sponsor

sponsor

PremiumTimesNG

Loading...

Channels Television

Loading...

NewTelegraph

Loading...

News

PremiumTimesNG

Loading...

Opinions

politics

Finance

Education

Agriculture

Nigerian military

Lt Col Abu Ali: Tribute to a brave heart, by Rotimi Opeyeoluwa

By: Bhodemarz on November 01, 2017 / comment : 0 , ,

Late Lt Col. Abu Ali
“Gentlemen, stay alert, alive and be prayerful. I don’t want any of my solider injured or losses his life in this operation, and if at all someone may go down, let me be the one” — Lt Col Abu Ali
Plato, the great philosopher ranked man in terms of precious metals. Some he classified as gold, others as silver and another group he categorised as bronze. Lt. Col Abu Ali, the slain Commander of the 272 Task Force Tank Battalion was pure gold, whose death leaves a festering wound on the heart. He was until his brutal death in the hands of Boko Haram insurgents this time last year a moving spirit whose acclaim as a determined fighter was already established. He was a patriot and worthy commander who earned the respect of his troops by leading the charge from the frontlines.
He was courageous, radical, dedicated and fiercely independent minded and inspire the ideals of an Army that had earned its reputation as a tenacious and battle-tested with a resolve to win against all odds. He didn’t care for glory, matter of fact, in not seeking glory; he became a legend. It is said that dead lions don’t roar, not in the case of Abu Ali, whose deeds on the battlefield continue to animate discussions and salutations ever since. Following his death and in recounting his exploits on the battlefields, I have heard some refer to the late officer as plainly suicidal. I beg to disagree with such assertion. Matter of fact, indeed, nothing can be further from the truth. If he had drive-it was inspired by patriotism-pure and simple.
A rare breed by all assessment, as an officer, he never flinched under imminent danger but rather he with his with some soldiers leaned into danger to do their duties. In dying, they didn’t think of their lives as important, didn’t flee for family, neither did they care for anything as important-not even living. They stepped into eternity with heads unbowed and as warriors fighting for a worthy cause.
Abu Ali was a man of tremendous strength of character and was led to live for and die for the love of country. He lived for a high mission in his short life and by the time of his painful exit, he had won the admiration and respect of all who came to know of his exploits on the battlefield. His was a gallant life. That much can be said of the former commander of the 272 Task Force Tank Battalion whose death and those of six other soldiers, (Sgt. Muazu Ibrahim, Sgt. Hussani Jafaru, Sgt. Bassey Okon, Cpl. Chukwu Simon, Able Sea Patrick Paul and Pte. Salihu Lawal) rightly sparked national mourning, deservedly so.
As ferocious as he was-he was not reckless, conscientious and self-sacrifice defined his motives. He was never a coward. The tales of his heroics, especially in the retake of cities such as Monguno, Mallam Fatori, Gamboru-Ngala, Baga and others is still spoken off with fondness by soldiers. Abu Ali exemplified the truest and ennobling spirit and fine qualities which a soldier should posse. He died as he lived, a warrior whose love for country was un-surpassing. His death was simply for Nigeria’s honour and the defence of the integrity of an army he was proud to serve. As it with people of extraordinary courage, tales about him can never fade.
Even in death, it is difficult not to assess with fascination, albeit fully the plain, complex, brave and fierce contribution of this particular officer continue to hold for future generation of soldiers and officers in Nigeria. A legend whose death left us permanently disgusted, saturated with gloomy thinking and highly sadden, even now, one year after, we owe him a debt of gratitude. At his burial officers and men of the Nigerian Army broke down even the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. General Tukur Burutai, openly wept. His course mates, members of the 45th Regular course of the Nigerian Defence Academy lost a great comrade whose loss, they lament as ‘an irreplaceable asset’.
It cannot be contested that soldiering is a dangerous and tasking calling the world over. Their calling is risky and their enterprise is fraught with injuries and instant death. Nothing much has changed about their fate even as technological advancement continue to dictate the pace of victory or defeat and direction of warfare, especially in modern times, be it conventional or unconventional warfare. Such is the reality of soldiering and are soldiers trained to accept the reality of their risky and frightful eventuality from their point of enlistment. Good soldiers prepared their fate with equanimity uncommon and inspiring, mindful that by their very calling, though born out of service to their country, they are fated to early demise or grave injuries on behalf of their citizenry.
The epitaph of the America’s 2nd division memorial at Kobima, Burma, attributed to John Edmond in 1944, says a lot of the mindset of the average soldier: “When you go home, tell them of us, and say-for their tomorrow, we gave our today”. This gallant and extremely genuinely brave heart and patriot par excellence fell in battle for a worthy cause. It is mandatory for Nigerians to know and recall the remarkable life of sacrifice of this officer and others maimed or killed in action by insurgents with a sense of gratitude.
A hero and extremely selfless officer, it is with tremendous pain in my heart that I recall where and how I received the terrible news of his death in the hands of blood thirsty vampires and I and several other Nigerians were plunged into a bottomless depth of despair. His death saddens me till date- I remain utterly devastated and inconsolable. What a loss! I kept wondering why I was so grief stricken at the death of a total stranger. I am only just coming out of grief for him. Pained and vexed in equal measure, I am left with nothing but to philosophise on the ephemeralness of life and resigned to the fact that from God we came, to Him shall we all return. While I gave him a moment of blessed prayers, I heaped curses of the insurgents and their supporters.
Stricken by the shattering reality of his passage, I am consoled by the beauty of his contribution to the counter-insurgency operation. Such a courageous, indefatigable, committed and inspiring figure that had led series of fight the insurgents, displaying in the full and at great personal risk, his commitment to the notion of one, indefensible and secured Nigeria, is no more, but his contribution to the eradication of terrorism in Nigeria is forever etched on our hearts. We shall forever be grateful to him and live with his memory as a patriot and may his heroism inspire others in our quest for a more stable and peaceful country. By his demise, he has showed how war with its unique mix of sacrifice and, courage both burdens and strengthens the heart of combatants, who learns in equal measure how cruel and how noble human beings can be as alluded to by John McCain.
Lt. Col. Ali, exemplifies the truest and ennobling qualities which a good solider should possess. He died that we may have a peaceful and more secured country. Though resting in the national military cemetery, his legacies lives on, in fact, he is a model in toughness and supreme bravery. By his actions and eventual death, his life is an essential lesson in the meaning of honour, integrity, sacrifice, devotion to duty, bravery and character. Abu Ali, offered himself by the ethos he lived and died fighting for: Nigeria’s honour and territorial integrity is inviolable.
Abu Ali and other soldiers were there for Nigeria, at our country’s hour of maximum danger. As he lies in eternal rest at the Military Cemetery in Abuja out of love for his fatherland, I ask, is Nigeria there for him and his dependants at this moment? I remain awe at his sacrifices, steadfast dedication to duty, sense of esprit de corps and valiant commitment. I am bolstered by his outstanding professionalism, physical and mental toughness and selfless service to our country-his kind is rare.
His love for the country was unmistaken. His was a willingness to sacrifice and above all, total commitment to the principles of duty, honour and country. That was his essence and he died in its defence. He was awarded the Chief of Army Staff award for exceptional bravery and excellence and was leap forwarded from the rank of Major to Lt. Colonel in recognition of his sterling qualities. It must be noted that it the sacrifices made thus far by officers and men that the war against these criminally minded insurgents must be fought and won. Abu Ali, a legend and a patriot, we ask, whence cometh another?

