In praise of Buratai’s human rights records

Posted by News Express | 20 February 2021 | 373 times

Gmail icon


Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai (retd) walked into the eye of the storm, becoming the nation’s Chief of Army Staff, nearly six years ago. Much was expected of him, not just because he was at the peak of his career but because he was also from Borno State, the hotbed of Boko Haram insurgency.

He was appointed into the challenge and was expected to leverage on his experiences, a supposed understanding of the cultural underpinnings fuelling the insurgents, to galvanise his men, towards routing the nihilists that have unsettled the nation nearly five years past. Buratai came, therefore, and performed, but did he conquer? How do we contextualise his much-touted human rights record, now becoming an issue from where his legacy is being assessed in some circles? It is important to evaluate these issues beyond the hue and cry dominating conversations, as he settles into retirement, or rather, into the diplomatic space.

Boko Haram atrocities have been a witness to wanton killings and maiming. Their modus operandi obviously transcends police machinery, and inviting the military, considering their special, warfare trainings. Military involvement, of course, enjoyed legal backing, if with the Nigeria’s Constitution and the Armed Forces Act, which empowers the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to appropriately deploy, or to determine its operational use. Specifically, section 8(1), of the 1999 constitution (as amended) provides that, the President shall determine the operational use of the Armed Forces, but may, under general or special directives, delegate his responsibility for the day-to-day operational use, while section 8(3) of the same Act stretched that the operational use of the armed forces includes its use to maintain and secure public safety and public order.

While we have not been under external aggression, for which the military are partly primed for, internal insurrection has turned a bane, needing their natural intervention. The intervention became compulsory, faced with the weaknesses of other internally-focused security agencies, including the police, the civil defence, customs and excise and the immigration service, among others. In the military performance of this interventionist or natural role of defending the territorial integrity of the country and, specifically, in taming internal insurrection, as exemplified by Boko Haram fighters, it soon encountered issues around human rights abuses, leading to right or wrong outcries, that have become threats to the legacies of service personalities, especially Buratai.

Local and international human rights campaigners – civil society groups and non-governmental organisations, like the Amnesty International, Transparency International and Human Rights Watch – have, among others, understandably been at the forefront of these outcries. One organisation that constantly kept the Nigerian Army on its toes was the Amnesty International; an international rights watchdog which constantly released negative reports on the army’s handling of human rights issues. Their allegations bordered mainly on extra-judicial killings, torture, extortion, arbitrary arrests, and detention and sexual philandering or exploitation. Others are poor detention facilities and pitiable medical access and supplies to suspects in military detention centres.

These claims reportedly portrayed the Nigerian Army in a bad light, created rancour and distrust between the army and the civil populace, dampened the morale of troops in the operational arenas and, almost, distracted the military leadership aside maligning the image and reputation of the Nigerian Army. In what appeared to be a response, Buratai started and institutionalised measures intended to eliminate rights abuses by the personnel of the Nigerian Army.

The first was an understanding of Civil-Military Relations/Cooperation, particularly in a period of multiple and dynamic security challenges, such as terrorism, farmers-herdsmen clashes and violent secessionist agitations, among others. He empowered the Department of Civil-Military Affairs (DCMA) to function effectively, especially in the campaign for the protection and respect for human rights. He strengthened the DCMA, and organised sensitisation workshops, and campaigns on protection of human rights for members of the NA. The human rights sensitisation workshops harped on operational civil-military interactions, humanitarian principles, perception, actions, guidelines, security and coordination and humanitarian access.

Besides, corporate social responsibility projects like construction of boreholes, feeder roads, renovation of medical centres and schools, among others, across selected communities in Nigeria were done, particularly during operations and exercises. This endeared the troops to the locals and ushered togetherness and mutual respect. The army also partnered with some human rights organisations such as the United Nations (UN) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to develop capacity to enhance professionalism and responsiveness, in promoting humanitarian principles and in conducts during operations.

We will recall that while declaring human rights workshop open in 8 Task Force Division, he said: “The Nigerian Army has embarked on the sensitisation workshop so that our troops can become knowledgeable in the Laws of Armed Conflicts and, therefore, avoid those unprofessional conducts that could destroy their career and tarnish the good image of the Nigerian Army.”

