The Hood – Hearing from your neighborhood

The 2019 general elections in Nigeria have come and gone.  Another batch of democratic leaders have been empowered by majority of constituents to lead their destinies for another four years. 

Spectacularly, the myths, the anxieties, the phobias and the uncertainty generated by the elections have also silently ebbed out for calm and introspection among Nigerians.   

However, the tensions generated by the general elections had some outstanding issues worthy of further scrutiny in the post- election era. The fear of widespread electoral violence by political actors across Nigeria scrambling for power was real,  scary and chilly.  

And with the 2015 prediction by former American Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. John Campbell that general elections in Nigeria would offer a plank for the total break-up of the country still hovering,  the 2019 Nigeria’s general elections posed very disturbing challenges of insecurity.

This feeling caused more than a stir in Nigerians;  it attracted lamentations from unusual quarters’. And for a nation which had once tested the bitter pills of a civil strife and which is currently confronted with multilayered insecurity threats, adding the fire of electoral violence on the subsisting problems was a nightmare.

President Muhammadu Buhari had to take pro-active measures by deploying the Army to ensure the security of Nigerians and a peaceful electoral exercise. Expectedly, in democracy, people are bound to oppose the best of intentions or policies of government.  

There is the lawful tendency by opposition to stiffly antagonize, condemn and even berate government on every initiative, even if it is the best. Therefore, the deployment of soldiers to aid civil security, which postured apparently and conveniently as incompetent in handling the happenstance of security breaches that may sprout up also attracted criticisms and jibes from some Nigerians.

Opposition parties, human rights activists, patriots and the organized civil society community in Nigeria perceived it more as an attempt by the ruling APC Federal Government of Nigeria to use soldiers  in order to  compromise a free, fair and credible elections. They saw it more  as militarization of the electoral process and  a concealed motive to undermine the sanctity of the ballot in favour of the incumbent government which was also a major contender in the elections.

But with the general elections over, it is pretty good that whatever apprehension nursed by Nigerians, whether genuine or fake over the elections was never allowed to materialize. The proponents of doom were disappointed; the troubleshooters who plotted violent disruptions during elections were not given a chance to ply their evil trade on Nigeria. The anticipated consuming electoral violence, which many feared would extinguish the nation was imprisoned.

However, the lacuna in the post mortem analysis  of the general elections is the lack of a  corresponding capacity of those who dreaded the participation of Nigerian soldiers to applaud the Army for the intervention which immensely assisted to deliver  flawless elections to Nigeria. The critics have forgotten so soon that the soldiers secured Nigeria and prevented electoral fraudsters from stimulating crisis that would have consumed the country. Nigerians are not oblivious of this reality, but are shocking mute, instead of open appreciation of the Nigerian Army.

Whatever is their mindset, today, it is easy to differentiate between facts and fiction  from the assailing narratives which preceded the elections. And in most cases, it tended to unfairly cast aspersions on the institution of the Nigerian Army and our soldiers generally. 

It was hard to discern how Nigerians could forget very easily the reforms the COAS and leader  of the counter-insurgency operations in Nigeria, Lt.Gen. TY Buratai enforced on the Army. It was somewhat irritating that these critics ignored the consistent exhibition of professionalism by soldiers in all their national assignments under  its current leadership.

Nigerian soldiers have demonstrated in words and actions in the past three years,  a penchant of compliance with the Constitution of Nigeria, total submission to civilian authorities  and  sticking to rules of engagement; soldiers have evidently dispensed themselves as sticklers to international best practices in the observance of human rights of the people in all their operations.

And when it became expedient for soldiers to provide back-up security for the general elections, Gen. Buratai again spelt out clearly the rules of engagement to Army personnel. Soldiers were strongly admonished to preserve and respect the tenets of military professionalism;  the rules of engagement and the Constitution of Nigeria during and after the elections.

The Army Chief was lucid that “None of our personnel will be involved in political campaigns, escort of VIPs for political missions and, above all, aiding or supporting any political party….Our rules of engagement and code of conduct have not assigned any political role to the army in this regard. The army’s involvement in the elections starts and ends with the provision of peaceful and secure environment for the conduct of the 2019 general elections.”

And throughout the duration of the series of elections held in Nigeria, the soldiers never deviated from this path of honour and respect for the rules of engagement. They provided escort for the haulage of sensitive electoral materials to various destinations; put a wedge to incidents of diversion of electoral materials; tackled ballot snatchers and other electoral fraudsters who often are the harbingers or stimulators of electoral violence,  deaths and the concomitant protests and destructive arsons.  

A number of election observers have glowingly acknowledged the wonderfully impartial and non-partisan  roles played by the Army in safeguarding the sanctity of the ballot in the 2019 general elections. There is no modicum of doubt that the military as a professional institution offered a selfless and professional support which indubitably prevented doomsday in Nigeria. 

