Disturbing Signals From The Army

Some News Reports In The Tide Newspaper, Friday, November 8, 2019 (Pages 3 and 16); “Ambush: Boko Haram kills 10 soldiers, Injures Nine, 12 Missing in Borno” and “Nigerian Army To Court Martial 70 Soldiers In North-East”, are quite disturbing. But for the suspension of a proposed Operation Positive Identification (OPI) by the House of Representatives recently, the Nigerian Army would have placed itself in a position of discomfort with the Nigerian public.
The Boko Haram insurgency in the North-Eastern part of Nigeria has been a lingering issue of concern to Nigerians, especially with 35,000 said to have been killed so far. Similarly, the recent inauguration of a General Court Martial to prosecute 70 erring personnel found defaulting in the counter-insurgency operation in the North-East, creates additional concern to the Nigerian public will be better assured if the Boko Haram issue ends soon.
“Acts of cowardice, desertion, un-soldierly and other forms of indiscipline” are not tolerated by the military anywhere, but Nigerians would feel quite uncomfortable hearing about “army executing war” in Nigeria. Rather, Nigerians were assured long ago that the Boko Haram insurgency had been effectively neutralised, giving everybody the hope that Nigeria is not at war. It is true that military operations are sensitive issues for any writer to comment on, yet, the public needs to be assured there is no war.
19 years ago, one Professor Omo Omoruyi, in an essay: “Nigeria – US Military Pact: Recipe for Danger”, published in The News magazine, October 2, 2000, raised certain issues. In that essay, Professor Omoruyi stated; “Human rights issues are usually on the back burner and when they are concerning the African countries, the US never commits its nationals to defending them. The US involvement in Nigeria is a part of the US defence of her national interests and not the good of Nigeria…”
Professor Omoruyi went on to say that “what Nigeria has since 1966 is a political army, with a regional political agenda… Nigerian Army was actually a political army whose interest was to guarantee the continued stay in power of the North. The Nigerian public would want to know if Professor Omoruyi was wrong in stating that the Nigerian Army was a political rather than a professional one, and if the situation has changed since that statement was made.
The role of the military in a democratic era since 1999 demands its subordination to democratic principles which requires professionalism. A truly professional army would emerge through some orientation programme which should engage the attention of the military. Such orientation, in the words of Professor Omoruyi, should include “a fundamental restructuring of the Armed Forces to make the so-called Nigerian military representative of the Nigerian ethnic nationalities”.
The “War” against Boko Haram insurgency is seen in some quarters as providing opportunity for Nigeria to become a dumping ground for old military equipment from the US and other developed countries. Whether such military supplies come in the form of support to fight insurgency or for a fee, there are implications. There is a possibility that soldiers using old weapons against insurgents using modern ones, the soldiers would be handicapped. Can “acts of cowardice” by soldiers facing a court martial not be traced to the quality of weapons that they use to fight against better equipped enemies?
The bottom-line is that Nigerian soldiers fighting the Boko Haram “war” deserve to be protected even when engaged in a job exposing them to death. The Boko Haram enemies are engaged in an ideological war in which martyrdom is a heroic death, with a reward in heaven. Whoever their sponsors and financiers may be, it should be obvious to the Nigerian public that there is more to Boko Haram insurgency than what meets the eyes.
To nurture a true democracy demands that the military should be professional rather than political or partisan. Since the Boko Haram “war” is an ideological engagement, what happens when some of the soldiers engaging them share some sympathy with the ideology of the enemy they are fighting? This is an issue which should be of concern to the military, especially the court martial of 70 soldiers. There can be grumbling among people doing things which their conscience does not approve of.
There had been complaints about delays in payments of earned allowances as well as other issues, which may account for the acts of cowardice, desertion, un-soldierly and other forms of indiscipline. A feeling of unfair exploitation and exposure to avoidable dangers can give rise to acts of indiscipline on the part of soldiers.
The Boko Haram insurgency, like other sensitive national issues currently confronting the country, deserve to be addressed without shenanigans or hidden agenda. The question has been asked by several Nigerians regarding what the Boko Haram insurgents really want. Whatever they are asking for can be discussed at a round table rather than battle-field, involving bloodshed. When former President Goodluck Jonathan asked the insurgents to appoint representatives, since he could not discuss with a faceless group, we know what happened.
To say that there is more to Boko Haram and other national issues would require that Professor Omoruyi’s essay published in The News magazine, October 2, 2000, (pages 60-65) should be read. It would also be quite instructive to read what retired Major S. Mukoro said in his interview with the News magazine, July 3, 2000. There’s hardly any change since then.
What democracy demands is open dealing, just as a nation’s armed and security forces must be truly professional to be able to defend democracy.

Bright Amirize