Tag: Coup

  • JUST IN: Rwanda retires 12 generals, 1,013 military officers

    JUST IN: Rwanda retires 12 generals, 1,013 military officers

    Rwanda President, Paul Kagame has approved the retirement of 95 military generals and senior officers as well as 930 junior soldiers.

    This is coming barely 48 hours after the military coup that sacked President Ali Bongo from power in Gabon.

    The Nation reports that the military in Gabon on Wednesday, August 30, ousted Ali Bongo Ondimba from the presidency following the results of the 2023 Gabonese general election.

    The coup in Gabon was the latest in a series of military coups that have seen democratically elected leaders removed from the seat of power in Niger Republic, Mali, Sudan, Burkina Faso, and Guinea-Bissau.

    According to a statement published on the Rwanda Defense Force’s official website on Wednesday, President Paul Kagame approved the retirement of several RDF generals, including senior presidential advisor on security matters, James Kabarebe.

    Read Also: US concerned about Gabon coup

    Local media reports that some of those retired had attained the retirement age of 65 while others were indicted in some misconduct.

    The senior military officers also include Fred Ibingira, Charles Kayonga, Frank Mushyo Kamanzi, Martin Nzaramba, Eric Murokore, Augustin Turagara, Charles Karamba, Albert Murasira, Chris Murari, Didace Ndahiro, and Emmanuel Ndahiro.

    The statement read in part: “The president has also approved also approved the retirement of 83 Senior Officials, 86 Senior Non-Commissioned Officers, 6 Junior Officers, 678 end-of-contract retirements, 160 soldiers who were discharged on medical grounds.”

  • EU defence ministers mull sanctions in response to Niger coup

    EU defence ministers mull sanctions in response to Niger coup

    EU defence ministers are considering their response to the military coup in Niger at a meeting in Toledo, Spain on Wednesday.

    Germany and France are pushing EU members to sanction the military putschists and organisations that support them, multiple diplomats said.

    Arriving at the talks, top EU diplomat Josep Borrell said EU defence ministers would examine the suitability of sanctioning the coup’s leaders and possible impacts on military and immigration cooperation.

    Declining to be drawn on further detail, Borrell said that after another coup in the region, the situation in Africa’s Sahel “is not exactly improving.”

    EU member states are cautious about worsening the situation.

    Niger is the latest country in the Sahel after Burkina Faso and Mali to fall into the military’s hands.

    Just over a month ago, Borrell named Niger an “essential partner” after a visit.

    Read Also: Niger coup leader rallies Burkina Faso, Mali against ECOWAS

    For France, Niger had been an important partner in its anti-terror fight especially after the military leaders in Mali and Burkina Faso forced the withdrawal of French troops from their countries.

    Siemtje Möller, a German State Secretary for defence, spoke in favour of sanctions to “build up pressure” and restore democratic order in the country.

    The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has threatened the use of force to reinstate the Nigerien constitution.

    Möller said supporting such a move was not under discussion.

    The ministers’ meeting came just as the military in Gabon, south of the Sahel, also announced a coup.

    (dpa/NAN)

  • How military should deal with calls for coup —Ex-Bayelsa MILAD Edor Obi

    How military should deal with calls for coup —Ex-Bayelsa MILAD Edor Obi

    Former Military Administrator of Bayelsa State, Col. Edor Obi (rtd), in this interview with INNOCENT DURU, speaks about rising incidents of coups in Africa and how the military should handle recent calls by some unidentified people on social media on the military to intervene in the nation’s political system. Excerpts

    Military coup is beginning to rear its head again in Africa. Beyond the reasons given by the coup plotters for taking over, what exactly do you think is amiss?

    I think the most interesting thing about the coups in Africa, if you look at Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea and Niger, if I am not mistaken; all these countries are Francophone countries. That tells you something.

    It does appear that there is something that is happening within the Francophone African countries which may have to do with some of their own internal issues.

    Let’s take Mali for example. I think the situation in Mali was necessitated by the inability of their government to deal with the prevailing security situation. The fact that you have more of these Francophone countries does appear that there is something there that they are probably revolting against their colonial masters. For me, each of them has unique characteristics in terms of what has necessitated the uprising. But I think what people need to pay attention to is the fact that all these countries are Francophone. I think that there is something that is brewing there that may not be unconnected with the relationship of these countries with their French masters and the policies of the French system in those countries. I think people just need to pay attention and find out what is the root cause of this fundamental thing that is happening in these Francophone countries.

    The economy of Africa is obviously being affected by these coups and there is also the challenge of displacement of people. What dangers do these portend for Africa?

    Let me talk about people being displaced. I think it is a big problem. If we are going to begin to have refugees that are being displaced in some of these countries, don’t also forget that today as we speak, though I don’t have the statistics but probably most of the migrants around the world come from Africa. It is not just a problem for Africa; I think it is a potential problem for the rest of the world, and that is why Africa also needs to put its house in order.

    Right now, even recently, the UK tried to even take a lot of the migrants and resettle them in Rwanda even though I know their parliament voted against that. This problem has big social economic consequences that Africa may not be able to handle and it will have a spillover effect on the rest of the world. From the African perspective, I think it is something we really need to find a solution to and try to stop the trend so that we are not faced with this huge refugee problem in Africa.