This piece, by Rotimi Opeyeoluwa, is taken from an unpublished book, ‘Milestone in Bravery: A Chronicle & Impression of War Time Commanders in Nigeria’.

Source: The Cable



How Nigerian military operations are named

By: Bhodemarz on October 28, 2017 / comment : 0 , ,

Military historians say code names for military operations started during World War I between 1914 and 1918 but became widely used during World War II from 1939 to 1945.
For instance, in Nazi Germany, the initial code name for the invasion of Russia was “Operation Fritz” but its leader, Adolf Hitler, didn’t like that name because it didn’t strike fear. He changed it to “Operation Barbarossa” after the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Frederick I Barbarossa.
In modern times, many countries and military outfits still use code names for operations. Perhaps, the most popular code name in modern war history was the Gulf war after Iraq invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. At first, the build up to the war waged by a coalition led by the United States to ousted Iraqi forces was named “Operation Desert Shield” but the actual battle was code named “Operation Desert Storm.”
Indeed, code names are not meant to divulge the intention of military actions and that which cannot be easily decoded. The objective would be known. Invariably, the army provides code names that are very striking.
In Nigeria for instance, the military has over 10 simultaneous internal security operations and military exercises ongoing in the six-geopolitical zones of the country with various code names.
But, even before now, code names had been used in the country. For instance, the military officers who staged the coup of January 15, 1966 led by Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu code named it “Operation Damisa.” This was mainly to cover up their clandestine activities that eventually led to the Nigerian civil war.
At that time, there were also “Operation Kura” believed to be targeted at eliminating certain chiefs, “Operation Zaki” to kill the remaining chiefs and “Operation Giwa” meant to carve the country into districts administered by Igbos.
Why code names?
The Nigerian Army spokesman, Brigadier General Sani Usman, said code names of military operations are determined by the circumstances and peculiar traditions.  He said it sometimes include the topography of the locations where the exercise is to take place.
He added that there is no hard and fast rule on how the code names come about, but only that they are usually two words. According to him, the operations are backed by the constitution which foresaw the need for the military to assist civil enforcement agencies in the protection of lives and property.
However, a security expert, Kabir Adamu said internal security military operations are usually what he described as “displacement of security challenges”, a situation that meant while trying to solve one problem another is created. Adamu blamed the introduction of “operations” on  lack of confidence in other civil security agencies.
Current operations with code names
There are many military operations going on in the country aimed at checking various security challenges.  Some are: 
Operation Lafiya Dole: The operation was set up to counter terrorism and insurgency. It was later expanded to specialized operations including “Operation Crackdown”, “Operation Gama Aiki” and “Operation Safe Corridor.”
Operation Gama Aiki was launched to clear remnants of Boko Haram from northern part of Borno State and the border regions with Chad and Niger Republic. It is a joint operation with the Nigerian military and the regional Multinational Joint Task Force. In fact, Gama Aiki is targeted at terrorists fleeing “Operation Crackdown.”
Operation Python Dance II: This was launched about a year after Operation Python Dance I in the Southeast. It is said to be a field training exercise.
The army said it was designed to, if necessary, dovetail into real time activities such as anti-kidnapping drills, patrols, raids, cordon and search, check points, road blocks and show of force.
The exercise is multi-agency in nature and execution, as the police, Civil Defence Corps, State Security Service and Federal Road Safety Commission collaborate to ensure overall success of the exercise.  It is with the aim of checking anticipated rising wave of crimes usually prevalent during festive periods.
Operation Crocodile Smile II: This is an exercise which involves amphibious war games in the Niger Delta region and parts of Ogun State. It is also aimed at protecting the nation’s crude oil infrastructure.
Operation Tsera Teku: This operation was officially launched in Warri, Delta State in February this year to check piracy in the Niger Delta region.
The operation is expected to curtail pipeline vandalism, armed robbery and other offshore and around the creeks criminality. It is also aimed at protecting ships and oil and gas installations.
Operation Awatse: It started in July 2016 and was to dismantle the operational bases of pipeline vandals and militants in the coastal areas of Southwest Nigeria.
Operation Sharan Daji/ Operation Harbin Kunama II:  It was established in the Northwest to battle armed bandits, cattle rustlers and robbers operating particularly in Zamfara, Kaduna and fringes of Sokoto, Kebbi, Katsina and Kano states.
Operation Mesa: This operation has been a nationwide joint police-military security taskforce. It is called “Operation Yaki” in Kaduna State and “Operation Zenda” in Benue State.
Operation Safe Haven: It is stationed in Plateau State with areas of operation extending to Benue, Kogi, Nasarawa and Kwara states to quell ethno-religious conflicts and other criminal activities.
Operation Delta Safe: This was set up to replace Operation Pulo Shield. It is aimed at containing security challenges in the Niger Delta, especially protection of critical national assets and provision of security in the area.
Operation Ruwan Wuta II: The operation is a further crackdown on Boko Haram terrorists as part of efforts to decimate them and check their ability to freely operate in the country by the Nigerian Air Force (NAF). Air Force spokesman, Air Commodore Olatokunbo Adesanya, said the operation is an intensive day and night aerial bombardment designed to rain significant fire on freshly discovered hideouts of Boko Haram terrorists.

