include the environment of terrorism; the nature of the actions associated with terrorism; the target of terrorist actions and the objectives for such actions. A closer look at these four critical elements will show the following:

  1. Terrorism occurs in an environment of conflicts and discord, and hence it is a product of conflict escalation.
  2. Terrorism is a violent mode of response to a conflictual relationship.
  3. The target of terrorism is not limited to the parties directly involved in the conflictual relationship, but includes everybody directly or remotely associated with the principal actors or combatants.
  4. The objectives of terrorism are varied and not always political.

Imobighe (2007) then conceive terrorism as representing ‘the indiscriminate and random use of different levels of violence against an opponent or the ancillary interests of such an opponent with whom one has an adversarial relationship, in order to strike fear (into) the latter and impose one’s will on (the opponent) or tailor (the opponent’s) action towards a desired goal’. What this definition has tried to convey is that terrorism has to do with the different shades of low intensity violence (usually sporadic and at times vicious) that are available to the opposing sides in any form of violent contestation or struggle for power or influence. Hence different groups irrespective of their ideological dispositions, such as freedom fighters, revolutionaries, insurgents, nationalistic or ethnic groups, as well as national armed forces and other state security agents have been known to have used terrorism to redress perceived grievances. So however much we find terrorism abhorrent, we must accept the reality that in our present global system it has become a readily available instrument of struggle between opposing camps in a violent adversarial relationship. As soon as any disagreement or conflict is allowed to escalate into violence, those involved choose from the affordable range of options to respond to the situation ‘in an unequal power relationship, (where) the stronger side may not be constrained in terms of the available level of force to be used, (while) the weaker side may be so constrained in terms of its ability to strike directly at the opponent as to resort to the latter’s ancillary interests.

READ  Economic Dependency and Third World under Development. Nigerian Experience.

AU’S Convention on the Prevention and Combating Terrorism article 1 (3) defines terrorism as any act which is a violation of the criminal laws of a State Party and which may endanger the life, physical integrity or freedom of, or cause serious injury or death to any person, any number or group of persons or causes or may cause damage to public or private property, natural resources, environmental or cultural heritage and is calculated or intended to:

  • intimidate, put in fear, coerce or induce any government, body, institution, the general public or any segment thereof, to do or abstain from doing any act, or to adopt or abandon a particular standpoint or to act according to certain principles; or
  • disrupt any public service, the delivery of any essential service to the public or to create a public emergency; or
  • create general insurrection in a State.

The AU, in article 3(1), however notes that:

  • The struggle waged by peoples in accordance with the principles of international law for their liberation or self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression and domination by foreign forces.
  • Political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other motives shall not be a justifiable defence against a terrorist act.

Intelligence specialists call terrorism a “transnational” threat because the people who make up terrorist groups may not come from, represent, or be sponsored by a particular country. Instead, they can operate across international boundaries and against any number of countries to further their cause or objectives. Though sometimes state sponsored, it is rare for terrorists to be what American officials call “state actors,” such as foreign governments; rather, they are generally doing their own work and pursuing their own goals. The UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime notes in Article 3(2) that an offence is transnational if it is

  • committed in more than one state;
  • committed in one state but has a substantial part of its preparation, planning, direction or control taking place in another state; committed in one state but involves an organized group that engages in activities in more than one state; and
  • committed in one state but has substantial effects in another state.

Terrorism generally involves some political or religious message and is almost always violent. Some of the actions that the U.S. State Department defines as terrorist activities include:

  • The hijacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle)
  • Seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (or governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained
  • A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (defined as (1) a chief of state, head of government, or foreign minister in a country other than his or her own and any accompanying family member; or (2) any other representative, officer, employee, or agent of the U.S. government, a foreign government, or international organization and any member of his or her family/household) or upon the liberty of such a person
  • An assassination
  • Using any biological agent, chemical agent, nuclear weapon or device, explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property (other than for mere personal monetary gain)
  • A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of these activities

Terrorist tactics have varied over the years as well. They have ranged from single-person attacks to those involving mass destruction and casualties. Kidnappings, sabotage, assassinations, knifing campaigns, hijackings, murders, bombings, bank robberies, and cyber attacks are all tactics employed by terrorists. Terrorism could be used to publicise a cause, promote an ideology, achieve religious freedom, attain the release of a political prisoner, or rebel against a government (Mooney et al, 2002, Crenshaw, 1981). Most terrorist attacks are motivated by political or religious conflict. Terror groups motivated by religious obligations have been on the rise since the 1980s. Throughout history, religious believers have often felt justified in perpetrating violence on behalf of their causes, reasoning that their actions are sanctioned by God. Secular (nonreligious) groups must maintain the support of their constituencies and so cannot commit heinous acts without the risk of alienating such support or facing widespread condemnation. Religious terrorists may believe that God is their main audience or that they are fighting for downtrodden people everywhere, whom they seek to defend against nonbelievers in a holy war. For these reasons, it may be easier for a religiously motivated terrorist group to perpetrate an attack that causes massive casualties.

Religion and politics are not always easy to separate. In the case of cults or millenarian groups (those believing in the thousand-year period of Christian triumph on Earth as predicted in the Bible) that shut themselves away from society, the single-minded religious agenda is not hard to identify. However, both religion and politics motivate certain Islamic groups. Hizballah, for example, which has a defining Islamic philosophy, also serves as a strong political faction in Lebanon. This is also the case with Hamas, which uses religion to recruit followers but is also a formidable political alternative to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza in Israel (www.libraryindex.com).  .

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (2005) highlights four key elements of terrorism:

  1. It is premeditated – planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
  2. It is political – not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.
  3. It is aimed at civilians – not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
  4. It is carried out by sub-national groups—not by the army of a country.

socio-economic implication of the boko haram insurgence in Nigeria 2009 to 2013

———–THIS ARTICLE IS NOT COMPLETE————

To purchase complete Project Material, Pay the sum of N3, 000 to our bank accounts below:

BANK NAME: ZENITH BANK

ACCOUNT NAME: NNAMDI H. ECHEM

ACCOUNT NUMBER: 2081865318

OR

BANK NAME: FIDELITY BANK

ACCOUNT NAME: ECHEM HENRY NNAMDI

ACCOUNT NUMBER: 6160222363

After paying the sum of N3, 000 into any of our bank accounts, send the below details to our Phone: 07035441589

  1. Your Depositors Name
  2. Teller Number
  3. Amount Paid
  4. Project Topic
  5. Your Email Address

Send the above details to: 07035441589 on/before payment. We will send your complete project materials to your email 30 Mins after payment.

Scharticles.com will only provide papers as a reference for your research. The papers ordered and produced should be used as a guide or framework for your own paper. It is the aim of Scharticles.com to only provide guidance by which the paper should be pursued. We are neither encouraging any form of plagiarism nor are we advocating the use of the papers produced herein for cheating.

Speak Your Mind

*