    We don’t have the capacity to deal with it. We don’t have the economic resources, we don’t have the facilities and we don’t have the means. It will create a ripple effect and even upheavals in some of these countries if we are not able to provide for some of these people. They say a hungry man is an angry man. I think we need to pay attention.

    Read Also: Arewa think tank tackles Niger Delta group over planned protest in Abuja

    Coming to Niger, we have the ECOWAS on the one hand mobilising troops and the western world who are not comfortable with military coups. What do you think ECOWAS should do considering the position of the West in Niger?

    We need to go back to the ECOWAS charter. What was the original intention of ECOWAS? Where does ECOWAS come in as far as this issue of intervening affairs of neighbouring states,? What is the precedent and what is the justification? ECOWAS needs to ensure it follows its own protocol in doing that.

    I know that today, we are part of the international community, so, you can be talking about the US interest. But I don’t think ECOWAS should be the tool that the United States is going to use to protect and project its interest in the sub-region. I know the concept of peace-keeping under the United Nation Charter encourages sub-regional bodies to be more involved because of the issue thereof, understanding the culture and the peculiarity of the region under the United Nations arrangement where the UN is beginning to encourage sub-regional involvement in peacekeeping operations and not military operations.

    If we are talking about the United Nations solution, I can say fine, the ECOWAS can work under because the UN will support by providing logistics and a lot of other things so that Africa or ECOWAS troops may be involved in keeping the peace. But if you are talking about military operations to invade a sovereign nation, I think ECOWAS needs to look at its charter.

    My take is that it is something that ECOWAS needs to be very careful about. Personally, I don’t think it is the best option. I am not sure that if ECOWAS is going to do that now, it is going to be that easy from the military point of view, because in this kind of operation, you have to be very clear about what you intend to achieve. It has to be clear in terms of the timeline, the resources you need and how that operation is going to be carried out.

    If we look at where Niger is located today, I think they share a border with Burkina Faso. If today, Burkina Faso is hostile and is against a possible ECOWAS military intervention in Niger, then you probably need to think twice because you may not just be dealing with Niger alone. You probably will have to contend with those neigbours that are not supporting ECOWAS. If you are going to get into Niger, you are not going to go through the land borders. That will require strategic airlift to be able to get to that ground.

    Don’t forget that there is also a no flight zone which is already in place. It is really going to be a complex operation that I don’t think we have the resources at this point to want to do. And as usual Nigeria is presently the chairman of ECOWAS. We do have our own internal issues today. We are actually biting more than we can chew because since the civil war, I don’t think we have ever had this kind of internal security operations where our troops are almost in 90 per cent of the federation today. What is the force level you are going to need to go to Niger?

    The other day I heard the president of Cote D’ivoire saying that he was going to commit a battalion. I don’t know what is the force level. If he is talking about a battalion and I heard him say a battalion for three months. For me, it is like he is putting the cart before the horse. I don’t know if they have determined the troop requirement. So, if he is contributing a battalion, what is the force level they are going to need? Where are they going to take the rest of the troops?

    In Nigeria, if you are going to take out troops from anywhere here, you are going to create an internal gap that will also compound our own internal problems. Don’t forget that while we are focusing today on our internal insurrection, with terrorism, with Boko Haram and the rest of them, if we go and create a gap, we could also expose ourselves externally and could also be facing external threats. We don’t want to fight on too many fronts and I think we really need to be careful. Military option in Niger for now, for me, should be on the back seat. I think they should explore all the diplomatic options, and I am sure they will succeed. And I think what they need to do is actually engage these people and talk them through what they intend to do and whatever programme they have. They should try and engage them so that, that programme is not an extended programme and they can come to an amicable solution without putting the troops in Niger.

    What do you make of the calls for coup in Nigeria by some people on social media?

    I love my country and I don’t think that with whatever it is that I want to be one of those who will be supporting a military coup in Nigeria. Personally, I will say it is a no no.  We have had a taste of military rule and in my opinion, seriously speaking, and I am not trying to speak like a politician, I am speaking strictly as somebody who loves this country, we should let our democracy evolve. Each time there is an intervention, we are going to start the process all over. We are not there yet in our democracy. We are not practising democracy as we should, but interrupting the democratic process is actually not the best option. It is actually going to set us back in terms of learning the ropes. For now, I will strongly advocate that we should be focusing on governance, building our institutions and letting our leadership also live up to its responsibility so that they are not living under this shadow of disillusion that they would be afraid of this kind of thing.

    With good governance, I don’t think you really need to bother yourself, because the populace will really kick against any such thing. Let’s be focusing more on trying to have governance, strong institutions and deepen our democracy than this frequent interruption.

    We just talked about the challenge of refugees around the world. Nigeria is the centre of gravity of Africa. If Nigeria is not together, Africa cannot stand. If we have internal insurrection where you have this kind of instability and there is a spillover effect to the rest of Africa, the whole of West Africa together cannot absorb the refugees from Nigeria. Let us try and stabilise Nigeria by making sure that our democracy thrives.

    Beyond warning people against talking about coups, what should the military be doing at this point?

