Onwubiko - Amnesty International Report On Nigeria Military Is One-Sided

Executive Director of Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), Emmanuel Onwubiko, is a former Federal Commissioner of the Nigerian Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and member of the Presidential Committee on Dialogue and Peace in Northern Nigeria (PCCDR). In this interview with Senator Iroegbu, he x-rays the new administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, the Amnesty International report on the military and brief overview of national security.

We have a new administration, which is historic, being the first time a democratic opposition is forming the government at the centre after a successful general election. What is your reaction and what are your expectations?

Yes, I think the event of March 28, 2015, that is the general elections that saw the emergence of the then opposition candidate Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) as the winner is quite phenomenal. And for the fact that the then incumbent President (Goodluck Jonathan) conceded and accepted his political misfortunes and has hid himself out quietly and handed over on May 29th, 2015 is significant.

It has brought a lot of goodwill to Nigeria; it has actually given Nigeria another window of respectability in international community; because when that event happened, I was in faraway South East Asia, in Malaysia. I was in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, when the former president of Nigeria accepted to concede defeat to the All Progressives Congress (APC), and a lot of people were actually discussing the matter and were impressed as far as Asia. This means that the event that happened in Nigeria reverberated across the world and it was for political reasons, it wasn't for the common reason that everybody usually associate with Nigeria, especially with the issue of drug trafficking or human trafficking; but this time around, it is something that happened to be a political phenomenon taking place in Nigeria.

Meanwhile, with the swearing-in of the current president, Nigerians expect him to hit the ground, Nigerians expects him to tackle the immediate challenge of insecurity, and Nigerians expects him to use the manifesto of his party. It is expected that his party must have formulated the best practical approach towards a total resolution and defeat of the armed terrorist that have ravaged the greater parts of the North East of Nigeria. Nigerians also expects him to have by now started implementing those policies. A lot of Nigerians are not very keen about this junketing that he has just started again, this issue of travelling to Chad, Niger Republic and the rest of them; if he has a homegrown solutions to this terrorism in the North East, let him start it especially given the fact that he is from the North and that is the advantage he has to use. He has to use the advantage of talking to traditional institutions in those conflict afflicted areas to find a way of making it impossible for the Boko Haram terrorists to have the capacity to recruit fresh members, because the members of the traditional institutions in the North are quite influential in terms of the grassroots and members of the leadership of the different religious groups.

He has to also find a way of bringing them on board and find a way of equipping our military. It is quite important that the military of Nigeria is sufficiently equipped, trained and motivated to battle the scourge of terrorism that has unleashed a reign of havoc that has led to the killing of over 20,000 Nigerians in the last three or four years. So, it is important that the president begins to handle all those measures. Then, there are several other expectations that Nigerians have tabled before the current government; the issues of basic infrastructure, the health infrastructure, the educational infrastructure, the roads network in Nigeria, because most roads especially federal roads, all across the country are in terrible shape and I think the current government has its work cut out and there is no time for playing mundane politics. This is a period of reconstruction and rebuilding Nigeria because Nigeria is in a state of near anarchy and a state of near collapse.

The administration is just about two weeks now, are you impressed with its performance so far?

I know you have cited the issue of unnecessary international travelling, even I read somewhere a critic suggested that instead of the President hitting the ground running, he has only hit the ground crawling? I think the current president has a very monumental goodwill from across the various segments of the Nigerian society and from across a certain level of international community. He enjoys a lot of goodwill but I think it is not in the best of shape that he has started. For instance, it's over a week and the President has yet to appointed his key aides, chief of staff and all this other important aides that will assist him in terms of bureaucracy and the rest of them. I quite understand for the fact that the president may be waiting for the National Assembly, which has just been inaugurated, to be on board before he could submit the names of his ministers, but I don't think the president has actually started even though it's quite too early to assess the performance of the current administration. However, Nigerians are in a hurry to see this government begin to work and government should deemphasize the issue of excessive foreign travels. Foreign travels are almost of no consequence, because it has never helped us and he should concentrate on how to rebuild our devastated economy because the economy is in a very terrible shape, there is general insecurity, we have huge problems that the president should sit down on his desk and solve these problems.

Talking about insecurity, during the campaigns, they seemed to have condemned the immediate past administration on how they tackled the ongoing war against terror but the current government seems to be following the same blueprint it so criticized its predecessor for... (Cuts in) I don't think he will follow the same path...

