E.T Okere
EARLIER this year, there was a heated debate over a proposal by heads of the armed forces (service chiefs) for the withdrawal of military personnel, particularly the army, from areas that were hitherto “flash points” then believed to have been rid of Boko Haram insurgents or armed bandits including herdsmen. Nigerians were generally opposed to that proposal for two main reasons.
One, they faulted the claim – by the military chiefs – that insurgents and armed bandits had been routed in the areas in question, to an extent to warrant the withdrawal of military personnel. Two, even if the claims were true, that the Nigeria Police is not in a position to meaningfully garrison the areas claimed to have been rid of insurgents and bandits. It is not certain whether or not the authorities went ahead with that plan but last week, the issue of the “militarization” of the geo-political space took centre stage again following the incident in Warri, Delta State, in which a soldier shot dead a 35-year old man, Joseph Pesu, for disobeying the lockdown orders. In retaliation, youths in the area reportedly descended on the soldiers and killed one of them. Up till now, reports have it that tension is still mounting over alleged plans by soldiers in the area to avenge the killing of their colleague. Already, the army authorities have arrested some soldiers caught in a video threatening to rape women in the area following the incident. In a report the army authorities said it was investigating the video with a view to taking the necessary measures.
Good but one crucial question is this: How come that the same military authorities, which earlier proposed the withdrawal of their personnel from parts of the country that were still considered vulnerable to the activities of insurgents and armed bandits, went ahead to deploy soldiers to enforce ‘common’ Covid-19 lockdown?
A few hours after President Buhari’s national broadcast on March, 29, and during which he announced a total lockdown of Lagos and Ogun states together with the federal capital territory for two weeks, the Defence Headquarters called a press conference in Abuja to announce its preparedness to enforce the president’s directive. “The Armed Forces of Nigeria is to implement all restrictions on movements… For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the presidential directive given by the president, Commander-in-Chief during his address to the nation….” said Major-General John Enenche, the coordinator of defence media operations.
But it was a needless dramatization. The military authorities did not have to come out to announce its prowess to compel Nigerians to comply with the president’s directive since there was no reason to believe, in the first place, that Nigerians will resist it. It was a needless showmanship. If anything, the Lagos State government had, even before the president’s broadcast, taken measures to persuade residents to align themselves with measures it was taking to contain COVID-19 in the state. There was nothing to show that the residents were not willing to cooperate with the state government.
In Ogun State, the government even sought for and obtained the ‘permission’ of the federal government to delay the lockdown till April 4,; to enable it put in place the necessary logistics for easier and seamless compliance. The lockdown has since begun in the state and there is nothing to suggest that it needed soldiers to enforce it. Even in Lagos, the most vulnerable to the pandemic in the country, the government has managed the matter creditably well – within limits of experimental error – including setting up emergency food centres where residents go to replenish their stocks. So far, the process has been effortless and from reports, it didn’t need the military for that to be achieved.
The point, therefore, is that the calling out of soldiers to enforce the lockdown is quite unnecessary. Incidentally, Delta State, where the incident under review occurred, is not among the states that came under the presidential directive. Several other state governments have also called out the military even when their states are not under the presidential directive. Ordinarily, these are good steps but the problem is that since no hierarchical due process was observed before calling out the soldiers, the state governments could not put in place the machinery for rules of engagement.
Incidentally, there was nowhere in the president’s broadcast that he mentioned that armed troops were to enforce the lockdown. Therefore, the big question is: Who called out the soldiers? In other words, did the president know of the involvement of the military in the COVID-19 lockdown? If it was with his knowledge, did he seek the permission of the National Assembly as required by the constitution? From every indication, the answer to the last question is in the negative, leading a few well-meaning Nigerians to declare that the involvement of armed troops in the lockdown enforcement as illegal and unconstitutional.
Not unexpectedly, these patriotic Nigerians have been dismissed as being unrealistic since, according to their critics, the situation is drastic and does not lend itself to legal and constitutional finesse. But with two people – a civilian and a soldier – dead, with threats by soldiers in Warri of a showdown with residents, who takes the responsibility? Much as the dreadful pandemic has to be fought with everything the nation can afford, the death of even a single Nigerian in the hands of agents of state authority, either by design or default, leaves much to be desired.
This columnist aligns himself with other Nigerians to the call on the president to immediately order the withdrawal of armed troops from the enforcement of the lockdown. If and when the scourge ends, the two deaths will remain a painful reminder to members of the deceased families that theirs is a country where anything goes.
Overall, the Warri incident brings back to the fore the issue of the “militarization” of our nation’s democracy. It is one issue which many members of the ruling elite either pay lip service to or interpret to suit their convenience at any point in time even though there exist quite unambiguous court rulings that the involvement of the military in matters that can be handled by the police undermines our democracy.
Perhaps the most frequently cited is the ruling by Justice Ayo Salami, in Yusuf versus Obasanjo (2005), in which he held that “it is up to the police to protect our nascent democracy and not the military, otherwise the democracy might be wittingly or unwittingly militarized. This is not what the citizenry bargained for in wresting power from the military in 1999. Conscious steps should be taken to civilianize the polity and thereby ensure the survival of and sustenance of democracy”.
On appeal, the appellate court further ruled that even “in the event of insurrection or insurgency, the call on the Armed Forces to restore order must be with the approval of the National Assembly as provided in sections 217(2) and 218(4) of the 1999 constitution as amended”.
Thus, even though some people may want to rationalise COVID-19 – given its nature – as approximating an insurgency or insurrection, President Buhari must have been deliberate in making sure that he did not mention, in his broadcast, that the armed forces have been mandated to enforce his directive on the two-week lockdown in Lagos, Ogun and the federal capital territory. So, who did it? This question may appear academic but whether or not it is interrogated, its imperative lies in the fact that elsewhere, the fight against the dreaded pandemic is not being prosecuted by military fiat but is predicated on the ability of the political leaders to galvanize the citizenry for positive action towards preserving their lives and collective destinies.
Our prayer is that the pandemic vanishes even tomorrow but our leaders must get prepared; in the event that this prayer is not answered as urgently as we want. If, God forbid, the outbreak increases and government is compelled to widen or elongate the lockdown, I can see Nigerians trooping out in defiance; to look for “what to eat”. A rehearsal of how such a situation will be managed may be necessary now; beyond the use even the most minimal force let alone bullets.
Leave a Reply