Nigerians hardly agree or indulge themselves in collective appreciation of the performance of any public officer. It is like a cherished culture of endless criticism, the people hate to relinquish. It is worse when the matter at stake concerns a national issue and the personality at the epicenter of the heat delights more in verbal justification job than action.
But there appears to be a unanimous consensus on how the current Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant General Tukur Buratai has handled the ongoing war on Boko Haram insurgents in the North eastern part of Nigeria. The war on terror is a global phenomenon, but since terrorists took a firm, offensive grip on Nigerians, the country has known no peace, manifest in all facets of national life. It was like a puzzle that can never be solved. But Gen. Buratai has given Nigerians hope of survival and dignity in their darkest hour, much as he has vibrated deadly labyrinths.
Until his appointment July 13, 2015, by President Muhammedu Buhari, as Nigeria’s COAS, Gen. Buratai was the Commander of the Multinational Joint Task Force, headquartered in the Republic of Chad. He succeeded Gen. Kenneth Tobias Jacob Minimah as COAS, whose reign diminished the once proud army which regaled in excellence on foreign assignments, anywhere in the world. Under Minimah, Nigerian soldiers were re-classified and derogatively described as worse than ragtag militias, evident in troop’s sheepish retreat in the middle of battle. Boko Haram militants held the country on its jugular, recklessly killing, abducting, conquering and annexing territories of Nigeria with their insignia boldly mounted.
Credentials of the Borno-born Army General are replete with trappings of excellence anywhere he has served the country before now. As Commander 2 Brigade covering other parts of the Niger Delta region, where he doubled as the Sector Commander Joint Task Force Operation Pulo Shield, Buratai brought respite to Nigerians in the restive Niger Delta region by significantly curtailing oil theft, piracy, kidnapping and armed robbery through relentless security surveillance and operations.
But what appears to have shot him to limelight is his new job as COAS. Many attest that upon his appointment as the Army’s helmsman, Buratai deemed it a personal mission to rescue his people. But when he vowed to confront the insurgent’s headlong; the terrorists mistook his outbursts as the same empty bragging of his predecessors.
Administering their usual baptism of fire on whoever dares them, the insurgents immediately unleashed an attack on his home town in Biu LGA of Borno, killing and destroying houses. While the action of the Islamic sect members was meant to permanently silence Gen. Buratai, it surprisingly rather emboldened him.
And with President Muhammadu Buhari’s relocation of the military command structure to the epicenter of the Boko Haram war, Buratai perceived it a rare opportunity to again excel in his military career.
Son of Alhaji Yusuf Buratai, a World War II veteran, the COAS reminisced his father’s admonishments to him at a tender age, when opted for the military. He remembered that his father, now aged told him to strive to excel and always be loyal to his superiors and constituted authority and to distance himself from any form of vice. So, he considered failing Nigeria in the insurgency war as failing his own biological father.
Therefore, having climbed the ladder in his military career to get to the peak, Gen. Buratai dammed the coziness of his office in Abuja, laced his boots, cocked his guns and personally led troops to the battle field. It was a marked departure from the disposition of COAS before his arrival on the scene.
To demonstrate that he is an Army General with proper grasp and briefs of his new assignment, Buratai restructured the Nigerian Army hierarchy by deploying his subordinates to superintend on new commands stations or areas. He set out to task with a singular mission; firstly, to boost the very low morale of troops, which hitherto made them dread war and by extension, to also extract a commitment from soldiers that insurgency is a war that must be won in record time, to enable soldiers get back to their regular duties.
Thereafter, Buratai frequently toured the zone embattled by insurgency war, even to dreaded Boko Haram controlled zones. It was on one of such mission that his convoy was ambushed while travelling to Maiduguri-Gamboru-Ngala. No senior officer of his ranking or portfolio had rendered himself to be caught in the crossfire of insurgents in the past. But Buratai braved the odds and did not only deflate the potency of the terrorists who attacked his convoy, but also arrested some of them who later made useful confessions.
It is clear that the Nigerian Army under Buratai’s watch have stamped their statement that the dreaded Sambisa Forest, where Chibok girls abducted by Boko Haram terrorists were held captive for months, unchallenged, was not only demystified, but also demolished. He proceeded to belittle the once fortified haven of the insurgents by establishing a military presence in Sambisa Forest.
Explaining his tactics, Buratai said, having studied the insurgency war in the North East, he decided to adopt the same guerrilla approach used by the terrorists by introducing motorbike battalion to move swiftly against terrorists anytime. No innovation, that simple with such positive impact that cannot attract world acclaim in the comity of Army Generals anywhere in the world.
He simply explained it as, “We are using the same guerrilla strategy adopted by the terrorists. We are giving them back their own strategy. We have motorbike battalion which has added more capacity as well as the ability to move quickly to wherever the terrorists are.”
Also, Buratai’s foot soldiers were constantly assured by the Army Chief himself, whether in the rain and in cold, about their welfare. He availed himself at their doorstep to personally respond to the issues confronting them to give them a psychological impetus to face the insurgency battle and come out victorious. Soldiers no longer complained of owed allowances, delayed salaries or pushed to battle front, on empty stomach and without ammunitions.
While addressing troops of the 112 battalion at Mafa, Buratai touched on their patriotism and emotions as Nigerians reminding of their sacred duty to the country thus; “We all know we have a task to clear this general area of these criminal elements once and for all so that we all can go back to our normal soldiering business. It is the commitment of the President, government, the leadership of the military, the troops and the support of Nigerians that brought the successes. We have intensified efforts to enable the military get to the insurgents before they cause any havoc or even run away from their hideouts…the most important thing is to prevent them from having the capacity to launch attacks on innocent individuals and on our troops` locations.”
In effect, when Nigerians now witness isolated incidents of Boko Haram attacks in towns and villages of the troubled North East, the world is now convinced that the remnants of terrorists who have been chased out of the forests, alienated in towns and caged in their hideouts, who are still venting their last spleen, which would soon extinguish. Confessions from some arrested terrorists now indicate that they are tired of the “business”, as against the haughty posture of some of their arrested colleagues in the past.
Buratai assures, “Terrorism is a global phenomenon. It may seem unending, but I want to assure you that here in Nigeria, we are working hard to ensure that the Boko Haram terrorists are completely eliminated. We still have some remnants of them, but we are closing up and clearing them by the day.”
Therefore, when Nigerians generally, including hardcore critics like the Comrade Governor, Adams Oshiomhole, and his Oyo state counterpart, Governor Abiola Ajimobi, applaud Buratai, its not unexpected and about the least laurel still awaiting this General ofthe people.
Oshiomhole sums it all: “We in Edo State appreciate the leadership that you are providing for the Nigerian Armed Forces and the Nigerian Army in particular. We watch you on television and we see a very senior officer going to meet his officers and men right in the battle field, sharing the dust, the sun and all the deprivations, the sort of thing you sometime see in foreign countries. I think that you are leading by example in every sense of the word.”
So, with Buratai on stage, the Nigerian Army is back from a long “sabbatical” leave, hitting and biting. There is now hope that Nigerian Army would once again regain its pride and status in the comity of the military world-wide.
. Orinya is an academic staff at FUW and contributed the piece from Wukari, Taraba State. [myad]