I know, but take for example the visit and seeking of cooperation from our neighbours within the Lake Chad Basin area, it is the same strategy he castigated the former President for adopting during his campaign and the video has gone viral as we speak. Do you think he is right to be following the same strategy he seems to have condemned or is it an issue of reality setting in now?

As at the time they are doing the campaign and you know that campaign is different from the real politics. Then he was asking Nigerians to have trust in him because Nigeria lost confidence in the last government, virtually everybody, including if you are not mistaken, even the family members of the former president were not comfortable with the way he was tackling the issues of insecurity and nobody is happy about that. So, Nigerians wanted to hear a different story and they got it from Buhari. Now Buhari has got into office and he is facing the reality, as you said, now is real politics and he has seen that governance is a continuum and I don't think that there is anything wrong in that when he was campaigning and what he is doing now.

I mean the issue of integrity...? (Cuts in) No! There are even other models that the current president have to put in place; for instance how do we secure our international borders? Those borders right from Katsina, Adamawa, Sokoto and the rest of them that link us to Niger Republic, Chad and Cameroon are so porous. There was a time we suggested at the level of our group, Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), we suggested that government should think of how to fence-up our borders just like the way the Israeli government have been able to protect their own territory where they make use of the solid traditional borders. Let there be a separation and a clear demarcation between Nigeria and these other countries.

Have you considered the fact that the cost maybe so much, especially given the state of our economy?

Yes. The cost might be so much because Nigeria has a large land mass but there is no amount of money that is invested into protecting our country that is something that would be too much. If you compare it to the amount of damage, havoc, violence and the bloodshed that have taken place over the last three years, there is no amount of money that would be committed into protecting our borders that will be too much. There is another suggestion that may not necessarily require that we build fences across our borders; we can use IT mechanism, we can use technology to monitor movements, because the problem we have with our borders is that a lot of freelance arm suppliers come in through those unprotected borders.

They have not given serious concerns in the areas of arms proliferation where there are a lot of arms and weapons that are circulated all over the place and across the country from these borders. I think the president should think of how to protect our borders first and foremost because there is nothing wrong in working with your neighbouring communities but the issue is that he has not even settled down to see what we can do at our own level. How can we equip our army? To begin to junket all over the place is not appropriate? And I don't even understand the reason for Nigeria allowing the Headquarters of the Multi-National Joint Task Force (MNJTF) that are fighting Boko Haram to be sighted in N'djamena, Chad, whereas the Boko Haram problem is faced in our country. So why is the MNJTF Headquarters not located in Baga or even Maiduguri, Borno state?

I learnt that the other Francophone member countries cited the issue of insecurity on the Nigerian side, they think that Baga is not secured that is why they located it in Chad?

That is not the reason because the other time that we suggested that Nigerian government should consider building barracks in Sambisa Forest, they said Sambisa Forest would be very expensive and very wide. How wide is Sambisa Forest? Or is it as wide as Abuja that you cannot build barracks nor have military presence located in those places? If they are saying Baga is risky for the multinational office to be based in that place, are you saying that human beings that live there should face the consequences instead of ensuring that the place is properly secured?

Haven't you considered that it could be a major target by the terrorists, should it be located in those areas considered to be epicenter of Boko Haram? No no, if the place is properly secured... after all the American forces that fought in Afghanistan did not say this is the place we want to stay is not very safe. Why? Because they can protect the place. So this MNJTF Headquarters being in Baga or any other location in Nigeria could as well be secured.

This now brings us to the inaugural speech, where the President's first policy decision was the order for the relocation of the Military Command and Control Centre from Abuja to Maiduguri. Do you think this is appropriate or that it will make a difference in the ongoing campaign?

I don't think it's appropriate to relocate our command and control, if what the president meant was that all the service chiefs and all the apparatus of the command be moved to Maiduguri, that is not fair or safe for our country. You don't move the entire command structure to a particular place and what gives us the impression that something may not come up somewhere in the Niger Delta or somewhere far away from the North East. I don't think it is a proper thing to do and by the way why do we have to even move an entire command to Maiduguri? I was reading an article, an analysis on this somewhere and it noted that we are living in the age of science and technology, meaning that you can as well stay in Abuja and monitor whatever is going on in Maiduguri. But I understand the symbolism in what the president has just done. What the president may be targeting at achieving is to show leadership by example, that you cannot go to war and you the generals stay back in your cozy and air conditioned atmosphere, instead of going to the field.