Consequently, with the general elections over and conducted peacefully, with minimal cases of violence, the Nigerian Army deserve some accolades from the same critics and groups which demeaned it with vituperations and unfairly castigated soldiers. They should be humble enough to again embark on a voyage of deconstruction of their weird myth of militarization of the general elections as erroneously propagated. It is the only task they can perform now to free their conscience.

Critics and scholars alike, in Nigeria and beyond who are yet to properly comprehend the role of the military in a democracy, the Nigerian Army is now their resource material. The Army has offered them a pragmatic and priceless resource material by their highly professional and excellent  conduct or actions, as signposted by their participation   in the 2019 general elections.

Both the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, President Buhari and the Army Chief, Gen. Buratai  are not prepared to relent in ensuring the Nigerian  Army remains a positive  reference point  on adherence to professionalism and  rules of engagement. With the impressive outing by soldiers, the criticisms about the militarization of the general elections have been proven to be unfounded and baseless after all.

Onmeje writes from the United Kingdom.

United Kingdom Chapter of Arise Nigeria, a group of Nigerians in the diaspora, has reacted to the recent report by the United State through its State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour under the title “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018.” which accused the President Muhammadu Buhari-led government of abating corruption and extra-judicial killing.

The group said the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018 was aimed at forcing homosexuality and sale of national assets on the current government. 

Arise Nigeria made this revelation in a communiqué issued after its extraordinary meeting held in London on Saturday.

A communique jointly signed by Dr. Philip Idaewor Chairman, AriseNigeria and Charles Eze, Secretary, called on  the Nigerian government to reject the report and make its stance known to the US without delay. 

The statement reads in full.

Documents like this are equally cited as input for decision making by third party countries that could withhold economic, political, military and other critical co-operation from Nigeria based on the conclusions reached in the report, and similar documents. 

The meeting of the United Kingdom Chapter of Arise Nigeria was therefore able to dispassionately deconstruct the content of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. It was found that there are areas where Nigeria has to shore up policies and their implementation in order to make progress. Unfortunately, however, the bulk of the content of the report were found to maliciously target Nigeria in a manner that confirmed racist stereotype as well as laying the foundation for manufacture of dissent, in which citizens were being emotionally manipulated to stage uprising against their government. 

The observation about manufacture of dissent suggests that the United States might be at the early stage of engineering forceful regime change in new set of countries. Even though is recommended that the valuable strong points highlighted in the report should prompt the authorities to taking decisive steps aimed at improving Nigeria they must nonetheless focus on the more pressing issue of asking the international community to call the United States to order by way of discontinuing any of its subversive programs targeted at Nigeria.

PROCEDURE – The meeting dissolved into groups to consider the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. Seven (7) groups considered the report under the corresponding sections it was partitioned into. These are:

Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person

Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties

Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process

Section 4. Corruption and Lack of Transparency in Government

Section 5. Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights

Section 6. Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons

Section 7. Worker Rights

Another group briefly reviewed trend of reports for selected countries across the regions of world. The countries were selected to reflect a mix to reflect nations that are considered allies of the US and those against which it is known to belligerent.

All the groups reconvened into plenary after they have concluded their assignment. Each group presented its observations.

OBSERVATIONS — The observations and findings of the eight groups were aggregated to arrive at the consensus view of Nigeria Arise (United Kingdom Chapter). It was observed that:

1. The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018 is a publication of the United States, which by default is intended to serve its interests in pursuit of global dominance. The relevance that is attached to the report comes from a misplaced relevance placed on it by other countries of the world, driven principally by aggressive media marketing that usually trail its release.

2. Nigerian authorities will have to set up a government team to study the report with the aim of further decoding it to get a fairer sense of the estimate in which the United States holds Nigeria. This exercise should be with a view to developing reciprocal measures that will ensure that the US will soft pedal on the promoting damaging content about Nigeria.

3. The Federal Government of Nigeria has to do more to counter the negativity that is reported about the country by promptly addressing the lies and inaccuracies compiled by organizations like Amnesty International, whose reports formed the major input for the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. NGOs and CSOs that operate similar agenda to Amnesty International must be managed using similar approach.

4. The report, rather than commending the Nigerian Military for their feat in suppressing Boko haram, set out to make the war against terrorism appear like a criminal enterprise undertaken by the Nigerian state.  It even went to the low ebb of suggesting that disproportionate force was being used in the anti-terrorism war.

5. The misinformation contained in the report in its assessment of the anti-terrorism war against Boko Haram and ISIS-WA strongly suggest that the only interest the United States has in the matter is for Nigeria to come under more terrorist attacks. This is especially so as the report failed to acknowledge the role of the US in aggravating the crisis through its policy that caused instability in the Middle East and North Africa to strengthen ISIS and accelerate the flow of weapons to terrorists.

6. The unfair demonization of the Nigerian military was matched by attempts to exonerate terrorist sympathizers like those who hide under the cover of being aid workers to support terrorists.  

7. The anti-corruption efforts, which Nigerians continue to be supportive of, was undermined by the report, which created the impression that enough was not being done to fight corruption. It was noted that the United States only disparage the anti-corruption efforts without acknowledging its role in promoting corruption in Nigeria either as being a receiving territory for proceeds of corruption or a tourist destination for persons that have been indicted on corruption charges.

