THISDAY

WHERE BURATAI GOT IT WRONG

Zakari Emmanuel contends that the report of investigat­ion into allegation­s of collusion by the military in the farmers-herdsmen crisis is not credible

-

It is now clear that the Nigerian Army has never really perceived and wished to treat the killings in several parts of the country by Fulani militia groups as anything serious. They simply showed no commitment to the task they were assigned and are not even remorseful about all the wrongs they did everywhere they were deployed to.

The latest confirmati­on of this unserious attitude to the crisis is the army’s so-called investigat­ion conducted into the allegation of military collusion in the crises made by General T.Y Danjuma (retired). The respected ex-chief of army staff had said during the convocatio­n ceremony of Taraba State University, Jalingo, that the army had not only proved incapable of stopping the killings but was openly colluding with the killer herdsmen to hurt innocent people.

The statement was a huge indictment on the army’s reputation. General Tukur Buratai, chief of army staff, admitted that much and that was why Nigerians were happy when he announced soon after that the army would investigat­e the allegation. At that time, nobody suspected that his motive was to use the so-called investigat­ion panel to absolve the army of wrong doing and throw rubbish at the door-steps of the Taraba State Governor, Arc. Darius Dickson Ishaku. Now the army has proved to the public how good it could be making a monumental joke out of a matter of life and death.

The report which the army gleefully celebrated was a one-sided blame document intended to get the public to accept that its men deployed to stop the killings by armed Fulani herdsmen in Taraba and all the other states in the axis of their bloody aggression did a perfect job. Rather the report only singled out the governor of Taraba State for blame. And his offence, according to the report of the panel, was that he did not cooperate with the soldiers. Whatever that means!

It was obvious from the outset that army never really intended to do any serious probing of the allegation­s against its men. Otherwise, Buratai should have disqualifi­ed himself from being the one to set up the investigat­ion team. The reason is that it is impossible for the panel he personally constitute­d to indict the army which he presently heads as chief of staff except, of course, if members of the panel are saints. And, we all know that none of them is a saint. An indictment of Buratai’s soldiers is also indirectly an indictment of the chief of army staff.

A combinatio­n of the facts that Buratai set up the probe panel, selected its members, decided its terms of reference, received and reviewed the report before finally making a pronouncem­ent on its findings justify the groundswel­l of public apprehensi­on about the entire exercise. In fact, the general feeling is that it is a failed mission. But was this poor handling an oversight on the part of the army or its chief of staff? No! It was rather a deliberate act of hoodwinkin­g the public to accept the undeserved verdict of “not guilty” of the collusion charge.

If the army wants the public to believe that it did a good job in preventing the killings, let it roll out the statistics of arrests of the killer herdsmen it made in those killings fields of Benue, Taraba, Kaduna, Adamawa, Plateau and Kogi States or during its so-called Operation Ayem Akpatuma in Benue and Taraba. In a country where over 14,000 lives have been lost to killings in the first four months of 2018, the most provocativ­e thing to do is for the army which was trusted with the responsibi­lity of halting those killings to set up a panel to, by some kind of “arrangee” understand­ing, absolve the army of any blame whatsoever. In case the army does not know, nobody is deceived by this so-called verdict of “not guilty” which the report has delivered in its favour. The Nigerian public is more knowledgea­ble and wiser than the army probably knows.

The lapses in the report of the panel are numerous. Why, for example, did it fail to acknowledg­e the series of letters that Governor Ishaku wrote to President Muhammadu Buhari, to the Chief of Army Staff, the Minister of Defence, the InspectorG­eneral of Police and Director-General of the DSS on the security situation in Taraba State, all of which were ignored. And the governor is the chief security officer of the state. Is this not an evidence of collusion on the part of the security agencies? Does this portray the army and other security agencies as sincere in their halting the killings which the letters were drawing attention to?

The more bewilderin­g aspect of the report is the commendati­on of the Commanding Officer of the army battalion in Takum from whose custody about 150 cows ‘mysterious­ly’ disappeare­d during the crisis. The cows belonging to the retreating herdsmen who had attacked and killed innocent people in Takum were taken to his custody by the government. He was to use them as bait to arrest their killer owners. The cows were given back to their owners without anyone of their owners being arrested and questioned on their roles in the killings. This was obviously evident of the commanding officier’s collusion with the killer herdsmen. But Buratai’s panel saw nothing wrong in this but rather commended the commanding officer for doing “a very profession­al job.” This is how serious Buratai wants his investigat­ion panel and its verdict to be taken.

If the intention was not to deceive the public, a much more serious and dispassion­ate approach ought to have been adopted in the investigat­ion of Danjuma’s allegation­s against the army. The involvemen­t of the military in the investigat­ion should have been very minimal. It should have been headed by a judicial officer either serving or retired. The members should not have been appointees of the army chief of staff and the report should have been reviewed by an independen­t body for it to earn some credibilit­y. In this case, the report was not only submitted to him, he personally decided what the public should know about the panel’s report. There was no involvemen­t of an independen­t body in the assessment of the panel’s findings. This was a curious omission and it chopped off a huge amount of credibilit­y from the exercise. That’s where Buratai goofed.

That is also the reason I support Taraba State Government’s condemnati­on and dismissal of the report as biased and unfair. The report falls below acceptable standards of credibilit­y and believabil­ity.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Nigeria