But the Service Chiefs even under the immediate past administration do visit the war zones and even participate in the operations from time to time?

I must concede to the President that he is a general who must have known the advantages and the disadvantages of either relocating or allowing them to stay in Abuja and let us even try that model and see, if it's going to work. But as far as I am concerned, I don't think it's a proper thing to do. However, if the president has decided to do that in his wisdom let us give him a benefit of doubt and see how that pans out.

What do you think is the problem with the insurgency coming back in full force under the new administration, after it looked like the military had crushed them in the last couple of weeks?

One of the things I think we must tackle immediately is how to secure our borders, just like what I have said we have to take concrete measures to protect our borders. If you allow your border and for instance you build a house without a fence it will be open for all manner of people to walk in and out.

What I mean is why the upsurge in the terrorist attacks in the last one or two weeks, especially following the inauguration of the current government? I think what we may be witnessing is that having found themselves (terrorist) under very intense fireworks from the military, they may also have planned their own revenge kind of strategy. And as all of us know, the kind of battle that is going on in the North East, is what I think is called asymmetric warfare. It is not something that is conventional in our choice and they did not have a definite timeline; that this is the time we the terrorists are going to launch an attack and this is the time the military will strike back. But I think the Nigerian Military has to up their game and effectively crush these armed terrorists once and for all and they need to be crushed.

Talking about crushing, sometimes ago, the Commander, USAFRICOM made it clear that Boko Haram or any modern day terrorists cannot be defeated by the military might alone. So apart from the military what should be the other solutions?

There cannot be any other solution that would be more effective other than military presence. Why it has not worked is because we don't have good intelligence. Americans have been able to defeat terrorists within their own country and the Al-Qaida that struck the World Trade Centre (WTC) and the various attacks they have heard against the American interests and within America are no longer possible but they have been able to degrade the capacity of these terrorists to infiltrate the US. They invade Iraq and Afghanistan and were it not with their military might?

But they did not achieve this using military or military alone. Don't you think other strategies may need to suffice?

That kind of position they (Americans) took when the former president (Jonathan) was there (in power), was antagonistic and if you are saying that maybe the Federal Government has neglected the widespread poverty in the North, then the question that you should ask is that, is it only in the North that we have poverty? Or is it only in the North that the youths are not gainfully employed or engaged? Is it only in the North opportunities for educational advancement are rare; poverty is a general problem that we have all across the Nigerian federation and I still believe that we need to develop our military capacity properly and have the right kind of equipment and have the right kind of motivation. Mind you, when the last government was around, there were a lot of activities of saboteurs within the military most of the military recruits, people that joined the military in Nigeria, about 50 per cent of them do not have that kind of patriotic zeal and discipline, the professional love and discipline, which is very important. Most of them just went into the military for economic reasons because they didn't have jobs.

Still on our military and issue of discipline and professionalism; you must be aware of the recent, Amnesty International report, indicting our military for the umpteenth time for various degree of war crimes. What is your opinion on that?

I think what they just did amounts to racism. You cannot just come to Nigeria and dish out a report and particularly lift out some generals maybe retired or even those that are serving that these are the people that should be taken to the ICC for trial. And even before the Amnesty International released that report, they had already submitted that same report to the ICC in The Hague, Netherlands and why do you have to come to Nigeria to come and release the report if you have already gone to ICC.

Meanwhile, the Rome Statutes, setting up the ICC have a very important key provisions that if suspected war crimes are committed in a given sovereign state, there are local remedial institutions or processes that have to be exhausted and its only if the judicial or the Nigerian court system is no longer working or lack the capacity to handle those cases that you now refer such cases to the ICC. Why should the Amnesty first of all route their report to ICC before asking the Nigerian government to act on it and why not submit the report to the Nigerian government and wait for them to act on it. That tells you that they have an intention, target, aim and objective, which are against us. Let me tell you that it is very wrong for amnesty to say that a general who probably operates from Abuja should be held criminally liable for an offence that was committed by an operative in faraway Maiduguri without his own knowledge.

That violates the doctrine of superior command responsibility and total breach of standards. Why did amnesty not ask for generals in the US military to be indicted and prosecuted for offences that was committed by the operatives of the ground forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, not even the Guantanamo Bay, I am talking of the crimes they committed in Afghanistan and Iraq and all of us know that about 20 of the American soldiers have been individually prosecuted on their individual offences; like the man that urinated on top of an Iraqi prisoner. It wasn't the Minister of Defence or the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) of the US that were indicted; why is Amnesty doing this kind of double standard? That is the question we have to ask. And even the timing is questionable.