8. The report is proving to be a decoy to reignite the issue of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) rights in pursuit of coercing Nigeria to repeal the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2014. The other areas in which Nigeria has made progress are being ignored to focus on an issue that the country legislated on based on democratic processes. 

9. It also undermined the progress Nigeria has made in its democratic journey by presenting elections in the country as being flawed. It was apparent that this is being done by the US in its bid to empower the opposition as a fallback option for when it is interested in implementing forceful regime change in the country.

RECOMMENDATIONS – On the strength of the lies and disinformation contained in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018 as published by the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour of the United States, Arise Nigeria recommends as follow:

1. The Federal Government must reject the fabrications contained in the report and make its stance know to the United States.

2. Efforts must be made to reassure commanders and personnel of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that their efforts and sacrifices in fighting terrorism are appreciated by government and citizens alike and that they must not be dissuaded by the neocon lies of the US.

3. Nigerians must remind the United States that the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2014 was the product of a National Assembly that was democratically elected such that blackmailing the military and security forces of the country to have the law repealed will be counterproductive.

CONCLUSION — The United Kingdom Chapter of Arise Nigeria concluded the meeting by setting up a committee to interface with the Nigerian government in crafting continue responses to the disparaging submission about Nigeria in Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018.

By Richard Murphy 

Who else is an expert in Nigeria and Nigerian affairs if not former United States (U.S.) Ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell? He also happens to be the go-to person for those that are desirous of setting the country ablaze. After all, Campbell happens to have the credibility as a onetime diplomat in Nigeria and is equally an American. As we have been told in a not too long-ago ignoble past, “America will know” if something is going wrong.  

Consistent with the agenda and policy of the United States, Campbell saw an opening to further the destabilization component of this agenda in the recently concluded General Elections. He used election post-mortem for the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington DC to further demonstrate the animosity he harbors towards Nigerians.  

In an irresponsible act that the US will not accept from anyone, he constituted himself into the approving authority with jurisdiction for validating Nigeria’s elections as credible and acceptable or otherwise. His verdict was that the 2019 General Elections were bad news for democracy in Nigeria. What is bad news, in reality, is that any right-thinking person can for a moment believe that Campbell is capable of being truthful, even to himself.  

It sad that some people, driven by sentiments, especially the opposition, are cheering Campbell on without realizing that his assessment of the election was not driven by any genuine love of Nigeria but is a racist reaction on the part of man who perpetually thinks that by virtue of his white skin he is superior to Africans with their dark skin. His intervention was driven by a perverted belief that the west or the US must continue to sit in judgment over African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries because they are incapable of managing their own affairs.  

Yet, Campbell is from the United States, which events of recent years have proven to be no better than other countries over, which its minions like the former US ambassador to Nigeria seek to subjugate for its geo-strategic interests. First, this is a country whose elections are also imperfect to an extent that it has itself confirmed that Russia was able to rig the election for its incumbent President, Donald Trump. Also, the Russian intervention in the US election still rankles for the Americans, who have continued to lament the sense of desecration they felt so why does Campbell think it is alright to meddle in Nigeria’s affairs. Lastly, the imperfection in the US election with the Russian rigging of Trump into power remains a sore point for Americans so where is Campbell’s moral right to questions elections that were held within the Nigerian reality?  

The true scale of the frustration that propelled the former US ambassador to write his misleading submission is better understood against the background of the failure of the intelligence he provided to his country. It is understood that he misled his country into supporting the candidacy of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP)’s Atiku Abubakar. This shift from Atiku being a fugitive to him being an aide to visiting VIP was in part based on Campbell’s recommendations that his country should not be antagonistic of the “incoming president”.  A footnote here is that Campbell will never accept anyone linked with the Congressman Jefferson bribe-for-influence scandal to be a councilor in his own country.  

Campbell’s disdain and disrespect for Nigeria runs deep for him to pre-empt the judiciary. In his country, declaring that the candidate challenging the outcome of the election in court would not win his suit is would be considered sub judice, something for which he could be held in contempt and possibly spend time in jail. But knowing that he is beyond the reach of Nigeria’s jurisdiction, he cowardly made partial comments on a matter before the court in Nigeria, and in a manner likely to fuel violent reactions at that.  

If Campbell were taken seriously then the US is guilty of the same offence as Nigeria by electing a 72-year-old Donald Trump in response to Nigeria’s 76-year-old President Buhari. Yet, this charlatan was pontificating about how “there would be no generational leadership change” because his permutation failed spectacularly.    

 The direction that Campbell and his clients will pursue next is already clearly indicated. They will intensify whatever it is they have been doing to destabilize Nigeria. The code for this was embedded in his analysis when he wrote “Nigerians have begun to question whether democracy is right for their country”. This is Campbell setting the stage for the violent street protests, replica of Arab Spring, to overthrow a duly elected government.   

