Wrestling the military, and coups

If neighbours cut a roadway through your yard  the road does not close without a wrestle – Igbo proverb
It should be a matter of regret and shame that the illness of a Nigerian president has raised the ghosts of a military coup d’etat.  The January 1966 coup is the Nigerian equivalent of what Palestinians refer to in their history as the “Nikba.”   Nikba means the catastrophe, the tragic story of how an otherwise happy people lost their homeland and were instantly turned into refugees, now living in tents for nearly 70 years.  And each time there is a coup d’etat in Nigeria, it is a catastrophe.
Students of communication know that the difference between information and rumour is that the latter is always “below the line,” to borrow an advertising term, which means, it can never rise to a certain status, known as publication.  Thus no matter how earth-shaking it sounds; it must be kept below the line.  So, it was nothing short of a bombshell to read: “This is to inform the public that the Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant-General TY Buratai, has received information that some individuals have been approaching some officers and soldiers for undisclosed political reasons.  On the basis of that he has warned such persons to desist from these acts.”
For the Army chief to issue such a statement means there is not just smoke, there is fire. And it is depressing on two levels.  First, there is no power vacuum, constitutionally and otherwise.  The talk about cabals is normal.  If government is a concentric circle of conspiracies, every government must of its nature have it cabals.  Even the Americans speak of a White House cabal.  It is a totally different matter if somehow it is imputed as was done, probably in error, that the Acting President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, would not sign the Appropriation Bill, or that he cannot swear in new ministers, or exercise any of the functions of the president.  But those slips were probably communication miscues which seem to have been properly corrected.
Now the Nigerian Army statement about the spectre of a coup was signed by the Director of Army Public Relations, Brigadier-General Sani Usman, who reminded the officers and soldiers and other Nigerians that the Army is a professional organization, “disciplined, loyal and apolitical,” and that it has clear constitutional roles and responsibilities.   Officers interested in politics must resign their commission or apply for a voluntary discharge to pursue their political ambition.
Now Thisday newspaper in its editorial May 23 wryly noted that “it is, however, curious that an army chief received information on a breach of security by some of his men and all he did was to issue a threat and an advisory.  Even in a democratic society that Nigeria is this is an unusual procedure for handling high treason.” The editorial further said that it had been suggested that “given Buratai’s slap-on-the-wrist handling of what would amount to a clear act of treason by some political misfits and unscrupulous military officers the army chief might be flying a kite.  We think this is speculative and unhelpful.”
It is all very well to be optimistic in spite of the dark clouds but students of Nigerian history would remember the run up to the June 12, 1993 elections and how foreign leaders visited Nigeria to encourage a return to a democratic government.  They held meetings upon meetings and our military brass assured everyone, European and American that everything was fine.  General Sani Abacha, the then chief of Army Staff, went round the military formations expressing how the Nigerian Army had been transformed into a professional army and how the military had become subordinate to civilian authority.
Gen. Abacha was not venting the difficulties which Gen. Ibrahim Babangida two years earlier termed the “hegemony” question on who should control the armed forces — the military or the civilian authority.  President Babangidad raised that question in 1987 when the military was ambivalent about its place in government, when it was ruminating on how long it wanted to stay in power, and whether it, indeed, needed to hand over power at all.
By 1992/93 Gen. Abacha was sure that the politically correct answer was that the civil authority would control the military.  A few months later, all those pious promises and testaments were discarded as Gen. Abacha himself seized power and dissolved the National Assembly. Major-Gen. Musa Yar’Adua was suggesting that the option left to the Social Democratic Party(SDP) led by Chief M.K.O. Abiola who clearly won the election on June 12,  to confront the annulment was for the leaders to lead the protests.  The victorious SDP leaders declined that option.  The leaders of the losing National Republican Convention (NRC) betrayed democracy by supporting a do-over.  Democracy collapsed.
Ten years earlier, during the Second Republic, some generals were described as being NPN (National Party of Nigeria) generals; others were thought to be PPA (Peoples Progressive Alliance) generals.  Three years into the civilian administration, the civilians were already looking over their own shoulders, fearing the return of the generals.  Their fears materialized as reality when Major-Gen. Muhammadu Buhari seized power and dissolved the National Assembly on 31st December 1983, four years and three months after the return of civil rule.  Democracy collapsed.
How long would this catastrophe continue to dog and scare the country?  The answer is: forever; until certain rituals are performed.  All countries which have had the same experience went through them.  After Oliver Cromwell, the British disbanded their entire armed forces after only 11 years of military rule.  They never forgave nor forgot the nightmare.  Chile, Argentine, Malaysia, South Korea sent the generals to very long terms of imprisonment, when they were not executed.  The only countries still humoring the generals are Egypt, Myanmar, Pakistan and Nigeria.  They are backward, unstable, and indigent.  So would they remain, until those rituals are conducted.  In Nigeria, the trial of all persons that have ever taken part in a coup d’etat for high treason should be conducted in the Federal High Court.  Those found guilty must be gazetted, living or dead.  The point is to prove that high treason remains a crime, no matter how long it takes to apprehend the criminal.  A constitutional amendment must include that participation in a coup d’etat is a crime for all time, with no statute of limitation.

from The Sun News http://ift.tt/2rqSBPM
via IFTTT