Source: Daily Trust


Buhari marks National Day with Army in Maiduguri

By: Bhodemarz on October 03, 2017 / comment : 0 , , ,

President Muhammadu Buhari on Sunday marked the military ceremonies of the National Independence Day in Maiduguri, Borno State, the epicenter of the Boko Haram terrorism and insurgency to honor the courage and sacrifices of the Armed Forces.
A statement by the Senior Special Assistant on media and publicity, Garba Shehu, said that the ceremony, which was marked with a display of military hardware and a show of air power by the Air Force, took place at the Maimalari Military Cantonment which houses the headquarters of the Theatre Command, “Operation Lafiya Dole.”
According to him, that was the first time such ceremonies will take place outside the nation’s capital.
After inspecting the military guard of honor, President Buhari was said to have praised the gallantry of the Armed Forces for the successes recorded in defeating terrorism in the North-East and lawlessness in the Niger Delta.
He also gave assurances that the country’s Armed Forces will be equipped with the best the country can afford.
“Under this leadership, there will be resources as much as the country can afford to support your operations. As long as you live and in service, your rights will be guarded jealousy,” the President said.
He asked members of the three arms of the military to return the gesture by being steadfast and loyal.
“You must stand firm for your country. The center is determined to hold. You must be loyal to the center. If Nigeria breaks, you are the first line of losers so you must stand firm for your selves and for the country. The security of the country is in your hands and in the hands of God,” he stressed.
President Buhari reiterated an earlier warning in his National Day Broadcast that the country will not break up under his watch and dismissed those agitating for its division as dreamers who were not born when the country went through a debilitating civil war in which two million lives were lost.
“Those who are making noises were not born, so they don’t know what we went through. They don’t know. I like to remind you that whatever happens, you are at the front lines of the defence of the citizens wherever they live. This administration is prepared to protect all citizens residing in all parts of the country.”
The President commended the fortitude of the wounded-in-action soldiers who are receiving treatment and wished them quick recovery when he met them in a special tent.
President Buhari also inspected several military equipment,  newly-acquired and those refurbished put on display as well as some of the new acquisitions of the Air Force that included night-vision Mi 35 attack helicopters.
In his welcome speech at the ceremony, the Chief of Defence Staff,  General Gabriel Olonisakin commended the President for showing a lot of care for the Armed Forces.
He assured the President that the country’s military will continue to be loyal to the administration and expressed their readiness to guarantee the sovereignty of the nation and the security of its people.
The CDS said the visit by the President will rejig and boost the spirit of the Armed Forces, assuring that with better morale, they will fight better.

The President was joined in cutting the Anniversary Cake by the host Governor, Kashim Shettima, the Chief of Staff, Abba Kyari, the Chief of Defence Staff, General Olonisakin, the Chief of Army Staff, General Tukur Buratai, the Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Abubakar Sadiq, the Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Ibok Ekwe Ibas, the Theater Commander, General Ibrahim Attahir and the Shehu of Borno, Abubakar Umar  Garbai El-Kanemi.