Fortunately, a lot has changed since 2007 when Campbell completed his assignment as an ambassador in Nigeria. He might have succeeded in the past with deceiving his clients about having contacts and leverage in Nigeria. His flawed recommendation that made his country bank on Atiku is enough proof that he has lost touch with the reality on ground here in Nigeria. His resort to hinting at non-democratic change in government or claiming that Nigerians are doubting their democracy is another faux that will further diminish his value as a diplomat as he will emerge as an analyst whose work is not reliable. 

In conclusion, Nigerians that are setting stock in the mediocrity that Campbell presented as an objective analysis must enlighten themselves to reality. Even if Campbell were still the US ambassador to Nigeria his words are not law; incumbent Ambassador W. Stuart Symington, who was on the field and meddled endlessly realized the futility of interfering in Nigeria’s affairs so a former office holder will be even less successful. Campbell is past tense.

Murphy contributed this piece from Calabar, Nigeria.

I

The Nigerian Army has been in the eye of the storm over the conduct of soldiers deployed to provide security during the 2019 elections. The soldiers have been roundly accused in several quarters of committing infractions, including partisan interference in the electoral process, that seriously undermined the credibility and sanctity of the elections. In fact, in the estimation of many observers, both Federal Government and the Army stand condemned over the undue militarisation of the electoral process.

But it is an accusation that the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai, in this interview with pressmen, dismisses in its entirety.

THE military was accused of aiding in  election malpractices like snatching of ballot boxes. Your reaction? Militarisation has to be defined. What do you mean by militarisation? How exactly did the military take part in the elections? Generalisation is not the best. People just use the word militarisation without defining it. Was the so-called militarisation everywhere across the country? Why are people making so much noise about it? They are giving the impression that the military was involved in the entire process in the whole country. It is just probably a definition they only restricted to Lagos or where? ..Niger-Delta mostly People cannot just use the word militarisation in general terms to say the security agencies were involved. Who are the people involved? What does the Constitution say about the role of the military? We have the constitutional provision. We have made it very clear; we are not part of these elections, we are only supporting the police. Anything we do there is helping the police who are representing the civil authority in law enforcement and it is very clear that we have been called out to support the civil authority. That does not mean militarisation. And once we go out there, we are performing police role, it is not a military role, we are supporting the police essentially; that is very clear. The military was called out to come and support the police. So, they are just using the military in order to justify their failures, to justify their inadequacies, to justify their inability to rig because the security forces provided the needed security to prevent massive rigging, ballot box-snatching and so on. But strictly, the use of the word, militarisation is misplaced, it is wrong. We were there to perform our responsibilities based on the invitation to support the police which is legitimate. There is no way you will say that the election was militarised; it is misuse of the term. If really  the election was militarised, I tell you, nobody would take the law into his hands the way they did brazenly and deliberately did, even attacking our men, killing our personnel. An officer was killed, policemen were killed so if we were to take drastic steps to really show we were involved, it would have been worse than this. We were able to maintain law and order; we were able to conduct ourselves within the rules of engagement which is legitimate. So there is a deliberate misconception or misinterpretation of the role of the military in order to malign the military and discredit it despite the stupendous efforts we have made to ensure security in support of the civil authority. And you know very well if the security agencies, including the military, had not come out to support the elections in providing security, the level of insecurity, the level of killings, arson, ballot box-snatching and so on, would have been worse than what was experienced. So many of the stakeholders, both at home and abroad, have commended the military for remaining neutral, impartial and conducting themselves professionally; but a few elements who felt they were not given the chance to rig and to disturb on a massive scale the election process, are the ones shouting that the whole process was militarised. The military was not there to support any political party; we were there to provide adequate security as requested, in support of the electoral process. That was essentially what we did. So to say that the process was militarised is a misplaced use of word; it is unfortunate. Over the years, from our historical experiences, the outcomes or results of elections have been the major cause of instability in our polity.  They have led to a lot of killings, arson, you name it: in Kaduna, Zangon-Kataf, Modakeke and so many other places. So historically, if you look at it, we had those unfortunate incidents because they were allowed to go out of control. We had so many underlying factors; even in the First Republic, we saw the underlying factors that led to the  civil war; it is the same outcome of elections that led to that, characterised by so many malpractices. So government doesn’t want the same thing to happen and that was why the military was called in to support the police. There is no way we would be partisan; the country’s stability, the country’s peace is our watchword, it is very, very fundamental. Some people just chose to blame different entities and bodies for their failures.

On the allegation that the soldiers caught snatching ballot boxes are fake “Yes, that is another dimension because as I said, those people that did not want the election to go smoothly, created their own local militia, gave them military and police uniforms to be moving out here and there to misbehave, snatch ballot boxes, to disrupt the electoral process and so on. So anyone that sees them will automatically say it is the military and that is completely at variance with our code of conduct, with our ethics and the way we train our officers and men to ensure they behave professionally; that is very clear.  We arrested several of them and you must have seen our press releases with pictures of the fake soldiers, fake policemen, fake security operatives and so on. So once you see this, it is not the Army that created those ones and gave them uniforms; so instead of them to admit their shortcomings and misconduct, they are covering their heinous activities/crimes under the guise of militarisation. It is so painful, so terrible that they don’t have conscience and continue to blame the military for their own mischievous actions. This is where the Press needs to be objective, look at it critically. The Army cannot go and dress fake people or criminals to go and act on their behalf. We have seen the thugs, the militias; so where does the military come in?

