By Emmanuel Onwubiko
It is no longer news that the
Nigerian Army has commenced an internal military operation in the largely
peaceful South Eastern states of Abia, Enugu ,
Anambra, and Ebonyi. They have not been withdrawn.
It is also no longer news that the
key civilian population that inhabit this geopolitical entity of the South East
of Nigeria stridently opposed the decision of President Muhammadu Buhari to so
deploy such heavy weapons and operatives in the streets of the South East
states.
This deployment has clearly
constituted a cog in the wheel of economic progress of millions of people in
the South East of Nigeria who due to panic and social upheavals created by the
activities of the Army had to shut down their business premises to be safe.
These wide ranging misunderstanding and the total rejection of the military’s
deployment have indeed led to ugly scenarios such a social discontents amongst
the largely unarmed members of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) whose
leader, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu now stays in Umuahia, Abia State .
The consequences of the mutual
disharmony brought about by the controversial military deployment likened to an
occupation includes the skirmishes that nearly broke up when soldiers
obstructed the free movements of persons suspected to be heading to the premises
of the leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB).
The main reason for some of these
social discontents amongst the civilian population is the avowed determination
of the Nigeria Army to crush what the hierarchy calls aggressive agitation.
The greater percentage of the
civilian population in the South East of Nigeria have the perception that since
President Muhammadu Buhari cornered the entire strategic command and control
structures of the Armed forces of Nigeria to Hausa/Fulani without any representation
of the South East of Nigeria, it therefore follows that the Nigeria Army is
simply an occupying force.
The Chief of Army Staff on whose
instruction the military were deployed to the South East had also stated that
it was meant to be used as military show of force to combat what the Army calls
violent kidnappings and other manifestations of criminality in the South East.
But these objectives for which the
controversial military operation kicked off in the South East are basically the
statutory jurisdictions of the Nigeria
police.
Notable opinion leaders have also
questioned the rationale for deploying soldiers to the East using such excuses
of the rate of crime when statically the South East of Nigeria is amongst the
lowest when compared to North West and Lagos in the South West.
Even as the strong case of bias
and double standards are drawn from the ongoing selective military’s internal
operation in the South East, the conflicts that have flared up in Aba , Abia State , Port Harcourt , Rivers State
were sparked off because the Army reportedly invaded the home of Nnamdi Kanu.
Kanu, it must be recalled, is on
bail from the Federal High Court, Abuja
whereby the present administration instituted some controversial charges of
treason following the peaceful agitations for self-determination by his group
known as IPOB in short form.
The attempt to either place Kanu
or his supporters on house arrest without any valid order of a competent court
violates their constitutional rights to freedom as enshrined in the chapter
four of the Nigerian Constitution.
Moreover, under a constitutional
democracy, the president not being an absolute monarch, must respect the
constitution.
The president cannot arbitrarily
order the detention of a citizen without the valid order of a competent court
in compliance with Section 6 of the constitution.
Section 6(1) of the constitution
provides that; “6. (1) the judicial powers of the Federation shall be
vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established
for the Federation.”
Even a person undergoing trial in
the court of law is entitled to fair hearing and the presumption of innocence
as enshrined in section 36(5) is sacrosanct.
Therein lies the affirmation that
the deployment of military force to civilian population becomes
unconstitutional and unnecessary.
There is a universal agreement
that empirically, the activities of the indigenous people of Biafra (IPOB) have
remained peaceful, orderly and in line with relevant constitutional laws on
freedoms of peaceful assembly and movement.
Some rented supporters of the
latest military operations in the South East are seeking to convince their
readers that it was necessary to display overwhelming show of military force
because in their warped imagination, the indigenous people of Biafra(IPOB)
recently, established the Biafra security
service and kitted the members with uniform.
These persons are of the warped
logic that the wearing of uniform has automatically transformed IPOB to an
enemy militia and therefore should be dismantle by military force of arm.
There can be no greater and grave
fallacy than the above infantile argument.
This is because, inKano
state, there is an Islamic police putting on uniform but the Nigeria Army has
not gone after them.
This is because, in
Then again, in the North East, the
joint civilian task force known for short as civilian-JTF are kitted in their
uniforms and even carry hunter’s riffles but they are embedded in the counter
terrorism operations of the military.
What therefore marks out IPOB’s so calledBiafra
security service as a threat when they are similarly set up just like a mere
civilian non- arms’ bearing vigilante?
What therefore marks out IPOB’s so called
Be that as it may, the military
operatives and those who control and command them must be told in black and
white that they have serious obligations under the international human rights
laws-whilst carrying out all internal military operations.
In his scholarly book, the then
Brigadier General T.E.C Chiefe (Ph.D) titled: “Military law in Nigeria under
democratic rule”, made the same point loud and clear about the imperative of
complying to norms and laws of human rights.
His words: “The conduct of operations by the Nigerian Armed forces under any circumstances demands that military operations be regulated by the provisions of the law.”
His words: “The conduct of operations by the Nigerian Armed forces under any circumstances demands that military operations be regulated by the provisions of the law.”
Chiefe, who until his demise few
years back was the Army’s Director of legal services, also profusely reminded
military operatives that they can be prosecuted in both civil and military
courts if they wilfully violates the human rights provisions contained in the
Constitution.
Onwubiko is head, Human Rights
Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA).
The gentleman soldier had further
affirmed in his iconic law book that the dual legal status of a soldier, which
is described as doctrine of compact implies that service personnel are subject
to both military laws and the ordinary civil laws of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria.
General Chiefe reminded the
Nigeria Army that military operations like all other activities of government
should be conducted only in accordance with the dictates of the law.
The men and officers of the
Nigeria Army are bound by the following laws; four Geneva
conventions of 1949; Multilateral and bilateral agreements to which Nigeria is a
signatory and have bearing on military service or operations and decisions of
international court of justice, amongst other global legal instruments.
General Chiefe then summed up the
major human rights obligations of the military in internal operations
thus: “The two additional protocol of 1977 to the Geneva
conventions of 1949 are to supplement the 1949 Geneva conventions and modernise the laws of
war. Protocol I deals with the laws of war in international army conflicts
while protocol 2 addresses the laws of war applicable in internal armed
conflict.
“It is noteworthy that the four Geneva conventions and the two additional protocols of
1977 have been formally given effect in Nigeria
by the enactment of the Geneva
conventions Act Cap G3 laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.”
In sum, the conventions and protocols which are now an Act of the National
Assembly, he argued, elaborately spells out the laws of armed conflicts on the
use of force and the legal implication of disregarding rules regulating the
means and methods of warfare, among other things.
Specifically, Section 3 of the Act
provides for trial for breach of the Geneva
conventions as follows: In case of grave breach involving willful killing of a
person protected by the convention, is punished by sentence of death
and in any other such grave breach, imprisonment for 14 years.
The President and his military
chiefs need to know that even if the internal systems and mechanisms are
manipulated to delay their prosecution should any civilian be unlawfully
killed, there are global mechanisms that can be activated to compel their
prosecution in international criminal court just like the erstwhile Liberian
President Mr. Charles Taylor.
*Onwubiko is head,
Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA).
No comments:
Post a Comment