By Ibrahim Usman
Twelve Nigerian soldiers, all in their 20s and ranged in rank from private to corporal, drafted to fight the so-called Boko Haram insurgents in Maiduguri were on September 8, 2014 sentenced to death by firing squad for alleged mutiny and attempted murder of their commanding officer. There were series of revolts from the Nigerian soldiers during the period.
Journalists were barred from attending the trial, but were only invited to hear the reading of the verdict issued by the nine-member court martial panel headed by Brigadier General Chukwuemeka Okonkwo.
The said offence of the military officers is well known to all. A troop of handicapped soldiers was ordered to drive at night on a road frequently attacked by the so called Boko Haram insurgents. The soldiers initially refused, on the firm belief it was a suicide mission. But they eventually followed orders and were ambushed on May 13 by the insurgents on the road from the northeast town of Chibok, town where more than 270 schoolgirls were kidnapped a month earlier. Many of the soldiers were killed by the insurgents as a result.
When the bodies of the ambushed soldiers were brought to the barrack in Maiduguri on May 14, the soldiers revolted, throwing stones at their commanding officer, Major General A. Mohammed firing into the air and then shooting at him. Several bullets hit the armor-plated vehicle in which he sought refuge. He was unharmed.
The demoralised soldiers have told The Associated Press and BBC that they were outgunned by the insurgents, frequently not paid in full, abandoned on the battlefield and left without enough ammunition or food. They decried the endemic corruption in the Nigerian military, where millions of dollars budgeted for the fight against the so called insurgents went into pockets of their superiors.
Evidently, the military had no option but to pass this judgment to cover up the widespread allegation of corruption, where security vote is being siphoned by the high ranking officers while placing lives of the junior officers in great danger.
A simple definition of mutiny by Merriam Webster dictionary describes it as “a situation in which a group of people (such as sailors or soldiers) refuse to obey orders and try to TAKE CONTROL (emphasis mine) away from the person commanding them”. An indepth definition of the word is hereby presented in the book, Military Law and Precedents (Vol. 2) thus: “Unlawful opposition or resistance to, or defiance of superior military authority, with a deliberate purpose to USURP, SUBVERT, or OVERRIDE the same, or EJECT with authority from office”.
From the above definitions we can deduce that intent should be the focus, and not the act itself. The intent distinguishes the act of mutiny from other offences in the armed forces. A further reading from the same book says any act “not characterised by a deliberate intent to overthrow superior authority do not constitute in general the legal offence of mutiny, but are commonly to be treated as “conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline”.
By these definitions and the prevailing situation of events on ground that were well known to the public at that time, the soldiers are covered and have a case, for they acted on self defence. They were protesting a situation in which they were deliberately rendered ill-equipped in the midst of well-equipped enemy.
This is what one of protesting soldiers, under anonymity, told the Daily Trust newspaper reporter: “Whenever we voice our grievances within the precinct of the barracks, our superiors accuse us of disobedience… Sometimes they even say we would face mutiny charges and that is why we forced our drivers to stop at Bulabulin”. Similar statement was also made by another soldier, “We were only given guns and some ammunitions, even the armoured tank that we are supposed to go with was withdrawn, and that is why we said we would not move an inch”.
Master Sun, author of the book, The Art of War: Complete Texts and Commentaries, graphically illustrated the consequences of a weak army in a battle: “So an army perishes if it has no equipment, it perishes if it has no food, and it perishes if it has no money”. Further elaboration on this by Mei Yaochen concludes: “These three things are necessary–you cannot fight to win with an unequipped army”.
By implication, the commanding officer who gave the order to an unequipped army to fight well equipped insurgents, knowing fully the uneven degree of strength of both parties, should be tried for being an accomplice to cold blood murder.
Similarly, he should be tried for subverting the country’s effort to win a war, for obviously by design the ill-equipped Nigerian soldiers were meant to be defeated. By implication they were led to the slaughter slab with their hands tied, while their superiors moved about in armor-plated vehicles.
The fact that the Senate Committee on Defence has endorsed the judgment did not make it hold water.
–Usman sent in this piece from Abuja
No comments:
Post a Comment