    The military should just focus on its constitutional responsibility. We are living in a democracy and people are entitled to their freedom of expression. But there is also a line, because if people are instigating a military coup and it is credible, then that in itself, going by the laws of this country, is treasonable. So, it is a serious issue. It is not beer parlour talk. I think it is something we need to be careful about.

    While individuals are entitled to their freedom of expression, if people begin to make unguarded utterances that they are instigating the military, I think the military should stay focused on what they need to do so that they are not dragged into reacting to this type of thing. I saw somewhere that the military issued a statement but beyond that, they should just stay on their responsibility.

    There are necessary agencies to deal with those kinds of thing. If you play into the hands of some of these people, it may actually boomerang. We should make sure that people act responsibly, and if they don’t, I think the laws are there to deal with such situations. 

    Shouldn’t the military be looking inward to see if there are officers with such plans?

    I don’t think the military should bother itself with those kinds of thing. I think the military as an institution knows exactly the way it is structured. The military the way it is structured, should just focus on its primary responsibilities. And this includes internal insurrections, and external aggression.

    Internal insurrection will come in different forms. The military has its own means of information and intelligence gathering. The military is not going to devour the units to begin to look at the people who are asking for military intervention.  They are not going to do that. The military will focus on doing what they need to do, but they will do it in a structured manner without losing their focus on what they need to do to defend this country externally and also make sure they support the country internally.

    Security challenges in the country are not abating. What is the way out of this beyond deployment of troops in troubled areas?

    People always think that in issues that have to do with insecurity, the military should be the first port of call. I think it is a very wrong notion. I did a course in 2013 in Harvard on National and International Security, and you will find out that the military component of national security is probably less than 20 per cent. You have to find out what are the factors that are creating this, and you cannot take away the economy. We need to focus on turning around the economy. The level of unemployment is very high. We have a lot of our graduates and youths that are unemployed. Unemployment leads to a lot of other social consequences. They start getting involved in drugs.

    Take for example the cases of kidnapping that have become a big business in Nigeria. Some of the youths have been drawn into this because they don’t have a choice. If you take for example the situation in the Niger Delta where people were disrupting operations and the rest of it, the restiveness has to do with, again, environmental consequences which made it impossible for the people to fish and farm and so they couldn’t go to school. Those who went to school couldn’t get jobs and because of that they didn’t have a means of livelihood and consequently became available tools to be used by different gangs for these criminal activities.

    I think we need to begin to look at those fundamental issues and address them. Unless we address those issues, there is only a limit to which you can deploy the military. The military can only do containment like they are trying to do. In the long term internally, it becomes a lot more complex for them to deal with some of these situations. These are all Nigerians in Nigeria. They are not enemies of the state. Some of them are committing crimes, yes, which are punishable under the law. But there is also a limit to which they can use the military against them. If you overuse the military, even the so-called international community will come back and tell you that you are violating human rights because they are your own people. 

    The government needs to be responsive and look at these fundamental issues and fix them. The government needs to do its own bit to reduce this social inequality and create an enabling environment, reduce the poverty gap and create jobs particularly for our teeming youth.

    The government should also make sure the economy is productive. Using the military alone and even the cost of maintaining the military to keep the peace is already eating into the economy.

    What do you make of the resolve of Senate that Nigeria should extradite Simon Ekpa, the Finland based Biafran agitator?

    I don’t have details of what the Senate said and what his offences are. But again, there are processes. If this person has committed an offence against his country, I think there is a process. It is not just because the Senate is calling for it. I think the relevant agencies will be working towards that once it is established that he is instigating insurrection in his own country. I am sure it is not just the Senate that will call for it. In every responsible country, the relevant agencies and organs of government will be working with other international bodies to deal with such a situation, and I think that is the way to go because the world today is a global village and we are part of the international community.

  • Itsekiri community suspends two leaders over alleged ‘coup’ against Olu of Warri

    The council of elders of Omadino community in Warri South council area of Delta State has placed two of its members on an indefinite suspension over alleged unwholesome and peace-threatening activities.

    The decision of the council was contained in a letter to the Olu of Warri, Ogiame Ikenwoli, and signed by Elder Omasan Edukugho and Elder Buge Edukugho, Chairman and Secretary of the body respectively.

    The signatories said the decision to suspend the two members of the elders’ council; Pa. Victor Ewomiewaraghan  Esu and Pa. Emmanuel Ajuyah, was reached at an extra ordinary meeting of the council held on June 22, 2018.

    But Ajuyah faulted the ‘suspension’ which he branded a ruse.

    He told reporters in Warri that the council lacks power to suspend any chief.

    The council, in its letter, said the decision to suspend Esu and Ajuyah stemmed from  alleged attempt to secede Omadino community from Warri kingdom in a sponsored rebellious publication of April 6th, 2016, without the consent and approval of the Council of Elders, which imposed “great embarrassment, not only to the community, but Itsekiri nation in general”.

    They also alleged that Esu, against the directive of the council blatantly refused to play his traditional ceremonial role of welcoming the Olu of Warri during his visit to the community on September 25th, 2016.

