The Nigeria Army last Tuesday announced the sentencing of 12 soldiers to death by firing squad for mutiny. The soldiers had allegedly attempted to kill their commanding officer during a mutiny in May at the Maimalari Barracks, Maiduguri. Considering that mutiny is a serious military offence, we cannot but agree that a severe penalty that can deter a recurrence is in order. Several analysts have taken time to copiously comment on the subject but no one appears to be in favour of the judgment of the tribunal.
There is however the subtle caution that civil society should not dabble into military matters. Is such a caution persuasive in these days of pervasive insecurity in our country? How irrelevant is public opinion?
We need to remember that the Nigerian Army is a societal institution run with public funds which can therefore not be an island unto itself. The army was in actual fact set up not for itself but in the public interest. As a result, its activities must be a matter of concern to the entire society for whose sake it exists. Second, although it is true that military law is different from civil law, no law is expected to be unjust. This point is better understood when it is realized that at the end of a military trial, those involved are allowed to take their cases to the civil Court of Appeal if dissatisfied with the decision of the military tribunal. In other words, a military tribunal ought to serve essentially as a court of first instance. Consequently, the argument that we lay men have no business getting involved in military matters is simplistic.
Again, because soldiers are citizens, many of whom require parental consent to enlist in the army, it is unwise to wrap up military matters in a secret garb that can make parents disapprove of their wards serving the national duty of protecting us all. For this reason, it is not enough to set up military tribunals that give judgments without recourse to the circumstances of the offences being tried. Luckily, we have a 2003 case-Yussuf and 21 others versus the Nigerian Army which the learned Senior Advocate, Femi Falana cites as an instructive precedent. In the case, the Court of Appeal quashed the life imprisonment passed on some soldiers who had rioted at the Cairo Airport in Egypt. The court rightly ruled that the offence of mutiny for which the soldiers were tried was instigated by the officers who had diverted the medical allowances which ought to have been paid to the soldiers while receiving medical treatment in Egypt. In other words rather than restricting itself to the charge of mutiny, the court appropriately found and dealt with ‘constructive mutiny’- an offence instigated by the complainants.
The soldiers during thier mutiny tral
Our interest in today’s subject however goes far beyond the issue of technical justice. We are, like every patriot, worried about happenings in our military. The stories about how generally ill-equipped our soldiers have been are obviously a source of public concern more so as it concerns rare citizens who are prepared to pay the supreme sacrifice so that the rest of us may live. Our soldiers have never been known to be cowards. Even when the burden of saving others in Liberia and Sierra Leone was borne by them in the name of ECOMOG, there was hardly any story about mutiny. Today, the situation is different with the international media replete with painful tales of how poorly positioned our soldiers are in the war against insurgency. If our soldiers themselves have refrained from openly revolting, what their kith and kin say now and again is enlightening. The other day, the spouses of our soldiers and their immediate families staged public demonstrations against what they described as the sending of their poorly kitted bread winners to go and die in the warfronts. Who then is holding on to the yearly security budgets that are bigger than those of several ministries combined?
For those of us in the field of communication, the most worrying aspect of the mutiny story is the management of military information. When the story of the mutiny at Maimalari barracks first broke, it was officially dismissed as a rumour. The official statement read as follows: “The rumour making the rounds that Maiduguri is boiling as a result of insurrection by troops is unfounded”. Although the statement confirmed that some soldiers were ambushed by insurgents, it gave the impression that the soldiers repelled the insurgents killing several of them adding that only 4 soldiers were killed. How come it is 12 soldiers that are now said to have been killed?
The statement for whatever reason also played down the nature of the mutiny by stating that “on evacuation of the remains of the fallen troops, the General Officer Commanding (GOC) addressed the troops who registered their anger about the incident by firing into the air”. If so how come, the soldiers were now tried for attempting to kill the GOC? In other words, which 12 soldiers are now sentenced to death-could it be those who merely fired into the air, or some other soldiers that “rumours” said shot directly at the GOC’s car wounding some of his aides or could it indeed be another group that protested the withdrawal of motorcycles from operating in the barracks?
What sources say angered the now convicted soldiers was the directive that they should return to base in the night after a mission only for Boko Haram to have information on their movement leading to the fatal ambush. Who gave the said directive? Was he put on trial for the resultant untimely deaths? What about the GOC whose life was allegedly attempted by the convicted soldiers?
Where is he? Is the rumour that he has been retired correct? In any case if his leadership role was deemed to be in order why was he transferred after the incident? Unfortunately we were unable to certify if the tribunal considered these posers before arriving at the death sentences.
Source: Vanguard
No comments:
Post a Comment