These are very clear. So we have to be reasonable and objective; we are paid by the state to ensure that we defend our country and prevent breakdown of law and order for us to progress; there is no other way. It is very important.

I

The Nigerian Army has been in the eye of the storm over the conduct of soldiers deployed to provide security during the 2019 elections. The soldiers have been roundly accused in several quarters of committing infractions, including partisan interference in the electoral process, that seriously undermined the credibility and sanctity of the elections. In fact, in the estimation of many observers, both Federal Government and the Army stand condemned over the undue militarisation of the electoral process.

But it is an accusation that the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai, in this interview with pressmen, dismisses in its entirety.

THE military was accused of aiding in  election malpractices like snatching of ballot boxes. Your reaction? Militarisation has to be defined. What do you mean by militarisation? How exactly did the military take part in the elections? Generalisation is not the best. People just use the word militarisation without defining it. Was the so-called militarisation everywhere across the country? Why are people making so much noise about it? They are giving the impression that the military was involved in the entire process in the whole country. It is just probably a definition they only restricted to Lagos or where? ..Niger-Delta mostly People cannot just use the word militarisation in general terms to say the security agencies were involved. Who are the people involved? What does the Constitution say about the role of the military? We have the constitutional provision. We have made it very clear; we are not part of these elections, we are only supporting the police. Anything we do there is helping the police who are representing the civil authority in law enforcement and it is very clear that we have been called out to support the civil authority. That does not mean militarisation. And once we go out there, we are performing police role, it is not a military role, we are supporting the police essentially; that is very clear. The military was called out to come and support the police. So, they are just using the military in order to justify their failures, to justify their inadequacies, to justify their inability to rig because the security forces provided the needed security to prevent massive rigging, ballot box-snatching and so on. But strictly, the use of the word, militarisation is misplaced, it is wrong. We were there to perform our responsibilities based on the invitation to support the police which is legitimate. There is no way you will say that the election was militarised; it is misuse of the term. If really  the election was militarised, I tell you, nobody would take the law into his hands the way they did brazenly and deliberately did, even attacking our men, killing our personnel. An officer was killed, policemen were killed so if we were to take drastic steps to really show we were involved, it would have been worse than this. We were able to maintain law and order; we were able to conduct ourselves within the rules of engagement which is legitimate. So there is a deliberate misconception or misinterpretation of the role of the military in order to malign the military and discredit it despite the stupendous efforts we have made to ensure security in support of the civil authority. And you know very well if the security agencies, including the military, had not come out to support the elections in providing security, the level of insecurity, the level of killings, arson, ballot box-snatching and so on, would have been worse than what was experienced. So many of the stakeholders, both at home and abroad, have commended the military for remaining neutral, impartial and conducting themselves professionally; but a few elements who felt they were not given the chance to rig and to disturb on a massive scale the election process, are the ones shouting that the whole process was militarised. The military was not there to support any political party; we were there to provide adequate security as requested, in support of the electoral process. That was essentially what we did. So to say that the process was militarised is a misplaced use of word; it is unfortunate. Over the years, from our historical experiences, the outcomes or results of elections have been the major cause of instability in our polity.  They have led to a lot of killings, arson, you name it: in Kaduna, Zangon-Kataf, Modakeke and so many other places. So historically, if you look at it, we had those unfortunate incidents because they were allowed to go out of control. We had so many underlying factors; even in the First Republic, we saw the underlying factors that led to the  civil war; it is the same outcome of elections that led to that, characterised by so many malpractices. So government doesn’t want the same thing to happen and that was why the military was called in to support the police. There is no way we would be partisan; the country’s stability, the country’s peace is our watchword, it is very, very fundamental. Some people just chose to blame different entities and bodies for their failures.

On the allegation that the soldiers caught snatching ballot boxes are fake “Yes, that is another dimension because as I said, those people that did not want the election to go smoothly, created their own local militia, gave them military and police uniforms to be moving out here and there to misbehave, snatch ballot boxes, to disrupt the electoral process and so on. So anyone that sees them will automatically say it is the military and that is completely at variance with our code of conduct, with our ethics and the way we train our officers and men to ensure they behave professionally; that is very clear.  We arrested several of them and you must have seen our press releases with pictures of the fake soldiers, fake policemen, fake security operatives and so on. So once you see this, it is not the Army that created those ones and gave them uniforms; so instead of them to admit their shortcomings and misconduct, they are covering their heinous activities/crimes under the guise of militarisation. It is so painful, so terrible that they don’t have conscience and continue to blame the military for their own mischievous actions. This is where the Press needs to be objective, look at it critically. The Army cannot go and dress fake people or criminals to go and act on their behalf. We have seen the thugs, the militias; so where does the military come in?

