Court-marshal: Dealing with UN proposed visit

The recent death sentence on 54 soldiers who fouled military traditions, and clamours by some concerned groups for their lives to be spared got UN’s attention. SAM NWOKORO writes on how government can handle the issue to avoid a backlash.

It would seem that just as Nigeria is anxiously expecting maximum support and co-operation from global development partners to effect smooth conduct of next month’s general election, simultaneously some ominous developments likely cast slur over preparations for the February election is being hatched off-shore. Sadly, this ensues from the very citadel of democracy, New York, precisely the United Nations office in charge of rights adherence by member countries, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Arbitrary or Summary Executions headed by Christo Hyens.

News emerged last week that a Nigerian non-governmental human rights group, Socio-Economic Rights Action Programme (SERAP), had sent a petition to the UN office, appealing against the death sentence handed out to some 54 Nigerian soldiers by a military court martial in December 2014.

On December 17, 2014, a Nigerian military court sentenced 54 soldiers to death for mutiny, after the soldiers refused to be deployed for an operation against Boko Haram insurgents in the North East part of Nigeria. A lawyer, who represented the condemned soldiers pro bono at the trial, Femi Falana (SAN), said the trial, which began October 15 and was conducted behind closed doors, did not take into account the complaint of the soldiers and that journalists did not cover it, in breach of the law on disclosure of public information, the Freedom of Information Act 2012.

In September 2014, 12 soldiers had been sentenced to death for mutiny, after firing on their Commanding Officer (CO) in the North East city of Maiduguri when troops were battling Boko Haram. Both sentences are subject to the approval of top military brass; but so far, no indication emerged that the fired commander opposed the death sentence.

SERAP campaigns
SERAP, one of the foremost rights groups in the country, does not cry for nothing. Through SERAP’s public impact and litigation, it regularly brings cases before Nigerian courts, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) courts, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which raises issues of fundamental importance in human rights and anti-corruption laws and standards, and potentially can help to influence positive legal reforms, policy development jurisprudence or shape public opinion.

The group also is a key member of Campaign Against Corruption (CAC) coalition, which is a global network of over 310 civil society organisations in over 100 countries committed to promoting the ratification, implementation and monitoring of UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). Established in August 2006, SERAP mobilises civil society action for UNCAC at international, regional and national levels. It received UN’s civil society award in 2008 and was nominated for Ford Foundation Jubilee transparency award for 2011.

In the petition, SERAP appealed that the 54 soldiers should not be killed because their trial was laden with procedural errors, as the soldiers were not given fair hearing at the court martial.

It said: “Under international law, cases involving capital punishment such as the present one require the full and scrupulous respect of the guarantees of the highest standard of fairness, due process and justice.”

Arrowheads of SERAP, Mumini Alao, and one time Editor of The Punch, Ademola Osinubi, maintain that that they would continue to press for the lives of the 54 soldiers until the death sentence is squashed. In a move to give effect to the pressure, UN Human rights office through its High Commissioner, Zeid Raad Al Hussein, hinted that five rapporteurs headed by Hyens would soon be in Nigeria in continuation of the campaign. He would be leading four others: Juan Mendes (special rapporteur on torture, and other cruel and inhuman degrading treatment or punishment), Pablo De Greif (special rapporteur on promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence), Mads Andenas (chair, rapporteur of the working group on arbitrary detention), and Ben Emmerson (special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of humans while countering terrorism).

Obviously, it thus appears that the grouse of the petitioner falls squarely within the beat of Emmerson.

However, some unease has permeated Abuja, since the campaign for the freedom of the soldiers seemed to be gathering momentum. Earlier, around December, wives of soldiers, not only those sentenced by the court martial, embarked on peaceful demonstration in Abuja, asking for the pardon of their husbands because, in their opinion, they are about to be killed for nothing.

Authorities in Abuja seem to want the military high command to sort out the issue in their military tradition. At the heat of the debate, then Minister of Information, Labaran Maku, warned: “Politicians should not politicise the military. They have the means to discipline their own men. Let it not appear as though the present government is inclined to execution and termination of lives. But the men are already being tried by the appropriate constituency in accordance with the laws of the land.”

