- That is the lesson from the N20m damages awarded against the army
A High Court judge in Rivers State, George Omereji, has asked the Nigerian Army to pay the sum of N20 million to the Chairman of Akuku-Toru Local Government Area, Rivers State, Roland Sekibo, and two other persons; Damiete Dokubo and Tobins Tobins. The army is to pay the fine as damages for invading the homes of these persons and arresting them unjustifiably for alleged electoral malpractice during the 2019 presidential and National Assembly elections.
We see this judgment as a good development from the judicial side of the government. It shows that no institution in a democracy and a rule-of-law ethos is above the law. Unlike what obtained frequently during the era of military dictatorship when soldiers saw themselves as overlords, this fine on the army by Justice Omereji has courageously enforced the principle of equality before the law, to signal to the military that its men are not above the law and that they had acted as if they were when they invaded the homes of the three men and accused them of electoral malpractice.
Relatedly, local and international electoral observers criticised the country for the conduct of the military during the 2019 elections: “These actions and the impunity with which some electoral actors conducted themselves, including some polling agents and members of the military, undermine citizen confidence in elections and threaten the legitimacy of Nigeria’s democracy.” This criticism from the EU and the UK attracted warnings from the military. For example, Col. Sagir Musa, the army’s spokesman issued a warning to international observers: “Foreign interests are enjoined to be mindful of interfering in our national internal affairs especially when there is no credible evidence. Any allegation against the NA must be confirmed from appropriate quarters before jumping to conclusions.”
But the high court judgment seems to have confirmed instances of military high-handedness during the last elections. It has also debunked the theory of Col. Musa that “credible intelligence available to the Nigerian Army has confirmed the kitting of political thugs with military uniforms and arming of same to impersonate soldiers….”
Ordinarily, democratic elections are supposed to be a civil matter that occurs in many democracies around the world without involvement of military personnel. But given the belief by political parties that elections are like jungle warfare, soldiers are often deployed at the instance of both military and civilian governments to limit the damage from electoral violence among voters. But our security agencies sometimes do not help matters, by acting in a way that shows partisanship in a context that requires impartiality.
The court did well in asking the army to pay damages to the trio that soldiers harassed during the NASS and presidential elections. It is good for everybody to learn the lesson of the futility of impunity in a rule-of-law environment. The army must pay if it does not appeal the judgment, to save the Nigerian Army from further embarrassment and prevent it from acting like a bare-faced promoter of impunity. Otherwise, the victims should commence garnishee proceedings against the military.
One lesson thrown up by the judgment is the need for all political parties to desist from looking at elections as warfare. If the national political culture is one that values elections as a peaceful means of ensuring succession in government and has given citizens unfettered freedom to exercise their sovereignty, there would be no need to deploy soldiers to perform tasks that are generally done in other democracies by efficient and impartial police systems.