Source: thenationonlineng.net

IPOB ‘Proscription’ And The Hypocrisy Of The Ruling Class By Femi Falana

By: Bhodemarz on September 18, 2017 / comment : 0 , ,

When the Nigerian Army declared a journalist and two human rights defenders wanted last year for alleged links with the satanic Boko Haram sect, I pointed out that it was an act of illegality on the ground that the Terrorism Act 2011 as amended by the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, has not conferred any such power on the Nigerian Army. In a prompt reaction to my criticism, the suspects were immediately transferred to the State Security Service which interrogated them and released them on bail.
Last week, I had cause to advise the federal government to direct the Nigerian Army to withdraw from Abia State and allow the Nigeria Police Force to deal with the reported criminal offenses alleged to have been committed by Mr. Nnamdi Kanu and the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) led by him. Regrettably, the advice was ignored while the Nigerian Army and the governors of the South-East have purportedly proscribed the Indigenous People of Biafra. It is submitted, without any fear of contradiction, that neither the Army nor the governors are empowered to proscribe or label the IPOB a terrorist organization. In banning the IPOB the Chief of Army Staff and the governors did not avert their minds to section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2011 as amended, which provides that a terrorist organization can only be proscribed in the country on the order of the federal high court based on an application made by either the National Security Adviser, Attorney-General of the Federation or Inspector-General of Police with the approval of the President.
However, the alleged intimidation of innocent people by IPOB on account of ethnicity or religion should cease. Since the burning of police stations, killing and harassment of some innocent traders from the northern part of the country allegedly carried out by the IPOB cannot be justified under the law, the suspects should be arrested. The suspects should be charged to court to serve as a warning to criminally minded people who may want to direct their frustration at fellow victims of the oppression and poverty unleashed on them by the ruling class.
No doubt, the IPOB members are free to associate for the protection of their interests by virtue of section 40 of the constitution. But they have to agitate peacefully in a way that ensures that the rights of other citizens who live peacefully in the South-East zone are respected. Even if the IPOP has decided to declare a war on the State, its troops cannot attack unarmed civilians under the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, in the ongoing face-off between the State and the IPOB both sides must ensure that unarmed people are not attacked or intimidated. The federal government is duty bound to ensure the protection of the life and property of every citizen as the fundamental right to live peacefully in any part of the country is guaranteed by section 43 of the Nigerian Constitution. To that effect, all efforts must be made by the federal government to prevent reprisal attacks on innocent people in the northern part of the country.
In calling for dialogue between President Buhari and Mr. Kanu, former President Obasanjo ought to have apologized publicly for the military invasion of Odi in Bayelsa State and Zaki Biam in Benue State ordered by him. The basis of the call should have been explained since President Obasanjo charged Niger Delta militants, leaders of ethnic militias and separatist movements with treason which led to their prolonged detention in prison custody. Convinced that President Obasanjo has realized that the criminalization of such agitation did not achieve its objective, his suggestion for a dialogue should be seriously considered by the federal government and the South-East governors.
It is also interesting that President Goodluck Jonathan is calling for a meeting of the Council of States to resolve the crisis. For goodness’ sake, why was such a meeting not called before soldiers were deployed in the Niger Delta to deal with militants? Or did President Jonathan call any meeting before deploying soldiers all over the country for the 2015 general elections in defiance of the judgments of the federal high court and the Court of Appeal? Instead of suggesting irrelevant meetings, the root causes of the increasing loss of faith in the corporate existence of Nigeria by unemployed youths and other poverty-stricken people should be urgently addressed by the ruling class. As a matter of urgency, the underdevelopment of the nation caused by the mindless corruption and criminal diversion of public funds by unpatriotic public officers should be addressed. With respect to the deployment of members of the armed forces by the President, the National Assembly should enact an enabling law as required by section 217 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the National Assembly should pass a bill to enable the federal government to disburse the funds that have been recovered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission from the looters of our commonwealth for job creation and the provision of social services. As long as the people are denied the dividends of democracy, the indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria will remain an empty shibboleth.
Finally, it is high time the debate on restructuring was restructured to accommodate the interests of the working people, women, students, youths and the unemployed. In other words, the planned devolution of powers from the center to the federating units has to be fully democratized. Otherwise, irredentist movements like IPOB will continue to preach the gospel of hate, ethnic nationalism, bigotry, racism, and xenophobia.
Femi Falana (SAN) is a human rights lawyer and activist.

A sustainable framework for effectively managing agitation and protests by Sam Amadi