However, some who have sympathy for the condemned soldiers like Ejike Eme, a lawyer, opines that: “Whether it is military or civilian law, what is important is that fair trial should be seen to have been done. Luckily, they still have right to appeal the judgment, which we hear is ongoing.

“It is unfortunate if the condemned soldiers actually derelict their duty. They swore an oath in the service to even die in defence of the fatherland.

“However, it has to be verified if the soldiers were actually unduly exposed to the enemy, Boko Haram, because all reports have been saying that the Boko Haram insurgents were better armed than our military men, and there have been reports that even our armed forces are not immune to corrupt tendencies these days, quite unlike before when the army was seen as paragon of discipline.”

Many Nigerians are, however, of the opinion that notwithstanding the death sentence, the government should not do that now, considering that the election is around the corner.

A security consultant who did not want his name and that of his firm disclosed, said: “If I were President Jonathan, I would not allow the military authorities execute that death sentence, considering the mood of the nation. It can cause a backlash. So let him not allow doomsday prophets have their way. We have lost a lot of blood in this nation, from rampant accidents to Boko Haram massacres here and there.

“He is the Commander-in-Chief. So constitutionally, he can pardon them or toe the familiar line: sentence them for a few months and then retire them. That was what (Umaru) Yar’Adua, his predecessor, did when a similar incident happened in 2010 – when some ECOMOG soldiers rioted in the barracks on account that their allowances were not paid them.

“This is democracy, and if he, as the head of state, does extend prerogative of mercy to jailed and pardoned criminals in the prisons, nothing stops him from extending such to men who were fighting the cause of his government. Let the president not take the advice that sparing those 54 soldiers would encourage more rebellion in the army. The time is not conducive at all for executing them, not even after election, as long as we are still fighting terrorists in this country.”

Although Jonathan has not spoken much since the death sentence, observers of the presidency suspect that the presidency might have gotten fed up with recurrent problems from that quarter since the war on terror began in 2009, and so might have decided to just leave anything pertaining their operation for them, in order not to give opposition politicians room to criticise him for meddling into the what is strictly military engagement rules.

Dicey choices
Of all Jonathan’s transformation efforts, getting peace to reign in the North, especially Adamawa, Yobe, Borno, and their neighbours has been unusually problematic. No regime in Nigeria’s history has contended with the scale of religiously-inspired terrorism as the Jonathan regime, a problem tingling with various insinuation of politics.

The Nigerian military first started fighting the Boko Haram insurgency with light forces and munitions in order not to create more tension for the country’s fragile democracy. But as the days went by, and with the sect getting more sophisticated in arms procurement and conquest of territories after killing thousands of civilians to date and a few military and police officers.

Defending self
Expressing discomfort over the furore the death sentence was evoking, Director of Army Public Relations, Brigadier General Olajide Laleye, said: “It is not within the powers of the Nigerian army to review the judgment of General Court Martial which has the status of a high court. The aggrieved soldiers should go on appeal.

“The success of the Nigerian army in the on-going counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency and indeed other operations are hinged on troops’ discipline, professionalism and patriotism. Our achievement will be difficult to sustain if the army does not undertake desirable steps to ensure it remains a formidable force through time-tested procedures, processes and enforcement of its regulation and laws in line with the constitution.

“Every army court-martials errant officers and men according to military laws. Some of the errant officers have been sentenced while others have been acquitted according to military jurisdiction. The judicial process that led to the convictions and acquittal followed international best practices in the military law and also conforms to relevant Nigerian laws. This is contrary to insinuations in the media which suggests that due process has not been followed in trial of officers and soldiers.”

Not an august visit
The visitation of the UN rights rapporteurs to Nigeria at election time seems very odd at a time a ruling government is advertising its transformation agenda. However, it is the view of political experts that government should organise its defence well ahead of the arrival of the UN right rapporteurs, if it believes the visit is a nuisance to its re-election campaign programme, otherwise it should order the squashing of the death sentence to add to his profile as a listening president.