Buratai And 38 Retired Officers

In 2015, some serving military officers of the Nigerian Army were compulsorily retired from service by the Military High Command for their alleged unprofessional roles in the 2015 general elections, which the authorities described as ‘meddling in the democratic process.’ The officers, ranging from Lieutenant Colonels to Major Generals were also accused of involvement in contract scams. This, according to military authorities, negatively affected the ability and capacity of personnel to deliver on their mandates to protect the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nigeria.
Following the unwillingness of the military authorities to explore all available options and give the affected officers the opportunity to exhaustively defend themselves according to extant military law, the said officers petitioned the Presidency, complaining that they were not given fair hearing as their retirement was concocted and implemented without due process. They alluded to the prescribed Armed Forces Act Cap A 20 of the Laws of the Nigerian Federation 2004, which clearly stipulates the obvious grounds and inclusive process for retirement and possible dismissal of military officers.
In a recent publication titled: “Injustice, Human Rights and the Nigerian Army”, Ishaq Yusuf, described the reasons adduced by the military hierarchy for the retirement of the 38 officers as untenable in military practice, explaining that the officers’ retirement had nothing to do with the exigencies of the Army Code of Ethics and Rules of Engagement. He, therefore, argued that the action contravened the enabling military law and procedure for disciplining and sanctioning ‘erring’ officers. Yusuf further asserted  that all military officers accused of the any infraction in violation of the provisions of the Armed Forces Act, were entitled to appear before a court martial to determine the culpability or otherwise of the affected officers, before any forced retirement, in accordance with specific provisions of military law and ordinance.
The Tide agrees no less with the position canvassed by Yusuf. We also support the pleas of the ‘wrongfully’ retired officers as put forward in their petition to the Presidency. Our position is simple: if the Armed Forces Act prescribes diligent court martial process to give fair hearing to those accused, thereby ensuring that justice is served, then, it is incumbent on the military authorities to do the needful.  Our conviction is further strengthened by the fact that in a democratic environment in which the Nigerian military now operates, the supreme law of the land – the Constitution – guarantees the right of every citizen to fair hearing, and to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise after the ventilation of extant laws in a legally constituted court of competent jurisdiction.
We, therefore, implore the Presidency to accede to the petition of the 38 retired military officers, and diligently review their cases with a view to providing acceptable legal structure for fair defence of the allegations against them and just determination of appropriate sanctions and disciplinary measures as prescribed by law. Allegations of meddling in the conduct of the 2015 elections and or involvement in contract scams are issues recognised by relevant laws, which have also provided remedies for offenders.
While The Tide does not and would never encourage military participation in partisan politics because it undermines their professionalism and public confidence, it also would not support any action capable of fanning the embers of corruption, whether among public officials in the military or civil populace because it weakens public institutions, scuttles and suffocates economic growth and development, promotes violence and instability while at the same time whittling down national power and global influence.
We make this conjecture because since the inception of the Tukur Buratai-led leadership of the Nigerian Army in 2015, very unconventional means have been deployed in the administration of military justice. We recall that Buratai inherited a court martial instituted by the previous administration to try more than 5,000 military personnel accused of various offences, ranging from mutiny to refusal to obey orders in respect of the anti-insurgency war in the North-East. But rather than following through with the military disciplinary process of court martial, Buratai set up a ‘committee’ which reviewed the cases of the offenders and curiously reinstated 3,032 of them.
We warn that such abuse of due process in the military should not be allowed to fester. This is why we insist that the Military High Command must retrace its steps, and fashion legitimate and acceptable means of dealing with matters affecting the professional conduct of military officers in line with international best practices. This way, issues of crass abuse of human rights and violation of rule of law usually raised by global human rights watchdogs as well as western governments and institutions would naturally resolve themselves. This is our take!