We seem to have in our forces these days men and women officers who wear their egos instead of their epaulets on their sleeves, their ranks instead of good breeding on their faces, and their rough backgrounds instead of their present responsibilities on their pants.
This week, dear reader, we are sailing on choppy waters and without lifebelts too. The reason is that we are going to try and impress on the country to put proper measures in place before recruiting thousands more of police recruits. While we believe that this country is grossly, grossly under-policed (and that’s putting it very mildly), throwing thousands more of frustrated, ill-trained psycho-and-sociopaths pretending to be uniformed forces at the hapless and helpless citizens of this country is wickedness.
I was greatly alarmed to read two pieces of news in the dailies. One announced that 10,000 men and women were to be employed as policemen in the country. That figure, said the presidency, should address the unemployment problem among youths. I actually smiled at that. Clearly, I thought, this probably means that the presidency does not quite have the grasp of the current unemployment problem in Nigeria. We have since learnt that over 700,000 people have applied for those spaces. I am shocked this few have applied.
The second thing that alarmed me was the piece of news that said that police colleges were to be upgraded. I just threw up my hands. Why, thought I, does this country always persist in putting their carts before their horses? There we were, thinking that the investigative journalism that brought out the deplora-ble conditions in a police college during the presidency of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan would have resulted in some restorative work. Why, I thought, we should have rooted out the breeding grounds for police brutality before calling for applications!
Interestingly, while I was thinking of this topic just this morning, I read other reports in the news that seemed to tell me, ‘You think you got the whole story? Wait a bit more.’ One report gave details of the kind of brutality uniformed organisations are giving the public. They range from physical assault – actually beating people up – to shooting at or stabbing people on little or no provocation. The media is replete with these reports and others like checkpoint shootings and stray bullet attacks. Again this morning, I read of how the security aides of a Comptroller-General were said to have assaulted a female member of the House of Reps within the premises of the national assembly.
Unfortunately, the reasons given by members of the House on why the issue should be investigated did not comfort me one bit. First, a member said they should remember that the victim ‘is a woman’. Man, I am beginning to give up on Nigerians and the way they think. How on earth can the nation’s representatives think so primitively, I queried myself? Does it mean that victims matter more to them if they are females? This is so sexist in a world that recognises that female and male judges are equally addressed as ‘lords’!
The second premise in the argument offered was that she ‘is one of our (i.e. their) own’. Really, this means that the assault would not have mattered if it did not happen to ‘one of their own’? I think someone should please tell the Reps that this kind of assault happens regularly to us who are lower cadres – traders, market women, doctors, artisans, lawyers, teachers, journalists, etc. Does we not matter since we are not necessarily ‘their own’? Oh, I’m telling them already, you say? Ok, let me go further by telling them that in inviting the supervising Minister and the said CG to appear before the House, I would wish the Reps would rather talk to them on behalf of us, the common man (and woman). May I also add that they should invite the head of police, army, civil guards, and any other guards whose foot soldiers are in the habit of terrorising this common man (and woman)?
I am told that some time ago, the video of an incident, in which a woman guard terrorised a man for having the temerity to declare that she the officer looked pretty, went viral. Till today, I have heard no word from the body to explain or apologise to the public. The ultimate revenge, of course, would be for that injured man to make sure he married the haughty woman. But, I guess, he would prefer a more cultured woman, a real officer and a lady.
Let me hasten to say that I have uniformed people in my family – officers and gentlemen indeed. But they seem to represent the old, dying order. We seem rather to have in our forces these days men and women officers who wear their egos instead of their epaulets on their sleeves, their ranks instead of good breeding on their faces, and their rough backgrounds instead of their present responsibilities on their pants. Too many of the officers who people our forces today are not too psychologically tuned to their present realities. Too many of them are carrying pasts of abuse that have not been properly treated or expunged from them. The result is that much of the pent up anger is offloaded on the public.
Please note that we are not exonerating the public of wrong doing. Many a so-called common man (and woman) lacks the most essential thing needed to be common; that is common sense. You would not believe many of the stupid and incredulous and incredibly stupid things that people do. I have seen it in traffic and in offices; I have seen it in gatherings and even on the Bench and in the Bar. I have seen it in the most exalted places and the lowest hell holes. Stupidity knows no boundary, gender, person or pedigree. It only knows and hides in the human frailty.
However, it is not in the place of the members of the country’s forces to teach common sense to the people. Theirs is to defend, and not to reason why. There is no such thing as teaching CS 101. Instead, the judicial system is the classroom where you and I can be brought to be taught the nitty-gritty of common sense. Sometimes this classroom is called prison. The law is where I can be hauled if I violate the rights and privileges of someone else while exercising my own rights and privileges not to tolerate someone’s appreciation of my beauty, for instance.
Remember the officer who had someone beaten in traffic because she would not give his vehicle way? Unfortunately, she turned out to be another officer’s daughter. I think he eventually learnt where his own rights and privileges end and where another person’s rights begin. But must we all be officers’ daughters or sons or Members of House of Representatives to get our forces to recognise our rights not to be beaten, assaulted, shot at, stabbed or killed just because these men (and women) wear the nation’s uniforms of aggression? I think not.
I think we all must ask, nay beg, our officers of all uniformed and un-uniformed bodies to be ladies and gentlemen at home and aggressive only to the enemy. It does not take much too; just a little respect for the law. The law recognises that one’s spouse is a human, living being, not a pillow to be pummelled. The bus driver/conductor, taxi driver, Okada rider, other road users, and neighbours far and near are all human beings to be respected or taken to court; they are not shooting ranges.
By the way, should any un-gentlemanly officer be offended by this article, I hope they are not thinking of coming to slap or assault or shoot me. I know my rights; I have a right not to be shot. I also have my pepper spray.