    The council also claimed that Esu and his group set up a parallel electoral committee to conduct a fresh election for the Omadino Employment and Development Association (OEDA) , in flagrant disregard of a valid court judgement.

    “Furthermore, Esu, in a recent publication of June 2018 is said to have disowned the Chairman and Secretary of the Omadino Council of Elders, Elder Omasan Edukugho and Mr. Buge Reece Edukugho respectively, a statement which he completely lacks the capacity to issue, being only a ceremonial member of the council of elders,” it added.

    The Council of Elders therefore urged His Majesty, Ogiame Ikenwoli, the Olu of Warri to intervene and save the situation in the community from snowballing into a full blown crisis.

     

  • I never called for military intervention, says Ekweremadu

    Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, has faulted some reports which claimed that he called for a military intervention in the country.

    Speaking  in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State capital when Governor Seriake Dickson hosted him and other African lawmakers attending the 74th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (Africa Region) Executive Committee to a dinner, Ekeremadu said that his comments on the floor of the Senate, though “unambiguously in defence of democracy”, were either being twisted or misconstrued by some persons.

    Ekeremadu’s denial was stated  in a statement by the Special Adviser (Media) to the Deputy Senate President, Uche Anichukwu.

    It said that while reinstating his respect for the Nigerian Armed Forces, Ekweremadu, advised that comments made by lawmakers in the course of their duty should be situated within the proper context before any form of reaction.

    Ekweremadu explained that parliamentarians had a duty to continue to defend democracy in the country, hence “he clearly cautioned fellow politicians against the mistakes of the past, which inevitably led to the abrupt end of the previous republics.”

    Ekweremadu was quoted to have said, “We had one of our colleagues from Kogi, who was hosting a constituency briefing and empowerment. He alleged that the state government sponsored thugs to chase away people, disrupt the programme, and destroy the equipment he bought for his people.

    “We condemned such acts, especially where in a particular case, the house of a parliamentarian was pulled down. We condemned a case whereby parliamentarians were stopped from holding meetings and where a parliamentarian was stopped from coming to a state where he was governor for eight years.

    “We warned that it was such reckless abuse of power and impunity that scuttled our previous republics, especially the first republic and I cautioned politicians not take our democracy for granted.

    “Of course, some people took it out of context and said I was calling for a military coup. I never called for a military coup. I never said the military was planning any coup. Even the military’s statement admitted that my statement was only cautionary and that we were sincere. But they went as far as saying that the international community should ignore my words of caution”, Ekweremadu said.

    He added: “I hold the Nigerian Army and the Armed Forces in high regard. They have defended our democracy, our people and have acquitted themselves creditably. If they need anything now, it is encouragement because this is not the best of times for them.

    “But we do hope that when parliamentarians make statements, they (the military) should be able to know exactly what they said before reacting so that we don’t overheat the system.

    “Our debate is circulating on the internet, unedited, and I never said the army was planning a coup and I never invited them to plan any coup. But I strongly hold the view that our political leaders should ere on the side of caution by refraining from past mistakes and actions inimical to democratic practice”.

  • Ekeremadu under fire over coup comment

    Ekeremadu under fire over coup comment

    Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu has come under severe attack over his comment on the possibility of a military intervention in the country with supporters of President Muhammadu Buhari on the platform of Buhari Media Support Group asking him to withdraw the statement and apologize to the Nigerians.

    The Advanced People’s Democratic Alliance(APDA) also described the statement as shocking and regrettable, while asking the military to disregard it as well. 

    In a statement made available to The Nation in Abuja, the Buhari Media Support Group said Ekweremadu must withdraw the coup statement he made on the floor of the Senate, as well as apologize to Nigerians for that “most unfortunate statement”.

    The Group (BMSG) expressed disappointment over comments made by Senator Ekweremadu during deliberations in the red chamber that coup is possible in the current political dispensation on account of what the Senate considered to be a threat to democracy in Kogi State.

    The statement signed by Coordinator, Austin Braimoh and Secretary, Cassidy Madueke, the group said it wasdisturbed that a Senator of the Federal Republic would contemplate a coup plot in Nigeria after the country has witnessed almost nineteen years of unbroken democracy. 

    The group said that “His reference to a coup plot in this dispensation is highly disappointing and clearly appears as an instigation. Definitely his intention while making this comment is suspicious and unpatriotic.

    “As a lawmaker and second in command at the nation’s highest law-making body, we expect Senator Ekweremadu to always exercise restraint in his utterances in order to uphold the virtues required of his high office. As someone occupying a high office in the country, it is expected that the stability and progress of the country will be uppermost in his mind.

    “We advise Senator Ekweremadu and the Senate to stop equating the inability of politicians to adhere to democratic principles as putting the nation’s democracy in danger. It is indeed strange that the Senate, rather than focusing on its law-making responsibilities, is delving into states’ matters.

    “We make bold to say that if indeed the country’s democracy is under threat as Senator Ekweremadu tried to make us believe, then it is an indictment on him as one of the leaders of the Senate, and he should stop passing the buck”.

    Also in a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Tosin Adeyanju, the APDA said politicians must be mindful of their utterances and must be patient and allow the current democracy mature.