These are very clear. So we have to be reasonable and objective; we are paid by the state to ensure that we defend our country and prevent breakdown of law and order for us to progress; there is no other way. It is very important.

G

lobal Integrity Crusade Network (GICN), a human rights group has petitioned the National Human Rights Commission over alleged coordinated attacks on military personnel by some persons believed to be working for Rivers State Government.

The human rights group specifically frowned at the role of Governor Nyeson Wike in the inhuman treatment, violent attack and attempted murder of military officers performing election duties in the state on March 9, 2019.

 

In a letter addressed to the Executive Secretary, the group through its Public Relations Officer, Abiodun Sodiq Babalola, Esq. observed that the Fact-Finding Committee set up by INEC to investigate the root causes of the widespread disruption and violence that

characterized the Governorship Election in Rivers State has either refused to do a good job or has chosen to be openly biased.

The letter reads below. 

Our Global Integrity Crusade Network (GICN), a pro-democracy Civil Society Organization based in Nigeria wishes to draw your attention to the ugly incidence of inhuman treatment, violent attack and attempt to murder some military officers sent to maintain peace during the controversial Rivers State Governorship Election conducted on 9th March, 2019 in which the incumbent, Barr. Nyesom Wike sought re-election for a second term. 

In an attempt at covering up the roles played by Governor Wike who practically led his security aides from the Rivers State Police Command together with heavily armed thugs to disrupt collation of results at Obio/Akpor Local Government Area, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has been shifting blames by accusing the Nigerian Army of being deployed to do the bidding of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Rivers State. 

The true position of things based on the information at our disposal as an independent stakeholder in the electoral process is that the Nigerian Army was never instrumental to the mayhem caused in Rivers State that led to the indefinite suspension of elections by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

 It is also important to state that the Fact-Finding Committee set up by INEC to investigate the root causes of the widespread disruption and violence that characterized the Governorship Election in Rivers State has either refused to do a good job or has chosen to be openly biased. 

In its report, the Committee was quick to mislead the public by alleging that “some soldiers” invaded collation centres and intimidated electoral officials. This allegation was re-echoed by INEC’s National Commissioner and Chairman, Information and Voter Education Committee, Barr. Festus Okoye who maintained, albeit without any form of proofs, on Channels TV on Monday, March 18, 2019 that military officers agreed that “they intervened in some places during the election”. We make bold to say that the position taken by INEC against the Nigerian Army is partial, offensive and calculated to damage their name thereby undermining the genuine sacrifices made in ensuring that INEC fulfill its duties under a peaceful atmosphere. 

Worthy of note is the fact that INEC failed, neglected and or deliberately omitted to mention the inhuman treatment and attacks meted on officers of the Nigerian Army by security aides and armed thugs acting upon the orders of Governor Wike. As it happened, Captain Adams Salami was shot at close range while Corporal Adeosun Adebayo was thoroughly matcheted to the extent of being left to grapple with life threatening injuries. One would have expected the Rivers State Police Command, whose men attached to Governor Wike were found complicit in the violence against military officers, to take appropriate disciplinary actions against those involved and make such actions public to forestall future occurrences. 

Unfortunately, nothing close to either investigation or sanction has been heard from the Rivers State Police Command till date. Being the foregoing as it may, we consider it a matter of absolute urgency for the National Human Rights Commission under your leadership to intervene in this matter. More particularly, we call on you to investigate the role of Governor Wike and the PDP in the entire crisis that led to injury to the persons of Captain Adams Salami and Corporal Adeosun Adebayo at about 10.30pm of Saturday, March 9, 2019 while the duo were performing their legitimate duties of protecting lives and properties of law abiding citizens and ensuring a hitch free collation at the outer perimeter of Obio/Akpor Local Government Headquarters Collation Centre. 

For the avoidance of doubt, the two injured military officers are still receiving treatment at Intensive Care Unit of University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital (UPTH) and Military Hospital Port Harcourt, respectively, as we write. We submit that military personnel like other Nigerian citizens are entitled to enjoy the fundamental rights enshrined under Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). 

These rights are inalienable and deserve to be protected by the Commission, no matter whose ox is gored. Let us put it on record that GICN will be seeking redress for Captain Adams Salami and Corporal Adeosun Adebayo in a competent court of law within the next 7 (Seven) working days from the date hereof if we do not receive a positive response from your office regarding the concrete steps taken by the Commission to live up to its mandate of giving voice to the voiceless and justice to the oppressed.

The Federal Government on Thursday closed its case of false and non-declaration of charges preferred against the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

Although, the prosecution led by Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN) had proposed to call six witnesses to prove its case against the defendant, it closed its case after calling three of them.

Umar announced his decision to close the prosecution’s case after the third witness, Ifeoma Okeagbue, an official of Standard Chartered Bank, concluded her testimony on Thursday.

The prosecuting counsel said he had chosen to offer to the defence team the rest of his proposed witnesses, three of them, who were not called by the prosecution.

