•How come our soldiers do not have statutory entitlements?
It is unimaginable that there is no provision for entitlements for members of the Nigerian Armed Forces killed or injured in warfare. Ordinarily, such a compensatory provision should not be a subject of debate. It is thought-provoking and alarming that the Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Abayomi Olonisakin, called for such a provision at the Ministry of Defence stakeholders’ meeting to review the Armed Forces Act 2004 in Abuja on May 30.
This review proposal is certainly belated. There can be no excuse for the exclusion of such an essential stipulation from the terms and conditions connected with the engagement of members of the armed forces.
Olonisakin was quoted as saying: “The Armed Forces Act, like any other human document, is not perfect. Several attempts have been made since 1993 to amend it. We have no issue with any amendment that will improve the welfare and rights of our citizens. While the military remains law-abiding in its efforts, the terrorists, especially in the asymmetric warfare we are fighting, have nobody to account to.” He added: “It is in this light that I consider the amendments in the Armed Forces Act that will accord statutory entitlements to the members of the armed forces that are killed or wounded during action, as such provisions are not available in the extant enactment.”
His reference to the war against terror, which has stretched the armed forces since it began in 2009, is an argument that cannot be faulted. While the number of armed forces’ casualties in the conflict with Boko Haram terrorists is unclear, it is clear that there have been casualties that could be regarded as statistically significant.
If, according to the information by Olonisakin, the casualties of this conflict, for instance, have no entitlements under the prevailing law, it trivialises their patriotism. Beyond this, such a situation is most likely to have a demoralising effect on others, which would be ultimately counter-productive.
It amounts to ingratitude on the country’s part, as well as poor moral standards, to deny such war casualties reasonable entitlements. This cannot be left to discretion or convention, and must be settled in the arena of law.
It is reassuring that the Minister of Defence, Mansur Dan-Ali, declared at the forum that he had constituted an inter-ministerial committee to examine the Armed Forces Act and recommend amendments that would reflect international best practices. Dan-Ali said: “Some areas for review include the administration of the military justice system and the critical examination of the provisions of the Act that have become obsolete. I am passionate about the welfare of the members of the Armed Forces who have given a good account of themselves in the war against Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East and in similar operations in other parts of Nigeria.” He also said: “The review is expected to address the issue of the fundamental rights of the officers and men who performed their constitutional roles while still maintaining military discipline and the rules of engagement.”
It is noteworthy that the permanent secretary of the ministry, Ambassador Danjuma Sheni, observed that Nigeria’s Armed Forces Act was designed based on the example of the United Kingdom, which had since reviewed its own military justice code. It is a reflection of inexcusably slow evolution that the country’s standards have not been similarly reviewed.
In the final analysis, it makes no moral sense to suggest that there is no basis for members of the armed forces that are war casualties to be entitled to compensatory consideration. The Armed Forces Act should be reviewed to reflect non-negotiable entitlements for those who are killed or injured in the course of fighting for the motherland.