    The statement said “Our democracy is evolving and we all must be patient to see it mature to a stage that  will be the envy of all. No doubt we are still far from  where we should be as a nation, but we are moving towards it and all stakeholders in the Nigeria project must be part of this journey of nation building and not be involved in destroying our hard earned democracy.

    “We are aware of the challenges being  faced by Nigerians but  that those challenges   are surmountable if we all unite towards nation building and contribute our quota at any area of endeavour   we may find ourselves.

     “We should all remember that we have no other country than Nigeria and we must do things that promote unity and prosperity of the country at all times. Our democracy should be protected and strengthened by all citizens of country because it is the only vehicle that will take us to our prosperity”. 

    The party appealed to the National Assembly to desist from instigating the military to truncate our nascent  democracy.

  • A coup that changed the course of history

    On January 15, 1966, the first military coup, led by Major Chukwuemeka Nzeogwu changed the course of Nigerian history. Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU revisits the aborted journey to democratic stability, barely six years after independence, which set the stage for the enthronement of unitary system by ‘sit-tight,’ adventurous military rulers. 

    The joy of independence from the British only lasted for six years. On January 15, 1966, blood thirsty military reformers were on the prowl. Led by Major Chukwuemeka Nzeogwu, the coup drew the curtains on the First Republic. The gains of the nationalist movement were reversed. Up came military rulers who plunged the country into an unmitigated disaster of bad governance. Fifty one years after, the country has not fully recovered from the misadventure.

    The coup, as pointed out by an eminent political scientist, Prof. Isawa Elaigwu, had an ethnic colouration. Four of the five planners were Igbo. The principal victims were Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba and Uhrobo. While Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, Northern Regional Premier Sir Ahmadu Bello, Western Regional Premier Ladoke Akintola and Finance Minister Chief Festus Okoti-Eboh fell by the bullets, those who carried out operations in the Midwest and Eastern regions spared the lives of their two Igbo targets-Premiers Dennis Osadebey and Michael Okpara. The ceremonial president, Dr. Nnamidi Azikiwe from Igboland, was on medical leave abroad.

    The ethnic distribution of casualties among the military officers was also skewed. Those killed by the mutineers included Brigadier Zachariya Maimalari, Brigadier Samuel Ademulegun, Commander of the First Brigade, Kaduna, Brigadier Largema,  Kur Mohammed, James Pam, Arthur Nnegbe, and Col. Ralph Sodeinde. The discriminating killings unleashed a feeling of ethnicity, which became more intense as the major beneficiary of the coup, the General officer Commanding the Armed Forces, Major Gen. Thomas Aguiyi Ironsi, also an Igbo, took measures that also had ethnic colouration, thereby inadvertently convincing the aggrieved northerners that the change of government was carried out as punishment for northern domination.

    The coup plotters were easily edged out and their vision died with them in detention. The military Head of State suddenly found himself in the corridor of power, unprepared for the responsibility of nation-building. He lacked a programme of action; his competence was in doubt. On coup day, he was full of bravado as he harassed the surviving ministers to hurriedly hand over the reins to him at gun point because the Igbo Acting President, Dr. Nwafor Orizu, was reluctant to appoint either Alhaji Bukar Dipcharima or Dr. Ozumba Mbadiwe as acting prime minister. Yet, he was slow in taking decisive action against the murderers of the civilian and military leaders, thereby aggravating the tension.

    Discipline broke down in the military. Unable to bring the mutineers to justice, soldiers of northern extraction continued to grumbled. Ironsi was in a dilemma. Having hailed the coup as a revolution, Southern intellectuals justified the putsch, unmindful of the perception of Northerners who believed that the plot was hatched to effect power shift from the North to Igboland.

    The Commander-In-Chief also surrounded himself with his kith and kin, thereby failing to become a symbol of unity at the critical time. Ironsi further plunged the country into anxiety by sacking the federal structure and foisting on Nigeria a unitary system through his Decree No 34, 1966. “Nigeria shall cease to be a federation and shall accordingly be a republic,” he said. The regions were abolished, only to be replaced by territorial areas called provinces. . Up came a National Military Government in place of the Federal Military Government. In his view, the key to national unity was the abolition of regionalism.

    More disgusting was the unification of the civil service, which was antithetical to the reality of the country’s diversity in terms of language, culture and regional peculiarities. Ironsi failed to set up a cabinet. The suspicion among diverse soldiers in the barracks grew and aggrieved northern officers started plotting for the revenge of the killings of their past leaders.

    To douse the tension, Ironsi embarked on the tour of the country. His targets for dousing the tension were traditional rulers, the politicians having been discredited by the military. But, the Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Col. Yakubu Gowon, had the duty of explaining the political situation to the military. After his tour of the North, he went to Ibadan, the capital of Western State, to address the traditional rulers at the Western Regional House of Chiefs. But, at the state dinner organised by his host, Governor Adekunle Fajuyi, the Northern officers passed the code word ’Araba’ among themselves. On July 29, 1966, the soldiers, led by Major Yakubu Danjuma and Lt. Walbe kidnapped the visitor and the host. They never returned alive.