But the lead defence counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), rejected the offer.

He then sought the permission of the three-man bench led by its Chairman, Danladi Umar, to consult with the defendant who was seated in the dock.

After a brief interaction with the suspended CJN, Awomolo announced that Onnoghen had opted to file a no-case submission, implying that the defence will contend that the prosecution has failed to make a case against the defendant and there will not be any need for the suspended CJN to enter his defence.

A second prosecution witness, PW-2, on Thursday, appeared before the Mr Danladi Umar-led three –man of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) tribunal to testify in the ongoing trial of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen.

Onnoghen is facing trial over his alleged failure to declare his assets.

Testifying on Thursday, Mr Awal Yakassai, a retired Director at the Code of Conduct Bureau, CCB,told the tribunal, the suspended CJN owned only five houses, and not 55 as erroneously claimed by a section of the media, adding, “It was not true that CCB investigators linked the ownership of 55 houses to the defendant.”

The disclosure came after the witness was shown copies of Justice Onnoghen’s asset declaration forms, which the Federal Government tendered in evidence before the CCT.

The suspendede CJN was said to have submitted the forms marked as Exhibit 2 and 3, to the CCB in 2014 and 2015.

While fielding questions under cross-examination, the PW-2, told the tribunal that he served at the CCB for 29 years before he retired in April 2018.

He added that the CCB was yet to verify Justice Onnoghen’s assets with a view to finding out if he made false declarations.

Holding the two documents while being questioned by Onnoghen’s lawyer, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, the witness said: “My lord, according to exhibit 2 and 3, the defendant has only five buildings and not 55”.

Awomolo noted that one of the five buildings was given to the defendant by the federal government itself.

The witness testified further that the verification columns on Onnoghen’s two asset declaration forms were still empty.

He said: “As indicated here, the column for verified assets have not been signed as at today” he added, saying it was standard practice at the CCB that returned asset declaration forms must pass through three stages of verification.

“My lord we have three stages of verification, the first is at the time of submission of forms, the second is what we called conference verification whereby we invite the person. And the third is physical verification of the assets.

“Until these three stages are completed, we cannot say that the assets have been verified”.

Recalled that the CCT boss had giving prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar, the go ahead to call a second witness to give evidence against the suspended CJN who is answering to a six-count charge for alleged non-declarationof asset and for operating five foreign bank accounts, contrary to section 15(2) of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.

The former lawmaker in a letter entitled “Time To Break off The Disintegration Of Nigeria:” An Open Letter and obtained by our reporter on Thursday, urged the US Government to investigate the researchers who packaged the report and apply appropriate sanctions on them for official ineptitude as advertised by  the poor job.  

The letter reads in full.

March 20, 2019

His Excellency,

 President Donald Trump,

The President,

United States of America,

The White House,

 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W. Washington, DC 20500.

 

Your Excellency, Sir,

“Time To Break off The Disintegration Of Nigeria:” An Open Letter.

Permit me to extend special compliments to you; the Government and people of the United States of America (USA) in the spirit of the Christian season of Lent.

I am encouraged as an elder citizen and leader in Nigeria to write you this open letter in order to correct certain erroneous impressions and strengthen the records on the punchy assault on the human rights direction of the incumbent leadership of the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) under President Muhammadu Buhari, and the Nigerian Military, especially the Nigerian Army.

My motivation for this open epistle is energized by a report recently released through the US Department of State titled, “2018 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.” In the report,  the American Government  accused the FGN and state agents, particularly, the Nigerian Army  of  arbitrary and unlawful killings and an array of other sundry crimes  bothering on human rights violations allegedly perpetrated in our country in the year under review.

First, let me commend the friendly interest of the US Government in the affairs of Nigeria. It is a demonstration of the finest pursuit of the global agenda of upholding human dignity, peace, unity and security of nations of the world. I dare say, Nigeria relishes the good and smooth diplomatic ties with America in the last few years and believe it will further deepen in the years ahead.

I accept in totality that the  US  “2018 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,” is one of the many ways the American Government keeps independent nations around the world on their toes,  foster global communism, respect for human dignity and  the fundamental human rights of all races  of the world.  

However, I believe certain assumptions as contained in the report on Nigeria, which hinged on human rights violations by the Nigerian Army did not reflect the reality in our country under the Buhari Presidency.  We must first acknowledge that Nigeria is facing one of its toughest times in history, since independence.

With an array of  threatening insecurity issues ranging from Boko Haram terrorism to other insurrectional uprisings and near senseless agitations, our country has been on the cliffhanger to say the least. It is glaring to all Nigerians that the veiled and open plots to destabilize Nigeria and possibly cause its disintegration spearheaded by internal actors is actively backed by foreign forces.

The gang-up against Nigeria to cause its break-up is strong, thick, scary and penetrative, as reflected in the barrage of existing and emerging insecurity threats across the country.