By: Bhodemarz on September 18, 2017 / comment : 0 , , ,

Nigeria today is trapped in the cusps of protests and agitations, sometimes violent and sometimes peaceful. It is arguable that, perhaps except in the heyday of Abacha’s brutal military dictatorship, Nigeria has never faced this degree of militant opposition against it by its citizens and citizens groups. Different social and political groups are challenging the legitimacy and utility of the Nigerian state. It is ok to argue that there are violent challenges against the liberal concept of the nation-state across the world so Nigeria’s present predicament should not be exaggerated. But the point is that Nigeria’s crisis today is different and aggravated because it tugs at different points of nationhood. It is not just a crisis of leadership. It is not just a crisis of institutional legitimacy. It is also a crisis of identity and survival, not just of the entity itself but also of the people who seemed trapped in the malfunctioning balloon.
Anyhow we conceive the various crises afflicting Nigeria today we need to a matter of urgency develop a strategy of containment in the short time and of resolution, in the long term. Nigeria needs to wake up to the fact that the present crisis is not completely deja vu. We have seen crisis in the past, but not exactly of this nature and this magnitude. Therefore, we need to awake to the fact that our repertoire of institutional practices for crisis management may be inadequate for this crisis and needs retooling. As the Marine Manual of Warfighting cautions, we should not base strategic action on the routine. Rather we should base it on awareness of how the environment is changing.
The present crisis is made more pernicious because of the extent that the Nigerian state has lost legitimacy and trust. Political authority is usually based on one form of legitimacy or the other. If the state has a monopoly of violence in a given territory as Max Weber famously observed, it is because it has secured the trust and faith of majority of the people. Contrariwise, the Nigerian state has lost tremendous trust and faith, especially under the present government that has, perhaps, unwittingly, promoted a divisive and disarticulate leadership has deepened the communication gulf between the people and the state.
So, in today’s Nigeria, the government is largely mute and incapacitated. The Nigerian government suffers a communication problem. It cannot speak to the concern of its citizens. This inarticulacy is further caused by its conservatism. Take for example, the growing determination of the Nigerian people to rethink the foundational basis of statehood, whether in form of restructuring or referendum. Whilst the clamor for restructuring and referendum is growing like wildfire, the government is playing deaf-and-dumb because of the strategic commitments of the managers of the state to the status quo. In fact, many of them are speaking above or below the heads of their citizens who are engaged in frenetic and existentialist soliloquies about the identity and utility of the Nigerian state.
As days wear on the crisis of legitimacy and utility of the Nigerian state complicates. The centers of agitations spread so fast. During the Jonathan administration challenges against the legitimacy and utility of the state was restricted to the northeast of Nigeria. Early in the Buhari administration it spreads to the Niger Delta even as the Northeast experienced some respite. Today, we have multiple centers of challenge across the entire geography of Nigeria. Southeasterners are challenging the legitimacy of the Nigerian state and demanding either dissolution or a fundamental renegotiation. The southwest would require a new Nigeria that either reverts to the pre1963 constitutional order or a clear confederacy. The Niger Delta militants and political nationalists are still demanding for resource control, which is a pseudonym for regionalism and confederacy. Northcentral has been the site of horrid violence instigated by alleged quest for fiefdom by the privileged Fulani.
We never had it this bad. The highpoint of this is the quit notice issued by some coalition of so-called northern youths on Igbos living in northern Nigeria. That quit-notice characterizes the new criminal brigandage at the heart of the present political disorder. Add to that this unjustified and unconstitutional military annexation of the southeast and the state murder of innocent and not-so-innocent citizens.
These challenges pose severe problem for public leadership in Nigeria. The prospect of mass violence, of the magnitude that built up to the civil war, means that Nigeria must act quick to solve these issues behind the challenges in the medium to long term; and in the short time, develop framework for managing and containing them. Such a framework requires a strategic rethinking of the fundamental assumptions about the Nigerian state.
Distinguishing the Substantive from the Procedural:
Managing the spate of agitations and protests against the Nigerian state requires distinguishing between substantive and procedural issues. There are substantive issues to resolve. These include ethnicity, citizenship, religious freedom and revenue sharing. But there are also procedural issues, which relate to the framework for managing the inevitable crises arising from the failure to tackle the substantive issues.
The present crisis is a mutation of the past crises. Nigeria has refused to confront frontally, and resolve definitively, the crisis of nationality. This crisis consists in one simple problematic: should Nigeria be a modern civic and democratic state built on the foundation of a single and robust citizenship; or should Nigeria be a multiethnic and religious state that accommodates different citizenships based on religion and ethnicity. At the eve of its independence Nigeria, unconvincingly and reluctantly ‘voted’ to be a feudal, multiethnic and multi-religious state. Ever since Nigeria has been fending off rebuttals of this error and has been refusing to reverse itself.
But the battle has come to a head. Nigeria must revise itself in a fundamental sense and recreate itself in such a way that it can reinvest itself with legitimacy and trust. But Nigeria’s peculiar political institutional set-up may mean that this crisis will not be resolved as quickly as desirable. So, we can bet that these protests and agitations will continue.
This paper will focus on the procedural framework because it provides the holding environment to tackle the substantive issues. Therefore, the urgent task is to create procedural safeguard for the Nigerian state as it struggles to resolve its existentialist challenges.
The Reality of Dissent:
The first pillar of the procedural framework is a mindset change. Government’s capacity to effectively manage the ongoing agitations and protests will depend on its ability to switch paradigm. First, it must acknowledge the reality of dissent. We now live in a world of empowered bitterness. Globalization has built expectations of good governance, social welfare and dignity for everyone everywhere. But our politics and policies have lagged behind our promises. So, there is so much resentment.
In Nigeria, this is more so as we have woefully failed to produce even the most basic social and physical goods. Unemployment is now a scourge, a pandemic that threatens to overthrow the social order. Yet, the politics of ethnic and elite competition for power ensures we cannot step up to the quality of leadership required to mobilize towards the right direction and the right action.
Nigeria’s autocratic and conservative leadership has been dealt a big blow by the invasion of new media. It has empowered bitterness against the state. We can afford to discountenance an irritating complaint in Kaura Namoda or Agatu when it has no means of speaking to other complaining voices across the country. But now with a laptop and a cheap data plan that voice can rally a million other voices to trouble the diffident and arrogant state. So, the game has changed. The Nigerian state, nay any modern state, is no longer a sovereign that can afford to disregard the people’s voices and have a good night sleep. The new media has significantly scrambled the Westphalia and the Sultanate state models. Today’s state now must negotiate its legitimacy and existence daily by paying attention.
The wisdom is that a focus on law and order state is a huge mistake. Dissent will continue to be part of the modern state until it is able to align expectations and results. And this will not happen soon. The new mindset is to acknowledge that we will now live with the reality of dissent by most of our citizens. This enables us to substitute exasperation and coercion with anticipation and cajolery.
The Contending Versions of Government:
The reality of dissent and the ubiquity of the empowered bitter citizens throw up the challenge of how government should respond to agitations and protests. Government has a self-image, which determines its response to crisis of governance. For too long Nigerian governments have regard themselves as a coercive and prescriptive state that directs and commands, rather than a mobilizing and persuading state nudging citizens to a desired direction. This image relates to the concept of ‘governmentality’ rather than ‘governance’ as the modus operandi of the public sector.
As an adviser at the foreign affairs ministry I saw this model in operation. Whenever issues of state policy is to be determined you see an exclusive focus on getting the top guns of the military and paramilitary agencies to the table. No one remembers the members of the epistemic and civil society groups who may possess more and better knowledge on the issue. That is the idea of ‘governmentality’. It believes that only official institutions that have stakes in managing public interest. It is this same mindset that encourages the Nigerian security institutions to shut itself away from meaningful engagement with the civic community because security is a business for officialdom only. Elsewhere in the world, governance has moved beyond officialdom and government work together with civic communities in a cooperative search for security and development. In those places the state has been civilianized.
Changing the DNA of the State Institution:
We cannot effectively manage agitations and protests if we don’t civilize the DNA of state institutions in Nigeria. One of the enduring legacies of colonialism is the pathological constitution of state institution with logic of repressing the people. So, in spite of the many welfare and infrastructural challenges of the Nigerian Police, its central problem remains that its DNA is wired as a colonial force to repress restive natives. Up till now the police continues to see itself as an instrument of the ruling class or ruling government to brutalize the people if they challenge the order.
This sort of policing will not work in today’s world. Clearly, the policing institutions lack the capacity to stop-and-smash at will. Insurgents and sundry rebels have capacity to hit and run in an asymmetrical war. Again, dissent is now virulent so maintaining the colonial legacy would mean a totally illegitimate state. And in a situation of underwhelming state power instability will be the order of the day. So, it is in the best interest of the state to move away from the response suggested by the DNA of repression.
Take for example, the unprovoked killing of activists of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) who were rallying in Port Harcourt to celebrate the election of Trump as President of the USA. Even as the celebration of Trump’s election may be senseless the repression of the rally is provoking and needless. It proceeds from the error that whatever roils the emotion of those in power deserves to be clamped down.
As we build up to a possible solution of the substantive issues of citizenship, nationality and development in Nigeria we would need a new normative framework for management of dissent and disagreements in the polity. At the foundation of this new institutional personality would be security institutions that conceive themselves as providers of public security and not enforcers of elitist preferences and convenience.
The Imperative of Rule of Law (Human Rights):
The Nigerian security agencies have terrible human rights record. This stretches from military to civilian administrations. Under Abacha the security agencies became Gestapo and henchmen, killing and maiming anyone who spoke up or marched against the puny dictator. The Amnesty International indicted the military under President Jonathan for violation of human rights standards in its conduct of war against terrorism. The same organization has roundly accused the Buhari government of gross violation of human rights in its cold-blooded killing of hundreds of IPOB and Shiite activists who were neither armed nor violent. Refusal to comply with the rule of law and violation of human rights in security engagement are established protocol in security management in Nigeria.
The problem is that these institutions have a dismissive view of human rights and the need for rule of law in security operations. Raised in the political culture of impunity of an unaccountable state they consider human rights as dispensable side-constraints and not enablers of public security management. The recent efforts of the military, though belatedly and perhaps halfhearted, to establish an army human rights office is in the right direction. Hopefully, this center will mainstream human rights norm in the operative manual of all security operations in Nigeria.
The resolution of the vexing national question will take long and probably turn violent and militant at some point down the road. Therefore, it is very important for the police and other security agencies to develop new cognitive capabilities that see human rights not as noxious constraints but as directive principles for the use of legitimate force.
The Inevitability of Civility: the Argumentative State:
In 21st century the modern state can be nothing but a civil state. A civil state is a state that replaces violence with arguments in dealing with dissenting citizens. A civil state will necessarily be an argumentative state (I borrow the phrase from Amartya Sen in his work on the argumentative India). One of the effects of social globalization is the ubiquity of debates and commentaries in all forms and shades. Governance now requires a herculean ability to monitor, tract and engage wherever political and social debates are going on. The traditional sites of ideation and ideological mobilization are no longer eminent and influential. The social media is now a respectable and influential platform for ideation and ideological mobilization.
The Nigerian government is growing its influence in twitter, Facebook and other new media. Communication handlers of the government and its agencies are sending videos and audios of government activities. Even if many of these efforts reek of much incompetence, they are commendation shift of mentality. But it is not enough. Visibility in the social media and felicity in twitter and Facebook do not make an argumentative state.
An argumentative state must understand the unique importance of ideas and words in establishing and maintaining political hegemony and legitimacy in an era defined by value incommensurability and multipolarity. It must be willing to enter into debate with those who propose alternative policies and challenge discursively those who challenge its legitimacy or utility. The argumentative state cares about cognition more than it care about obedience. So it does insist on breaking the will of the citizens though violence but rather focuses on bending the will of the citizens through persuasion. An argumentative state is a mobilizing, rhetorical and communicative state.
We are seeing some signs of the argumentative state in the manner in which Osinbajo is carrying on as Acting President. He is arguing his way across the country. Instead of shouting down or clamping down on those asking for restructuring and referendum the Acting President is providing justification for the continuity of the Nigerian federation as is. He is marshaling arguments that the problem with Nigeria is not structure but character of government. He does not need to convince everyone to be effective. But he is pushing citizens towards the ideals of deliberative democracy, and entrenching the value of public reason, which is the true character of a civil state.
A Weak State, a Failing State:
As a teaching fellow at the Kennedy School of Government I ran into a stormy debate on whether Nigeria was a failed, failing or malfunctioning state. I had refuted the claim that Nigeria was a failed state on account of its very poor record on social services. But that was in 2002. Today, I can’t make such argument. Nigeria is listed as one of the countries showing strong signs of failure. Nigeria is a fragile state because many non-state actors challenge its authority within its territory. Besides being fragile Nigeria is also extremely weak. Its clout is much diminished. Its inability to satisfy the social and economic needs of its citizens now combines with its inability to effectively police its territory.
As we enter this long winter of agitations and petitions the Nigerian state should not push its power too much to the extent of focusing on exterminating all forms of dissent and agitation without engaging in good faith dialogue. We are a weak state that has been increasingly weakened by the loss of trust and competence. Bluffing about capacity to ‘deal decisively with troublemakers’ instead of providing justification and incentives for peaceful behavior will be an unwise approach to managing dissent at this stage of state incapacity