Equally laudable initiative by Buratai’s leadership in its consistent efforts to checkmate right abuses was the establishment of Human Rights Desk at the Army Headquarters and in all the formation headquarters across the nation. The functions of the human rights desk, which include receiving documents, investigating complaints from individuals, organisations and institutions on rights violations involving Nigerian Army personnel, made findings to the COAS on human rights complaints in the country while producing annual reports and reviews. The desk additionally updated existing training manuals, liaising and facilitating interaction with human rights organisations, strategise and strengthen capacity of the Nigerian Army in promoting human rights.

Beyond this, upon assumption of office, Buratai and his principal officers monitored issues on allegation of human rights abuses against troops deployed for operations across the country in line with the mandate of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in the fight against terrorism. Again, through the establishment of Human Rights Desk Offices in the Army Headquarters and across the Nigerian army divisions, the army could address petitions and other different claims against it. This move, borne out of the increasing interest of the local and international human rights bodies on what Nigerian Army is doing in the North-East and other parts of the country, to many human right analysts, marked a departure from the old order when the military was on the defensive whenever allegations of human rights violations were levelled against it.

Incidentally, while commissioning the human rights office at the Headquarters of 7 Division Nigerian Army, Maiduguri, Buratai noted that the establishment of the office was borne out of the increasing interest of local and international rights bodies on what the army is doing in the North-East and other parts of Nigeria.

His words: “The Nigerian Army is trying to open up the system and close the gap with the civil populace, human rights bodies and civil society organisations; the nature of inquiries, commentaries, and claims from these institutions requires a professional and specialised response by the Nigerian Army. What we are witnessing today has been facilitated by the Nigerian Bar Association and National Human Rights Commission,” he added.

The Military-Media-Public Awareness Programme noted at an event, with CLEEN Foundation at Jabi Motor Park, Abuja, that “the army is passionate about the rights of civilians and had measures in place to ensure that rights of civilians are protected. These measures included the opening of Free Toll Line 193, designated Toll-Free Call Centre and Public Complaints Rapid Response Unit. The offices and toll line 193 are open to members of the public whose rights have been infringed upon; they can always walk in to the office and lodge their complaints. So, the army is doing its best to ensure that they respect the rights of the civilians. We assure them that once they come to us they protected their rights and we do our best to serve them better.”

There were many more efforts under Buratai to protect human rights, especially on the abuse of detainees, because of the poor state of the detention facility in Giwa Barracks, Maiduguri; in the areas of poor sanitary condition/ventilation, overcrowding and irregular water supply. He remarkably commissioned 400-man capacity Joint Investigation Centre and Detention Cells for Boko Haram suspects in Maiduguri in 2018; and the facilities were built with heat and odor extractor, coupled with constructed borehole to enable detainees’ access to water. He had then argued: “This modern facility will go a long way in changing the narrative in the criticism of the Nigerian military. It is a clear sign we welcome positive criticisms to see where we can improve on it, and this is what we have showed here.”

Buratai’s leadership approved the commencement of the construction of additional holding facility to improve the management of detainees during investigations.

At the foundation laying ceremony, he stated that the ongoing counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations in the North-East, has made it mandatory for arrest and detention of suspected insurgents who must be properly taken care of under international best practices while in custody. He stressed: “The quest for a functional transit safe-holding and detention facility, with adequate sanitary conditions for the effective management of suspected Boko Haram terrorists for further investigation activities, is the driving force behind the execution of this project by the COAS, adding: “It shows the compliance of the NA with global best practices. This will further strengthen the cooperation between the army and stakeholders, especially in the management of suspects undergoing investigation.”

There was also the establishment of a Special Board of Inquiry by the COAS to probe alleged cases of human rights violations levelled against the Nigerian Army personnel, especially in the ongoing counter-terrorism. According to him, despite the success recorded by troops in the ongoing counter-terrorism operations in the North-east, some individuals and organisations had expressed concerns, alleging misconduct and human rights abuses by personnel of the army, “especially in the early days of the counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations. The board was, therefore, set up to investigate the matter and establish the true situation of the allegations.”