    The military had boxed the country into a succession crisis. Ironsi’s deputy, Brigadier         Babafemi Ogundipe, Chief of Staff, decided to call a special session of senior army officers in Lagos. But, to his consternation, a northern Sergeant refused to take  orders from him. Sensing danger, he vanished into thin air, only to resurfaced in London as High Commissioner to Britain after Gowon assumed leadership. But, there was an obstacle. While the military governors of the North, West and Midwest-Lt. Cols. Hassan Katsina, Adeyinka Adebayo and David Ejoor-accepted the leadership of Gowon, their counterpart in the East, Lt-Col. Chukwuemeka Odimegwu-Ojukwu raise objection. He urged Ogundipe to insist on taking command.

    Gowon succeeded in dousing the push for succession by Northern officers. But, Ojukwu was adamant that the military hierarchical order should be preserved. When power shifted to the North, the government had to contend with restiveness in the North. In what has been described as pogrom, many officers and civilians of Igbo origin were murdered in the North. To halt the trend, Ojukwu advised the Igbos in the hostile region to return home.

    Gen. Gowon was not insensitive to the cloud of uncertainty hovering over the country. He set up an Ad hoc Constitution Conference in Lagos in September 12, 1966. He attempted to outlaw the unitary system, saying: “a country as big as Nigeria and comprising such diversity of tribes and cultures cannot be administered successfully under a unitary form of government, unless such a government is to be enforced and maintained by some kind of dictatorship.” Delegates to the conference oscillated between confederation and federal system. Delegates from Lagos, led by former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Dr. Olawale Elias, called for creation of states. The pre-conference deliberations restore peace and harmony in the North, West and Midwest.

    However, the gulf between Gowon and Ojukwu had become widened. Although a lot of concessions were made to him in the Aburi Accord, the governor of Eastern Region still opted for secession on May 30, 1967. Gowon promptly declared a state of emergency in the country. He also created new state s and appointed new military governors. Reflecting on the restructuring, Elaigwu said:  “Ojukwu was now on the defensive; he had to react to Gowon’s political moves on Nigeria’s chess board.”   Later, the Hed of State appointed civilian ministers to stabilise his government.

    The civil war lasted for three years. There were heavy casualties on both federal and Biafran sides. In 1970, Col. Philip Effiong led the rebel forces to surrender. Then, the Federal Government started to confront the challenges of reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation. Contrary to his promise to organize a transfer of power to the civilians, Gowon postponed the transition programme. He was ousted from power in 1975.

    His successor, the late Gen. Muritala Mohammed set up a transition programme. Although he was assassinated on February 13, 1976, the programme was not truncated. It was completed by his successor, Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo in 1979 after 13 years of military rule.

    But, coup plotting had become the latent career of ambitious soldiers. Thus, the military sacked the Shagari administration, barely four years after. The Head of State, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, was also shoved aside by his Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida in August 1985. Babangida who spent eight year in office, and promised to relinquish power annulled the most credible presidential election won by the late Chief Moshood Abiola of the defunct Social Democratic Party (SDP). The interim regime of Ernest Shonekan that succeeded him was sacked by Gen.Abacha. In 1998, Abacha died in office and Gen. Abudulsalami Abubakar came to office. He handed over to Chief Obsanjo as president.

    On getting to power, the military embraced the attitude of self-enrichment. Corruption became a state policy. Also, under the successive military governments, Nigeria regressed to the unitary system. The legacies have not been wiped out by political stability in the last 19 years of the Fourth Republic.

     

     

  • ‘A coup in slow motion’

    ‘A coup in slow motion’

    This was a BBC correspondent’s prescient characterisation of President Robert Mugabe’s dilatory antics just two days after the March 29, 2008 general elections were concluded in Zimbabwe.

    Early returns suggested that Mugabe had been voted out (“massacred,” as a jubilant spokesperson for the opposition MDC said) after 28 years in office, and that his ruling ZANU-PF had lost its parliamentary majority for the time since Zimbabwe won independence in 1980.

    Zimbabweans and all those who had followed the country’s precipitous decline on virtually every front could smell change in the air. With the man who wrought this disastrous regression gone, there would be no swift return to the relative prosperity that Zimbabwe once enjoyed—the food self-sufficiency, a booming export market for tobacco, coffee, fruit, flowers, solid minerals, and the huge revenues from tourism.

    There would be no swift return to well-stocked grocery shelves, no immediate relief for millions ready and willing to work but unable to find any meaningful jobs.  The hundreds of thousands who had flocked into neighbouring South Africa through perilous routes might hurry back to friendlier climes, but to hardly any other relief.  With some luck, consumers will not have to trundle a truckload of Zim dollars to the shop to buy a family-size loaf of bread.

    Mugabe’s exit would however arrest the drift and decay, and create a climate in which the task of rebuilding could begin in earnest.

    But instead of departing, Mugabe launched a coup in slow motion.

    The electoral commission released the results of the parliamentary elections in tantalising driblets — calibrated to make the opposition feel that power was within its grasp and at the same time make the government feel that its viability was under no serious threat.  After several days, it seemed as if a stalemate was in the making, with neither the MDC and ZANU-PF coasting to victory.