 Source: www.thecable.ng

IPOB: A Terrorist Organisation? By Eze Onyekpere

By: Bhodemarz on September 16, 2017 / comment : 0 , , ,

In the last one week, the South-East geo-political zone of Nigeria has witnessed crisis arising from the deployment of troops in an operation termed the Python Dance by the Nigerian Armed forces. A curfew has been declared in Aba, Abia State and there have been reports of the loss of lives and severe violations of the right to human dignity of fellow Nigerians.
A number of very well meaning Nigerians have called on the president, Muhammadu Buhari to withdraw the soldiers to prevent a further escalation of the conflict, which may lead to blood bath. The arguments are based on the fact that the military have no business in the routine maintenance of law and order and they can only be called in when the challenge overwhelms the normal police, and they are specifically invited by the civil authorities as a matter of last resort. Again, there was no reported breakdown of law and order in any part of South-Eastern Nigeria. Rather, the zone has witnessed loud agitations and complaints about not getting its due in the scheme of things under the present federal administration. This discourse admits that there is a certain Nnamdi Kanu leading the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) who has made provocative statements and taken steps that could be considered irritating by the federal authorities.
The current declaration of IPOB as a militant terrorist organisation by the military authorities seems to be an escalation of the crisis to a new level that may precipitate unimaginable bloodshed and violation of human rights. The Terrorism (Prevention) Act of 2011 and its 2013 Amendment are clear on how to identify a terrorist or a terrorist organisation. Section 1 (3) of the Act states of the act of terrorism as one which is deliberately done with malice aforethought and which involves or causes an attack upon a person’s life, which may cause severe bodily harm or death; kidnapping; destruction of government or public facilities; seizure of aircrafts, ship or other means of public transportation. It also includes the manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of biological and chemical weapons without lawful authority; the release of dangerous substance or causing of fire, explosions or floods, the effect of which is to endanger human life; interference with or disruption of the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource, the effect of which is to endanger human life; and an act or omission in or outside Nigeria which constitutes an offence within the scope of counter terrorism protocols and conventions duly ratified by Nigeria.
Terrorism further includes acts which may seriously harm or damage a country or an international organisation; is intended or can reasonably be regarded as having been intended to unduly compel a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; seriously intimidate a population; seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation; or otherwise influence such government or international organisation by intimidation or coercion.
Even though the provisions of the Act seem very wide, they must still be contextualised within the purview of the mischief the law was intended to cure. A literal meaning of these last parts of the definition may equate strong advocacy (unduly compel a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act) to terrorism. A careful examination of the above definition of the provisions on terrorism and our ordinary day-to-day knowledge of groups that have been declared as terrorists show that IPOB is nowhere near the status of being a terrorist organisation. Pray, can anyone in good faith argue that IPOB, Boko Haram and ISIS are on the same pedestal? Alternatively, can anyone point to the destruction of lives and property or the sabotage of public facilities that have been wrought by IPOB? One must distinguish irritants and persons who do and say things that may offend the sensibilities of others from terrorism. Again, even if the leadership and members of IPOB have been accused of hate speech – is this now the same as terrorism?

In declaring IPOB a terrorist organisation and taking the entire South-East as its terrain means getting the authority to lock down the entire region and treat anyone suspected of being its member as soldiers will treat combatants who are out to attack them. In essence, their rules of engagement may permit the so called “terrorists” being neutralised or killed.

