Iliyasu Gadu
Ilgad2009@gmail.com
08035355706 (Texts only)
Although of late he has been waxing lyrical about the attempted coup in which he was a target, Nigerians cannot take the statements of the Minister of Defence General Christopher Musa (Rtd) as the definitive word on the coup until the courts decides so. And when the courts commence the trial, the military which he headed as Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) at the time news of the purported coup surfaced, and he himself would have to answer to charges of willful deception and tendentious statements capable of influencing and prejudging the outcome of the trial.
Although of late the government and military authorities have now made a volte-face and proceeded on a full narrative intended to convince Nigerians that there was a coup attempt which was nipped in the bud, there are several things that do not add up.
Nigerians first got to know about the alleged coup from what was a clearly a leaked report from two prominent online platforms, Sahara Reporters and Premium times. The reports of the coup attempt carried by the two platforms appeared almost identical indicating that they must have gotten their information from the same source (most likely from deep government and high military sources). As the reports carried in the platforms did not appear to be the product of an investigation, the inevitable conclusion Nigerians discerned was that some people somewhere within the highest echelons of power were intent on creating a crisis in order to profit from it.
We recall that in its reaction to the reports of the alleged coup the Defence Headquarters described described the reports as ‘’false, misleading, baseless, mischievous and intended to create tension’’. The DHQ clarified that the arrests of the officers was rather a routine disciplinary action for ‘’indiscipline and breaches of service regulation.’’
The Minister of Defence General Christopher Musa who was the CDS then, who has now changed tune and is regaling the Nigerian public with stories of how the ‘’coup plotters’’ had planned to arrest and shoot him, had on more than one occasion vigorously denied that there was a coup attempt.
At the time the raging gap between the differing accounts of the media and the Defence Headquarters, Nigerians were left to wonder in animated confusion as to who should be believed on the purported coup attempt? Indeed this led to many Nigerians asking pertinent questions as to why something of such import bordering on the should be subject to a dangerous game of Russian roulette on issues of such import as the lives of people, the security of the nation and the integrity of the military as an institution?
Many Nigerians recall that in our experience when coups or attempted coups occur, the information usually comes first hand from the military command with detailed accounts of the involvement of the named officers. Why was this time-honoured military tradition breached in this particular case? Whose and what purpose do this seemingly contrived confusion on the alleged coup serve? What outcome is this very serious breach of military tradition and procedure expected to produce and for whose benefit?
The volte-face by the Defence Headquarters that there was indeed a coup deserves to be interrogated vigourously. It is instructive that the military authorities finally admitted in January what it vehemently denied in October. And in its recent admission of a coup, the Defence Headquarters did not provide any significant new information to depart from what was first reported by the media in October which it denied.
Who is playing these dangerous games with Nigerians and why?
The recent statements credited to the Defence Minister General Chris Musa (Rtd) that the Defence Headquarters had all along knew that there was a coup but decided to pretend and conceal it from the public is unacceptable under the circumstances. As a retired senior military officer and one who occupies the apex office of Nigeria’s Defence superstructure, he should know the implications of concealment of information of information regarding a coup whether attempted or not. And for him to come out to admit now and even provide details of what he knew to be true back in October but denied it with a straight face renders him and the military he heads questionable. Nigerians do know that in military law, concealment is a serious and grievous offense which in past coup attempts in Nigeria punished maximally on those officers found guilty.
The turn round by the military has given rise to unhealthy speculations that this development is tied to the political ambitions of some of the top echelons of the military. It is also considered as part of the political calculations in the run up to the 2027 elections.
Following from this premise, it is obvious that as the military has compromised itself on this particular case, it cannot be a reliable party in trying officers whom it had already found guilty without the benefit of a trial. From beginning to the present, the case for a coup had been riddled with inconsistency, concealment, lack of transparency and statements emanating from the military authorities that compromise the process and possible outcomes of the trial. We only know that what can come from this, is a flawed trial and predetermined by tendentious circumstances and statements from the originating military authorities who are telling us that they should conduct the trial.
Nigerians cannot accept this. Nigeria is a democracy operating a constitution which is the ground norm of our laws. Whatever law the military is relying on to try the officers, cannot supersede the provisions of the constitution we operate. And in that constitution the provisions of the fundamental human rights and the rights to fair trial are paramount. There is no offense committed under any circumstances that cannot be tried outside the provisions of the constitution. The military institution which itself derives its existence and power to operate under the constitution cannot be allowed special powers outside those applicable to all Nigerian citizens and institutions of state alike, to subject the officers to trial. This can only happen under military rule where the constitution or large parts of it are suspended and subsumed under military law.
Indeed, this particular case should serve as a litmus case to decide whether Nigeria will stand on the open civilian constitutional process of innocence until proven guilty or yield to the military process with its arbitrariness and limited application of transparency and rights to fair trial. It will also determine whether the military can be allowed its processes separately under a civilian democratic dispensation that derives its powers from the constitution.
What is clear in this particular case is that on the basis of the clear inconsistency and lack of transparency exhibited, the military cannot and should not be allowed to approbate and reprobate. Allowing that would not only deny the accused officers the justice they should have primarily as Nigerian citizens under a free, and open trial process, it would also perpetrate a two-speed justice system under a civilian democratic dispensation with all the implication this might be to our democratic trajectory.
