By Idowu Akinlotan
Those who know Governor Babagana Zulum of Borno State attest to the fact that he can sometimes be volatile. But they insist the professor of engineering is a man of character who seldom backs down from a position he knows is unimpeachable. It was, therefore, not surprising that on January 6, 2020, on his way to Jakana on the Maiduguri-Damaturu highway, he blew his top when he discovered that bribe-taking soldiers had held up traffic for hours pinning down thousands of travellers and hundreds of vehicles. Those manning the checkpoint where the governor had a heated exchange with soldiers feigned indifference to the security implications of massing thousands of people in one spot in a war zone.
Prof Zulum was exasperated to discover that the reason for the lockdown was extortion, with soldiers demanding N500 or N1,000 from travellers and motorists, particularly those without a national identity card. “I’m going to report all of you in this unit… nobody can tolerate this,” the governor had bellowed. “Boko Haram is attacking people and you are here collecting N1000 per car…This is unacceptable… How can you subject people to this kind of torture all in the name of National ID card? And you are all here collecting N500 and N1000 from poor travellers who don’t have national ID card…No, this is not right. The federal government has not created an enabling environment for our people to get their national ID cards, and you are here collecting N500 and N1000 as a fine for not having what the federal government has not provided for all.”
The army later explained that the lockdown was because of some skirmishes with elements of Boko Haram along the highway. Face-to-face with the governor at the checkpoint, they were silent on the ID card issue, and also refused to confirm that any soldier asked for or took a bribe. Later, after regaining their composure, the army, through their media coordinator, Aminu Iliyasu, issued a censorious statement that gave the governor a slap on the wrist. The allegations would be investigated, they said, but it was impolitic of any state executive to engage in public outburst. Said Col Iliyasu: “The Nigerian Army as a professional and disciplined institution views such allegations seriously, particularly coming from a state executive. It is on record that, whenever such allegations of troops’ misconduct were made in the past, the Nigerian Army never failed in conducting thorough investigations to establish them and where any infractions were established against any personnel, appropriate sanctions were applied in line with extant rules and regulations as provided for in the Armed Forces Act CAP A20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.”
Still pressing their argument, the army continued: “The Nigerian Army wishes to assure the good people of Borno State and indeed the nation at large that any allegations of misconduct by Nigerian Army troops will be duly investigated and culprits will be dealt with accordingly. However, it is important to unequivocally observe that public outburst particularly by eminent personalities such as a State Executive could be counterproductive and indeed capable of reversing the gains recorded so far in the ongoing fight against insurgents and other criminal elements across the nation.” Whether it was time that cooled the governor’s temper or the public rebuke by the army, Prof Zulum walked back a little on his outburst by reiterating his and Borno State’s support for the army, particularly the life-sacrificing role they are playing in the Northeast war theatre. According to the governor, speaking through his spokesperson, Isa Gusau, “Yesterday’s (January 6) encounter does not and will not change the very high regard the governor has for all the security personnel operating in Borno, particularly soldiers who give up their lives and safety in finding peace for Borno.”
But underlying the army’s response, as can be gleaned from their statement, are their lack of contrition and the consistent but dangerous overtone of superiority over civil authority. Despite their frequent denial of insubordination to civil authority and constant affirmation of loyalty, the military in Nigeria still struggles with the clear constitutional provision to subordinate themselves to orders and directives from elected governments. They did not openly dispute Prof Zulum’s right to censure them in the performance of their duties, but they resented that it happened in the open, probably bringing them down a peg or two in the esteem of the public. Such habitual resistant to censure and correction explains why they continue to find fault with Amnesty International’s periodic and unflattering report of their sometimes misconduct in the theatre of war, and even elsewhere far removed from the war front. It explains why sometimes on their own they initiate and conduct operations or publish behavioural guidelines for the civil populace without deeming it necessary to carry the public along or even secure the imprimatur of the legislature.