Our military, especially the Nigerian Army are overstretched in efforts to contain the pervading terrorism and insurrections. But the Nigerian Army under the able leadership of the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Lt.Gen. Tukur Yusufu Buratai, who also doubles as the leader of the counter-insurgency operations in Nigeria have been the saving grace and they have never flinched. 

It is needless to chronicle the steadfastness and sacrifices the Army as an institution and our soldiers have made in the last three years to anchor the relative peace and security we savour today in the country. We are proud of them for repressing our foes.

We owe them a debt of gratitude; Nigerian soldiers deserve our collective applause for the wonderful outings, especially against Boko Haram insurgency.

However, external enemies of Nigeria in league with devious internal allies are saddened by the unbreakable patriotism, loyalty and commitment of our troops  to the cause of the emancipation of Nigeria, by  mounting  an effective, impenetrable  and strong bulwark against these dark agents of destabilization and break-up of Nigeria.

Therefore, it is common knowledge that they have conspired to break the resolve of the Nigerian Army in winning the war against terror and insurrections. They have deployed various antics, including, but not restricted to false accusations of the Army on human rights violations, smear campaigns and outright vilification of the institution of the Nigerian Army to dampen the fighting spirit of soldiers and weaken their morale.  But these gimmicks have failed to post the results the detractors expect.  

A portion of the US report interested me; It said,  “There were several reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary and unlawful killings. The national police, army, and other security services used lethal and excessive force to disperse protesters and apprehend criminals and suspects and committed other extrajudicial killings. “But this is not factual and indeed, inaccurate as it concerns the Nigerian Army.

The Nigerian Army under the leadership of Gen. Buratai has always held itself accountable to the people and government of Nigeria. In all operations of soldiers, especially in the Northeast,  the  Army leadership has always ensured compliance with international best practices in  observing human rights obligations and rules of engagement.

Your Excellency, it may interest you to know that the Nigerian Army under the leadership of Gen. Buratai has set up the Human Rights Desk in Army Headquarters,’ Abuja. It is the first of its kind since the establishment of the Nigerian Army.  And its mandate is to pry into cases of alleged human rights violations of Nigerians by Army personnel. The Human Rights Desk is replicated in all Army Divisions in the country for ease of access.    

An Army leadership with such disposition cannot be adjudged as courting human rights abuses. And truly, no innocent Nigerian citizen has been killed by either the military or any other security agencies without the appropriate sanctions.

And for the first time since the inception of the Nigerian Army, court summons are served soldiers by aggrieved litigants and the Army appears in court to defend allegations against their personnel. It is a remarkable departure from the tradition of the past, known to us, when soldiers were untouchable or never submitted themselves to lawful institutions for public trial.

When Amnesty International (AI) released its 2017 report on human rights abuses titled,  “Stars on their shoulder, blood on their hands,” in which they elaborately accused soldiers fighting insurgency in the Northeast of various human rights abuses, the first reaction of the Army was to set up a Military Panel of inquiry to ascertain the veracity of the claims and possibly punish culprits.

Furthermore,  the Presidency also constituted a Presidential Panel of Inquiry to  probe the  same allegations and or, review compliance of the armed forces with human rights obligations and rules of engagement. It was chaired by a distinguished jurist, Justice Biobele A. Georgewill. I attended one of the sittings of the panel in Abuja, I found it strange,  the discovery that Amnesty International’s published the report on alleged rights abuses against soldiers in the Nigeria’s Northeast without visiting Maiduiguri, the epicenter of the reported human rights violations.    

Notwithstanding, the appalling reality, the   Presidential Panel submitted its report in 2018. It  is still being processed by the relevant authorities and a white paper would soon be issued. I believe based on the disposition of Mr. President, no one found guilty or complicit in the alleged crimes against humanity will be spared. The Buhari Presidency has zero tolerance for impunity and corruption, which shielding the probe panel’s report would amount to a self-indictment of his administration which has earned the trust and confidence of Nigerians on confronting these malaises.  

I have no doubt that President Buhari has placed the security of lives and property of Nigeria paramount on his list of priorities and monitors security agents over rights abuses of Nigerians.  And despite the overwhelming presence of soldiers drafted to assist civil security in virtually all the 36 states of the federation, there are fewer reported cases of human rights violations or undignified treatment of civilians by soldiers on special assignments.

And Nigerians can testify to several instances where the Army leadership penalized soldiers found to have indulged in professional misconducts and human rights abuses of Nigerians.      

Sir, it is my firm conviction that the contents of the  US Department of State titled, “2018 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,” are misplaced. I believe strongly that the researchers were misled into crafting the report based on speculative assumptions to erode the credibility of the FGN, the Nigerian Army and other security agencies.

I submit that the contents were not fair, truthful and completely in dissonance with the reality in Nigeria. I urge the US Government to investigate the researchers who packaged the report and apply appropriate sanctions on them for official ineptitude as advertised by  the poor job.  

Thank You for your kind audience. And may God bless  the United States of America.  

Yours Sincerely

Sen. Ameh Ebute,

Former President of the Senate, 

Federal Republic of Nigeria,

Abuja