The second part of this discourse is that this declaration of IPOB as a terrorist organisation by the military high command is unknown to the law. The power to declare a group as a terrorist organisation lies with the Federal High Court upon an application made by the attorney general, the national security adviser or inspector general of the Police on the approval of the president. Although the order is obtained ex-parte, it is to be published in the official gazette, in two national newspapers and such other places as may be determined by the Judge. The proscribed organisation and persons affected have a right to seek to upturn the order through an application to the court on notice. This enables the court to further review other materials and facts which may not have been brought before it when the initial order was made. For the military high command to have failed, neglected and refused to follow the steps laid down in law, their action is ultra vires, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. And any steps they take in furtherance of their declaration will be in clear violation of the law.
In declaring IPOB a terrorist organisation and taking the entire South-East as its terrain means getting the authority to lock down the entire region and treat anyone suspected of being its member as soldiers will treat combatants who are out to attack them. In essence, their rules of engagement may permit the so called “terrorists” being neutralised or killed. It will legalise all forms of searches, seizures, detentions, curfews and other violations of fundamental human rights without the luxury of the declaration of a state of emergency. Thus, not just IPOB members alone are likely to be taken out, their purported financiers, supporters, sympathisers, accessories before and after the fact will all face the law as defined by the military authorities.
Can anyone in good conscience declare that there was a breakdown of law and order in the South-East before the deployment of the troops? Assuming without conceding that it is answered in the affirmative, was the breakdown of the magnitude that is beyond the capacity of the police and other civil authorities? Clearly, the agitations in the South-East are political in nature and require mature political negotiations to resolve them. It is important to recall that then acting president, Professor Yemi Osinbajo had held several meetings with stakeholders and was in the process of calming frayed nerves before the president returned and things started getting out of hand. Deploying soldiers and letting the agitataions escalate to the point of taking lives will only drive the agitation underground. And no one can predict if it goes underground whether it will not lead to a mutation and what kind of new demons that may emerge from the mutation.
Dear Mr. President, do not allow this crisis to degenerate, call back the soldiers; withdraw the declaration of IPOB as a terrorist organisation; give a sense of belonging to all Nigerians. Finally, call in good faith for a pan-Nigerian dialogue and settle the troubled waters of Nigeria by implementing the outcome of such dialogue.
Eze Onyekpere is lead director at Centre for Social Justice. Twitter: @/censoj

Source: premiumtimesng.com


Is military monitoring social media for the wrong reason? By Ebuka Nwankwo

By: Bhodemarz on August 25, 2017 / comment : 0 , , ,

The role of the military in a democracy has always been an issue right from the days of Plato, 2500 years ago. The recent pronouncement by Nigeria’s military that it would monitor anti-government comments on social media gives cause for concern and reminds one of Plato’s argument in the Republic.
In responding to the recent misuse of the social media, the director of defense information, Major-General John Enenche, said:  “What are we doing? In the military, we are now taking on it more seriously than ever. We have our strategic media centre that monitor the social media to be able to sieve out and react to all the ones that will be anti-government, be anti-military, (and) be anti-security”.
Had the comments on monitoring anti-government social media posts been from the ministry of information or any other related agency, it would have sounded normal. It is the duty of the ministry of information to respond to any misinformation or criticism on government policies by Nigerians. But when the military says it would respond to anti-government comments on social media, it sends conflicting signals.
For a country which has been through military dictatorships, the kind of response expected from the military can only be imagined.
Also, when citizens are given the impression that anti-government comments are monitored not by the ministry of information, but by the military, it suppresses robust public debate and conversations.
It is worth mentioning that, in a democracy, the integration of the military into state and society follows strict rules and is covered by far reaching checks and balances. Else, in the words of Plato, a democracy could lead to nations been governed by brutes and bullies.
Fundamentally, it is expected that the military should have the presences of a non-governmental component, within its defense component, that is capable of participating in public debates on defense and security policing. And, of course, clarifying programmes and policies of the military, in terms of national security.
It becomes worrisome when this arm of the military decides to respond to anti –government commentaries. Many anti-government commentaries, especially by opposition parties in democracies, are not security threats. In fact, they sweeten democracy.
This is not to say that there are no legitimate reasons for the military to monitor social media posts.
One perfect reason is to improve situational awareness and emergency response. In cases of natural disasters and violent protests, first hand witness accounts, most times, come from posts on social media. Such posts could help the military strategize on emergency responses when other security outfits are overwhelmed. Had twitter been pervasive during 9/11, and had government been monitoring hashtags related to the attack, perhaps more people would have been rescued, successfully.
And by using special algorithms, the military could monitor comments from terrorists on social media and prevent attacks. It is well-known that extremists of all kinds use social media to recruit, radicalize and raise funds. Sometimes they announce attacks on social media.
Since lots of people live their lives on social media these days, the military could monitor public response to their policies and programmes on the internet.
But these where not exactly the reasons given by the military on why it has started monitoring the social media.
There is a legitimate fear that cracking down on hate speeches could be used as a ploy to clamp down on critics of the current government. (This column has advocated for innovative ways of stemming hate speeches. Interestingly, Facebook and Google are using technology to stem hate.)
For this reason, the pronouncement that anti-government comments on social media will be monitored by the military needs to be interrogated. Not all anti-government comments are hate speeches.


Source: www.thecable.ng
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Created By SoraTemplates | Distributed By Blogger