It was nothing but an affront to declare in their response to the Borno State governor that, “…it is important to unequivocally observe that public outburst particularly by eminent personalities such as a state executive could be counterproductive and indeed capable of reversing the gains recorded so far in the ongoing fight against insurgents and other criminal elements across the nation.” Indeed, this is blackmail. How on earth could a governor’s reprimand lead to battlefield reverses, when in fact by cajoling soldiers to place lighter burdens on travelling Nigerians their public esteem would rise significantly? The governor observed the checkpoint bribery at close quarters, and travellers attested to that nefarious behaviour. How would criticising that behaviour become counterproductive, as the army argued?
It was not necessary for the army to respond immediately to Prof Zulum’s outburst beyond promising to investigate the allegations. They should have just noted the allegations, acknowledged the sufferings the people underwent at checkpoints, and promised to get to the bottom of the problem, with an assurance that they would re-examine their methods and ensure that they gained or regained the confidence of the people on whose behalf they policed the roads in the first instance. But consistent with a culture that has pervaded their operations in the past few decades, a culture some powerful Western countries have repeatedly deplored, the army rushed out a prepared statement and insinuated that states blighted by insurgency should be so grateful that whatever complaints they have must either be muted or privately enunciated.
It is time the Nigerian military began to take a deep and frank look at their sullied image, methods, processes and vision. Just how professional do they want to be? What image do they want to project to the world — a fighting force that is so disciplined that it cannot be bought and would not be sold, or a fighting force where anything goes? Are they honest with themselves on what they have become, and are they pleased with the roles they are playing and how they are playing those roles? The Nigerian military needs a lot of introspection. Yes, they are not isolated from the rest of the society, a society that is sadly on a continuous decline in principles and character. That is true, for the legislature, executive and the judiciary are singly or sometimes collectively locked in unremitting moral decline, on such a scale that many have started to fear that the country might be headed for implosion.
Indeed, the Northeast insurgency is a product of that precipitous decline in leadership ethics and governance, a decline that has virtually reduced Nigeria to a footnote on the continent and is priming it for anarchy. Domestic policy, whether social or economic, has become eclectic and chaotic. The political system is yearning for a makeover. And foreign policy has all but collapsed, despite occasional fits and starts. Education is in tatters, compounded by a dismal focus on the wrong issues such as what payroll structure to adopt; and the healthcare sector, where professionals appeared to have given up on everything, is gasping for breath. On all fronts, the situation is dire. Nigerians would have loved that in the midst of the chaos, shame and decline, the Nigerian military would be an oasis of professionalism and exemplary conduct. But military authorities obviously see things differently, and can’t seem to be persuaded to inspire a revolution among their ranks to create the most disciplined and effective fighting force in Africa.
If it is any consolation to Prof Zulum, he must be told that his outburst is neither misplaced nor disproportionate. Unlike the army, and as an elected governor, he is bound to respond positively to the sufferings of those who put him in office. That response might seem excessive on January 6 when he railed at what travellers regarded as irrational operations at the checkpoints, but it was in fact well received by the people, and it probably saved the day. His predecessor, Kassim Shettima, courageously took on the Goodluck Jonathan government when the military floundered in their counterinsurgency operations in the Northeast, and he was reviled for his stand by the then government and the army which seemed to show preference for emergency rule and had even inspired a body of laws to rope in critics as abettors of terrorism. Prof Zulum has made his point, and has in response to the army’s unfortunate insinuations, reiterated Borno State government’s support for military operations in the region. He must not allow the army’s cavil to discourage him from taking them on when they exceed their bounds. Flowing from the exchange between him and soldiers, he will now likely opt for subtle, if not covert, remonstrances against checkpoint or any other kind of military indiscipline.
Yes, there is a limit to how openly the Borno governor should criticise the military when soldiers do wrong; but he must never give the impression that they could browbeat civil authorities without consequence despite decades of projecting false superiority. If a governor speaking up, or Amnesty International rebuking the military, discourages them from discharging their duty of defending the country, then they are more poorly led and trained than the public first imagined. As a matter of fact, the laxity and sometimes cruelty at checkpoints may not so much as reflect the purity and quality of their training manual as they reflect poor supervision, service discipline and military personnel’s self-esteem.
Leave a Reply