    Relieved that the rout that had been widely forecast was unlikely to materialise, Mugabe unleashed the awesome powers of incumbency.  He warned darkly that proclamation of victory by the opposition would be regarded as an attempt to stage a coup and visited as such. As the stalemate dragged on, Mugabe let it be known that, contrary to public speculation, he was not averse to running against MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai if no clear winner emerged in the presidential election.

    By the time it was officially announced that the MDC had indeed wrested parliamentary majority from ZANU-PF, attention had shifted, not to the presidential election whose outcome was being awaited, but to a likely a run-off between Tsvangirai and Mugabe.

    At this writing, the results of the presidential election had not been formally announced.  The working assumption is that the MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai won a majority of the votes but did not score enough to avert a second ballot. Under Zimbabwe’s electoral law, a run-off should be held within three weeks.

    Given the strange trajectory of the general elections, the question must be asked:  Within three weeks of what?  If it is within three weeks of the first poll, then it is past due.  If it is within three weeks of declaring the official results, Mugabe can take his time and delay the results for as long as possible. Having recovered his balance, he can then deploy the powers of incumbency to ensure an emphatic victory in the run-off.

    Nor is it inconceivable that the results may never be proclaimed.  There is a precedent for it.

    I have in mind the June 12, 1993 presidential elections.  The military government of General Ibrahim Babangida launched against it a coup that dragged on in all its murder and melodrama and absurdity for two months until he was caught in his own snare and dragged off the scene in ignominy.

    It is now clear that Mugabe is not prepared to vacate office.  It is also clear that, having driven  Zimbabwe to the edge of ruin, he can offer only more of the same – blood, agony, despair and tears, in pursuit of no nobler goal or vision than self perpetuation.

    How can he as a Christian, a person of faith who almost became an ordained priest – how can he  reconcile himself to the depredations and privations that his own policies have brought upon the people?  Has he become so isolated that he cannot hear them cry?  Is he inured to their pain?

    Does it not bother him that his compatriots now feel obliged to wage a chimurenga (Shona for “struggle”) against the very man who had led their historic chimurenga against colonial and settler rule?  Does he not feel diminished that he is now more loathed and detested in the public consciousness than Ian Smith, the last white minority ruler of what was then Rhodesia?

    As the brazen assault on the popular will in Zimbabwe unfolds, African voices have been tepid  at best.  The Africa Union showed up briefly in Harare during a meeting with Mugabe, then went missing in action.  The African Peer Review Mechanism, the vehicle through which African leaders are supposed to b e able to tell each other unpleasant truths and demand redress went into abeyance.

    Africa’s pre-eminent diplomat and peacemaker, Kofi Annan, most recently secretary-general of the United Nations, was stuck in Kenya, trying to broker a solution to another election stalemate that had resulted in slaughter and displacement on a scale almost beyond belief.

    South African President Thabo Mbeki, speaking ahead of  last weekend’s summit of the Southern Africa Development Community member-states, said the debacle is the Zimbabwean way of  handling elections and that the authorities should be given time to announce the results.  Not much is to be expected, then from the summit.  Malam Musa Yar’Adua knows his own dubious path to power too well to speak out.

    Nelson Mandela is in the twilight of his remarkable life.  He may be working behind the scenes and the headlines.  Even so, he is known for his loyalty to his friends, among whom he counts Mugabe. Those expecting him to denounce Mugabe are likely to be disappointed. That is not the Madiba style.

    Twelve years ago, General Olusegun Obasanjo would have been the statesman for these times.

    He held no formal office; yet his voice was respected all over the world.  His counsel was sought far and wide.  He talked with a moral authority that commanded attention.  He spoke truth and wisdom to power.  His every utterance was backed by the force of personal example.

    Today, he is hobbled, his influence severely diminished at home and abroad on account of a record of performance that belied his vaunted commitment to democracy and the rule of law  during his eight years as president. Each passing day brings new startling allegations of sleaze against his administration and even members of his family.

    Nor has the so-called international community proved an honest broker. Zimbabwe’s former colonial suzerain, the United Kingdom, says it has set aside a billion pounds to kick start rebuilding once Mugabe vacates power.

    If  the UK and the United States had made that kind of money available to help Mugabe buy white-owned farms for redistribution to landless Zimbabweans in keeping with the Lancaster House protocols, Mugabe would not have embarked on the measures that have brought his country to grief.  Besides, the UK’s latest promise only strengthens Mugabe’s hands in portraying his opponents as agents of British imperialism.

    Nearly three weeks after the election, the coup continues apace in slow motion. In the latest installment, Mugabe is claiming that the parliamentary poll was rigged in favour of the MDC and is demanding a recount in some 23 districts. If and when the result of the presidential election is released, Mugabe will probably embark on a new stunt.

    In this unfolding tragedy, Archbishop Desmond Tutu stands out almost alone as an honest broker, committed not to expediency and opportunist compromise, but to justice and upholding the sovereign will of the people.  Those who truly wish Zimbabwe well and do not want it to  go the way of Kenya must heed his voice.

     

    • This piece was first published in this newspaper on April 15, 2008. It will be the point of departure for next week’s column
  • The coup against JAMB

    ir: Looking at the crop-of people who took the decision to put the minimum JAMB score which ranks a candidate high enough for admission into Nigerian  Universities at 120 out of 400, their academic credentials are presumably impeccable. They are the intelligentsia, first class academics who graduated from being exceptional undergraduate students to becoming academics who also taught students following or along with excellent  postgraduate training abroad, sometimes at home.