The then chief of army staff said that the board was set up in line with the provision of section 172(1) of the Armed Forces Act CAP A20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. Buratai, however, called on the board not to probe or revisit cases of abuse that had been investigated by state governments or the National Human Rights Commission. He also urged members of the board to justify the confidence reposed in them as they were selected based on competence and merit to serve. He added: “I implore you to leave no stone unturned to come up with a report that will explain the facts to all and assist the Nigerian Army in taking appropriate actions.”

In addition, there were regular, timely and effective enforcement of extant rules/application of sanctions to human rights violators as a way of the Nigerian Army in curtailing human rights abuses by its personnel. Under Buratai, any confirmed case of rights infraction was met with maximum punishment. This way, human rights abuses were also drastically curtailed in the Nigerian Army. All these were deliberate efforts by the Nigerian Army under the leadership of Buratai to eliminate rights abuses by its personnel.

More so, while Buratai held sway, the Nigerian Army ensured that they assigned all cases pending in civil court against it to competent registered Nigerian Army external advocates or military lawyers in the Directorate of Legal services. Court-martial cases or trials in the field were also given professional attention by deploying legal officers, who are not only trained military personnel, but legal practitioners.

This is in furtherance of the fact that the Nigerian Army as an institution is guided by legal advice in sustaining its flexibility in the conduct of its operations, which was being adequately acknowledged within the nation and the comity of other nations. Adherence to the rule of law was consistent with Buratai’s vision to have a professionally responsive Nigerian Army in the discharge of constitutional roles.

For all these, therefore, there is no gainsaying the fact that the transformation of the Nigerian Army rapidly manifested under the leadership of Lt.-Gen. Tukur Yusu Buratai (retd) as Chief of Staff, Nigerian Army, who was proactive in the war against terrorism despite efforts by moles and saboteurs embedded within the army. These moles were derailing the objectives of the counter-terror war and alleging lack of respect for fundamental human rights.

Perhaps, those still unconvinced of the exceptional transformational measures contrived in repositioning the Nigerian Army for effective counter-insurgency and the productivity of maintaining military-civil relationship practices may be poor adherents of history or have a faulty retentive memory.

Not too long ago, as part of the activities marking the 2020 Nigerian Army Day Celebration together with its corperate social responsibility, troops of the 7 Division, Maiduguri, conducted sanitation exercise along Baga road market, Maiduguri, Borno State capital while the newly-built Camp Delta Force Quick Reaction Base was commissioned, to enhance quick response of troops to terror activities in the communities.

Unequivocally, the allegations of human rights abuses against the Nigerian Army, particularly in the conduct of counter-insurgency operation were issues of great concern to Buratai, who ensured that they took various actions to guarantee that rights violations by Nigerian Army personnel are fully curtailed.

Instructively, the three key concepts prevalent in the ex-COAS’ vision for the Nigerian Army were professionalism, responsiveness and working within the ambit of the Constitution of Nigeria, signifying an excellent civil-military relations anchored on adherence to the rule of law and respect for human rights are necessary to the attainment of the vision.

Remarkably, before he left office early this month, there was a serious reduction in the reported cases or accusations of human rights violations against the Nigerian Army. No wonder he was recently appointed ambassador-designate by President Muhammadu Buhari.

Therefore, it is important that a patriotic citizen such as Buratai should not be branded with agents and saboteurs working hard to destabilise the Nigerian Army through the spreading of combinations of fabricated stories and damaging insinuations aimed at rubbishing the public standing of the legacy Buratai left behind.

Undoubtedly, since the return of democracy in Nigeria in 1999, no COAS has showed Buratai’s pragmatism in repositioning the Nigerian Army. It is a dangerous and, indeed, disingenuous politics for politicians or propagandists who hate Buratai, maybe for some self-centered reasons, to go on spreading the poisonous perception.

•Comrade Onwubiko, Head of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria, blogs @www. theingerianinsidernews.com; www.huriwanigeria.com


Source: News Express

Readers Comments

0 comment(s)

No comments yet. Be the first to post comment.


You may also like...