All does not appear well with media reports penultimate Sunday, on the foiling by the army, of an attempted abduction of the Catholic Bishop of Orlu Diocese, Imo State, Most Rev. Augustine Ukwuoma. Emerging events suggest interrogation of claims by security agencies not only in the instant case but in their current campaign against insecurity in the southeast zone.
Director, Army Public Relations, Brigadier-General Onyema Nwachukwu, had in a statement claimed troops conducing Exercise Golden Dawn, in response to a distress call moved swiftly to the diocesan secretariat in Orlu, foiled the attempted abduction of the Bishop, forcing the assailants to run away. Apparently elated by the supposed feat, the army further indicated that troops will continue to “deny freedom of action to members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra/Eastern Security Network, IPOB/ESN and other criminal gangs operating within the sector”.
Two days later, the Orlu Catholic Diocese came up with its own account. In a statement, the diocese said a group of armed robbers broke into the Bishop’s house but were immediately confronted by “a joint team of internal security and local vigilante”. Though nobody was harmed, the robbers made away with some valuables, the statement further indicated.
“After some interval, the army arrived at the scene of the armed robbery and took some photographs…thanks to divine providence and protection, both the Bishop and his household are safe and unharmed”, the diocese stated.
Now the issues! The diocese spoke of armed robbery and the carting away of some valuables by the robbers. The robbers were confronted and repelled by the internal security in the Bishop’s house and local vigilante. The army arrived after the robbers had left with their loot only to take photographs of the scene of the robbery.
Then the questions! How did the army arrive at the story of the attempted abduction of the Bishop? At what point did they foil the attempted abduction- on their way to the scene or at the scene of the robbery? And what evidence did they see at the scene of the robbery to support the abduction theory?
These questions are raised to underscore the mismatch in the accounts of the diocese and that of the army. Is it a case of St Augustine’s allegory of two cities? Obviously, the army account is utterly at variance with that of the Orlu Catholic Diocese- the victim of the attack. There are divergences in terms of the nature of the security infraction, its purpose and those that foiled it.
So what could have informed the indecent haste the army deployed in exaggerating the incident which apparently compelled the catholic diocese to make these clarifications? That is the subject of this essay. Perhaps, the answer will come obvious from some other instances of conflicting claims between security agencies on the one hand, individuals and groups on the other.
Just very recently, two traditional rulers were killed with others seriously wounded by armed men while in a meeting with the Interim Management Committee, IMC, chairman of Njaba Local Government, Emeka Iheanacho at the council secretariat in Imo State. The police was quick to lay the blame on the shoulders of Iheanacho for not informing security agencies to provide protection to the meeting.
But Iheanacho stunned the public when he came up with his own account. He gave a detailed view of how he invited the leader of the Njaba Operation Search and Flush team to provide security for the meeting. The team promptly arrived. But before the commencement of the meeting, the leader, one Assistant Superintendent of Police, ASP came to his office to inform him that their commander instructed the team to return to Owerri.
Read Also: Terrorists attacked Biafrans in Enugu during Anambra poll – IPOB
He said he objected to the decision but the team insisted and left promising to return. They never returned before a band of masked armed men attacked the meeting killing the royal fathers and inflicting injuries on others. He even named witnesses to the conversation between him and the ASP in his office. The state police command had accused the IPOB/ESN for the attack even when they were neither there nor were arrests made.
Apparently rattled by the disclosures from the IMC chairman, the police then issued another statement in which they claimed that he did not seek for security protection officially and in writing. That at once raises a flurry of questions: on whose authority did the team arrive at the venue in the first instance? Who gave the instruction for its withdrawal? Did he consider its implications for a zone that has been the epicentre of the heightened insecurity in the state harbouring bizarre killings alien to the culture of the people- decapitations and severing of manhood?
These are some of the questions the police command should respond to. Its responses to the Njaba killings left serious gaps that ought to be seriously investigated. The initial denial that Iheaanacho did not seek security protection and the revision that it was not official and in writing do not just add up. It created the unmistakable impression that there is more to the killings than ordinarily meets the eyes. The police have serious questions to answer.
In saner climes, we should have seen a high powered inquisition into the tangle. But not here! Yet, we are regularly regaled with the listing of the royal fathers’ killing as one of the atrocious acts of the IPOB/ESN for which a military engagement is on.
There is also the report of the neutralizing of four IPOB/ESN gunmen by troops of the 82 Division of the Nigerian Army in Ekwulobia, Aguata Local Government Area of Anambra State. The army said the IPOB/ESN gunmen were killed in a fierce encounter along Nnobi junction following their attack on security agencies deployed at Ekwulobia roundabout. Though the IPOB admitted their member was killed at Ekwulobia, they claimed the victim has nothing to do with ESN.
They also claimed that he was killed in his compound by soldiers following a tip off after he returned home to bury his mother. It is not clear whether the victim was among the four killed at Nnobi junction or his case is a different one.
What seemed to have emerged from this is the difference between IPOB members and ESN operators. ESN is the security arm of the IPOB. The group seems to be contending that not everybody that subscribes to the issues to the IPOB agitation is a member of the ESN. That point has to be made especially against the background that security agencies search telephone handsets of people for any incriminating posts. Such profiling could expose innocent people to danger in this era of social media explosion.
Even then, what should be the punishment for membership of the IPOB-extermination or arrest? We ask this given the claim by the IPOB that their member was killed in his house when he returned to bury his mother. There abound several allegations of abuse by sundry security agencies that call to question their observance of the rules of engagement. Many of the trending videos in the media speak of wanton abuses, exaggeration and escalation of minor security infractions.
The authenticity of some of these trending pictures and videos cannot be verified. But the warning by the Chief of Army Staff, Farouk Yahaya to troops against taking pictures and videos while in combat operation seems to suggest some of them should not be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Just last week, a coalition of civil society groups raised an alarm on the deployment of ethno-religious language by some security operatives deployed to the Anambra election to assail the sensibilities of the people.
All these coupled with the indecent haste in attributing any and every criminality to IPOB are beginning to blur the nature and character of the heightened insecurity in the zone. Suspicions are gaining traction that fifth columnists and forces eager to levy war on the zone are behind resurging security infractions, misrepresentations and exaggerated outcomes.