    One of the revelations of the unfolding saga is the disclosure by JAMB that many universities had been admitting students who scored lower than the approved minimum cut-off set by JAMB. The universities that did this were headed by supposed egg heads and those universities effectively show that many of our academics are overrated.

    Agreeing to lower the minimum qualifying or ranking score for admission seekers into universities to 120 is tantamount to condescending and giving in to criminality. The symbolism of a 30 percent as an acceptable score can never look good whether JAMB exams are ranking examinations or qualifying examinations.

    Perhaps what JAMB should do in response to this is to extend the frontiers of its own battles in the war against corruption by naming and shaming the culprit professors. JAMB could also limit its role to conducting examinations and releasing the results while totally removing itself of the role of setting or announcing any cut off marks. By doing this, mediocre institutions which indulge in backdoor admissions will continue to expose themselves.

    JAMB has also told us that many students go abroad to get university degrees from glorified secondary schools. This only confirms that the problem with JAMB cut-off mark is only symbolic of greater national problems.  At this point, the vice-chancellors need the courage to mind their instincts and take a departure from opposing ASUU at all times. They should join forces with ASUU by demanding for better funding for universities to expand carrying capacities and also join them in demanding for reasonable wages.

    Until this is done, we will no doubt continue to see professors and other scholars who deserve EFCC handcuffs. Being guests of EFCC will also remain a trend among academics, as long as fresh graduates in organisations like the Petroleum Trust Development Fund (PTDF), Central Bank of Nigeria and others earn as much and even more than professors. It is therefore not so far-fetched to see some professors who feel it is justifiable to extort students, collect kickbacks from contractors and award themselves illegal furniture allowances of over N5 million annually as some Vice-Chancellors are reported to be doing.

     

    • Mubarak Oladosu,

    University of Ilorin.

  • Coup scare: A red herring?

    SIR: One of the greatest dis-incentives to military coup in Nigeria is the liberalisation of the broadcast media. If you seize a radio station in Kaduna to announce a coup, another officer will seize a television or radio station in Kano, Lagos, Enugu, Ibadan or Rivers, to counter the coup. If you attempt a military putsch through an announcement on air in Owerri, someone else will make a counter announcement on radio or television in Abuja, Ebonyi, Jos, Ekiti or Bayelsa. It is no longer easy to plan a successful coup in Nigeria.

    And to detect coup attempts is now so easy. Unlike the 60s to 90s when telecommunication lines can be cut in order to restrict access to information, as you mention your illegal attempt in one barrack, before you take two steps, the information has reached another barracks. So, how do you conceal a coup attempt in the era of GSM, Watsapp, Twitter, indeed, all agents of instant communication? And coup is an offence against your country, a high treason.

    The experiences of men of the armed forces in the coup years of the 60s to 90s have nearly destroyed esprit de corps. And so, how do you expect Ibo, Yoruba or Ijaw soldiers to obey orders from a Hausa officer to overthrow an elected government? In the same vein, Hausa soldiers will not obey illegal orders from Yoruba, Ibo or Ijaw to sack a civil government, no matter how good or bad the elected government is?

    Drawing from the benefit of hindsight, Nigerians will prefer a devil in civilian dress to a saint in an army uniform. It was military rule that brought the country to its knees. Indeed, while the civilians in the 60s allegedly stole in secret, the military governments looted the country dry, and openly. This country has not recovered from the pains of military regime and may not fully recover from the depredations foisted on the nation via coup d’états in the next 50 years because it is easier to destroy than build. For instance, the regular assault on civilians by some soldiers is hangover from the military rule. In developed climes, soldiers accord civilians regard and utmost respect to all constituted civil authorities.

    Finally, a military coup in the present day Nigeria will only lead to civil war and disintegration of the country. With Boko Haram, MASSOB, IPOB, OPC, MEND, NDA, etc, no soldiers will dare attempt an illegal occupation of Aso Rock and Government Houses across Nigeria. There is so much inter and cross ethnic suspicion in the country such that any officer illegally occupying power will be viewed as that tribe trying to achieve by the barrels of gun what it could not achieve through the ballot box. No section will be able to lay claim to monopoly of violence. Civil war will be the consequence.

    Good or bad civilian government, the era of military regime is over in Nigeria.

    The military is not the watchdog of our democracy and should not constitute itself as one. That role has been handed to the press by the constitution. The military is not an alternative government, being not a political party.

    The teachers are carrying out their lawful duties in the classrooms, the doctors and nurses are fulfilling their constitutional mandates in the hospitals, the farmers in the farms, so should the members of the armed forces fulfil their lawful duties of defending the country against external aggression and internal insurrection as permitted by the constitution and the Armed Forces Act in their barracks. This is the right and proper way to build a nation that we all can be proud of.

    If one political party in power is not doing well, then let another political party replace it at the next general elections. That is the prescription in all civilized societies.  Our country can only develop when all hands are on deck to deepen the current civil rule.

     

    • Dr Ikem Joseph,

    Abuja.