IN furtherance of its investigation into the arms purchase scandal under the immediate past administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) recently bared its fang on the former chief of air staff, Air Marshal Adesola Amosun. Amosun’s arrest added more to the list of other 17 former high-ranking officers, including chief of defence staff, Alex Badeh, who are being questioned by the anti-graft agency for alleged weapons procurement fraud.
But in view of the reactions by some Nigerians who see the action of the EFCC as an affront against the military institution, Sunday Sun sought the opinion of a respected retired Army General and one time minister of police affairs, General David Jemibewon (rtd), on the issue. This is what he had to say:
Can the former service chiefs be tried by civil authority like the EFCC rather than the military institution?
A man, who retires from the armed forces, either voluntarily or otherwise, ceases to be a subject of the military laws. But if the offence for which is being tried was committed when he was still serving, that offence can be defined as military offence. It is only then he can be tried by the armed forces. In other words, if a man who had left the military; and when I say the military, I mean the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, he ceases to be a subject of military law except the offence for which he is being tried was committed before he left the military. So, if a former Chief of Naval Staff, Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Air Staff or any military officer for that matter, leaves the military either by voluntary retirement or whatever, he ceases to be a subject of military law because before a man joins the army, he is first and foremost a civilian.
When he retires from the military, he reverses back to being a civilian. Even though he is a retired military person, he is subject to civil law as all of us are.
How about the criticisms by some Nigerians who see the arrest of the service chiefs by the EFCC as an affront against the military institution?
What I am trying to say is this: You are a journalist and you people have an association called Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ). If you are no more a journalist, you can no longer be subject to the regulations that govern your activities. It is the same thing if you are in the armed forces and you are retired. From the day you retire, you cease to be a subject of military law. However, if you committed an offence before you left, if they recall you back, you can be tried under military law because you committed the offence while you were still subject to military law.
So, if the Chief of Air Staff had left, the Chief of Naval Staff had left, the Chief of Army Staff had left, or indeed any officer or soldier had left, except the offence for which they are to be tried were committed during the time of their service, they cannot be tried by military law.
As I said earlier, before a man joins the army, he is a civilian and he is subject to civil law. When he leaves, he goes back to the society. He becomes subject of civil law. As a matter of fact, a man who serves in the armed forces is subject to both civil and military law depending on under which law he commits an offence. So, a member of the armed forces could be tried either by the military or by the civil authority. To some extent, he suffers what we call double jeopardy. So, if EFCC is the civil regulator or regulatory body for offences under the act establishing it, then everybody in the society is subject to it.
Then, what is the implication of this on the image of the military as an institution known and respected for discipline and professionalism?
Assuming people are being tried, the trial itself must be based on proper investigation. This has nothing to do with professionalism. If anything, in my view, it enhances professionalism. What can be deduced to be wrong is the fact that they (service chiefs) committed the offence.
A trial now shows that we have a legal procedure under which people who contravene the law can be tried. Are we saying they shouldn’t be tried? If they shouldn’t be tried, why in the first place are they being suspected of wrong doing? So, if there is a law and there is punishment for violating that law and the process for investigation takes place, I don’t see how professionalism suffers under such a situation.
It will serve as a deterrent for people, who in future may want to commit the same type of offence, because they would have known the consequence of committing the offence which must have applied to those before them. Are you saying military man who steals should be left to go because you want to enhance professionalism? What type of professionalism is that?
The report on Ekitigate revealed that some of the past service chiefs allegedly connived with Governor Ayo Fayose to rig the governorship election in the state. Beyond that, one of the co-conspirators in the incident said former President Goodluck Jonathan did transfer his authority as Commander –in-Chief to Fayose so that the service chiefs could take order from him. Are you not worried that the armed forces could condescend to such a level?
One, army is an institution; it is not an individual. Therefore, you cannot say the army descended to the level of any individual. Army is an institution but the people in the army are individuals within that institution. So, to say that the army descended so low will be an incorrect statement. I don’t think whatever happens anywhere, whether in Ekiti or not, it is the army that is being tried. It is the individuals in the army as an establishment, perhaps, that are being investigated. The army is a reputable organization from the time immemorial and is a major pillar of institution that has kept Nigeria together.
So, I don’t think it is the army that is on trial for all this. Rather, it is the individuals within the army. Just like we are Nigerians, it is not Nigeria that is being investigated but citizens of Nigeria. There is a lot of difference between the two.
But is it right for the president to hand over his authority as Commander-In-Chief to any individual and for the armed forces to accept that kind of abdication of position of responsibility?
First of all, is it an allegation or a confirmed situation under a properly constituted investigative team?
It’s still in the realm of allegation.
When an allegation is not confirmed, we can’t take it as correct. If you say allegation, it simply means that it hasn’t really been proved. So, in a situation like that, I think it is dangerous to come to a conclusion. Has the former president made any statement confirming the allegation that he delegated his power to anybody?
Not yet
I don’t have the fact and I don’t want to dabble into what I don’t know. So, I can’t comment on it.
Now that Dasukigate has revealed that the army lacked equipment to fight Boko Haram insurgent, what would you recommend as punishment for those young officers charged for mutiny?
I don’t want to comment on that.
About The Nigerian Blogger
0 comments :
Post a Comment