Why is Amnesty coming out now because they has been romancing with this report since the last four years and they waited, not until the current president came on board. Not until when the Nigerian military are on the verge of defeating these terrorists and the Nigerian government says we now want to once and for all finish all this business of crushing these terrorists. The president gave a clear directive to the Nigerian military to go ahead and degrade the capacity of these guys to cause more havoc and suddenly, the Amnesty just came up with a report that seems to be saying that only the human rights of the terrorists that are important to them. If you carry out a referendum now, I can tell that more than 80 per cent of Nigerians are not happy about this Amnesty report. The fact is that Amnesty is a globally respected non-governmental organization and that is why it's even surprising why they are playing this kind of clandestine role to undermine the national security of Nigeria. Nobody is saying that when soldiers commit atrocities they should not be prosecuted, we are saying that you have to follow the rules and the proper due process of the law. If anybody commits an offence, charge that person and let the person face prosecution. For instance, in that report Amnesty says the CDS from 2012 up to the current chief of staff but the Amnesty left out CDS from 2010 to 2012. Amnesty also said that the deaths that occurred in military detention centres and who is in charge of military detention centres? The CDS is the one in charge of issues that deals with the military detention centres as it is directly under his own chain of control, but the Counter-Terrorism war is directly under the supervision of the National Security Adviser (NSA) and then you left that out, you didn't mention NSA in that report. In fact, if you read the report, they just selected the GOCs, then former Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Lt-Gen Azubuike Ihejirika (rtd), the former CDS, Vice Admiral Ola Sa'ad Ibrahim (rtd), then his successor Air Chief Marshal Alex Badeh and Lt-Gen. Kenneth Minimah (the current COAS). That is very nonsensical report. It is a report that is one sided and so biased.

Like you have cited the issue of the report being biased and one-sided, does it then support the views of some Nigerians who have wondered why the organization left out the issues of the alleged war crimes before, during and after the Nigerian civil war, Odi, Zaki Biam, and various ethno-religious and even the post-election violence if Amnesty is so interested in the issues of human rights violation in Nigeria?

Exactly! Oh yes. That brings us to this very important question of what happened during the Nigerian-Biafra civil war. If you want to address all these human right atrocities, I think we have to open up the books and let us examine everything so that we would settle this matter once and for all. It is important that that is done. It is important that the three million people that perished during the civil war be visited as well.

Why do you think Amnesty International is silent on these ones?

I think the Amnesty report is specific. The Amnesty issues this particular report specifically to address the issue of detention centres in the North East of Nigeria. So Amnesty does not just do a random report or general report like that. It is when events occur that they can go into the field and do their report. Maybe that is the reason why Amnesty did not border to look back about what happened in the past and do a comprehensive report.

But the agency has been in existence long before these events occurred; Nigerians are wondering why they didn't issue any report. At least the Odi, Zaki Biam, Plateau, Kaduna and Benue crises are relatively new? I am sure Amnesty may have done something on them. But what Nigerians are saying is that this report that they keep releasing every time to overheat the system when Nigeria is facing the most ferocious attacks from armed terrorists is not acceptable whatsoever.

What is the way forward on the war against terrorism and insurgency in the country?

The way forward is for the current president to put mechanism in place to fighting corruption, which is very important. I am of the opinion that it is because of the vices of corruption in the Defence and Police sector that have led Nigeria to where we are. Over the years, if you want to calculate in the last 30 years of military regime or the last 16years since democracy came into Nigeria, you would see the quantum of cash that have been released. I am talking about the appropriation act, the annual budget they release every year; the defence sector always takes the lion share of all these budgets and even in the implementation of those appropriation acts, the budgetary releases that go into defence sector is very humongous. So, what has happened to those huge cash that have been going into the security sector and why Nigeria at a point had to start begging and going through the black market to procure arms? It is a shame.

I think if Buhari wants to write his name in gold and if he wants to leave a legacy for generation yet unborn, he should uncover and investigate the defence sector in Nigeria where a lot of thievery and corruption are taking place in the military and police. We have to ask the proper questions; where are all these monies that were allocated to them? Where have they gone to and why Nigeria was unable to fight Boko Haram that a lot of people have described as rag tag? Why is Nigeria that has one of the most organized and formidable fighting forces in Africa unable to defeat this Boko Haram? So these are some of the questions that the current government should look into.