What Senator Biodun Olujimi (PDP, Ekiti South) did with her presentation of a bill on gender and equal opportunities on March 15, is the equivalent of trying one’s luck. But she deserves praise for her courage and progressive views, and for forcing the issue so well. The subject has generated useful debate and the Senate President has been forced to reassure the public that the bill will be re-presented, after it has been re-drafted “to address some of the reservations that were expressed on the floor of the Senate.”

This is the third time that the Senate will throw out this same bill.  Senate President Bukola Saraki knows too well that to address the expressed reservations is to kill the bill completely. There may be no hope of a misogynistic Senate passing a Bill that seeks to empower women and the girl-child, protect them from discrimination and violence, rescue them from being treated like chattel, and ensure that women play more prominent roles in public and private decision-making processes.  The Bill further seeks to protect the rights of women in marriages.

It should not be surprising that the male-dominated Senate (102 men to 7 women) rose against the Bill. A few male voices supported Senator Olujimi, but those against the Bill were determined. They quoted the Bible. They cited the Quoran. They dismissed any thought of women having more powers or voice or being treated like equals to men. They even cited culture and tradition. One newspaper stated matter of factly, that Senator Olujimi “incurred the wrath of Northern Senators”.  When the matter was put to a vote, the naysayers of course won. So, given the gender imbalance in the Senate and the shortage of enlightened men on the floor, if that Bill is presented a thousand times, the outcome is predictable. It is perhaps for this reason that a different kind of strategy will be required to make any progress in the important fight for the treatment of women’s rights as human rights.

Nigeria is signatory to different international conventions on the elimination of all forms of violence and discrimination against women. The Constitution also forbids discrimination against any person on the grounds of gender and circumstances of birth. Long before the internationalization of the struggle for women’s rights and its NGO-nization, there have been records of valiant Nigerian women pushing the envelope and demonstrating through advocacy and individual accomplishments that women are capable partners in society’s development, and that they deserve full citizenship rights.

But just as was demonstrated again on the floor of the Senate, religion, culture and male chauvinism are major stumbling blocks. Even some of the most educated men around cannot stand the idea of women being given more opportunities. Those male Senators who shot down the Olujimi Bill must have been wondering what gave her the effrontery to suggest that men and women should begin to share power and opportunities as equals. The man who led the assault against the bill and who reportedly later celebrated the victory is actually the same man who was once publicly upbraided for marrying a 13-year old girl, a girl about the age of his granddaughter! In that same Senate, one of the members while declaring his assets sometimes last year, listed his two wives as part of his assets!

A gender and equal opportunities Bill should help provide stronger legislative framework for protecting women from all forms of discrimination, but legislative intervention may well not be enough. The real battle-field is in the identified areas of religion, culture and tradition, and the absence of political will to enforce relevant laws that promote social justice. Societies don’t just move from one level of enlightenment to the other: leadership is required. But as it is, Nigeria has leaders who are male chauvinists, whose attachment to culture and religion prevents them from understanding the true meaning of human rights.  This is why it seems so difficult to convince Nigerian patriarchs that certain religious and cultural practices simply do not make sense.

What kind of culture or tradition allows a man to marry a child, for example?  What kind of tradition recommends that a widow should be humiliated and subjected to inhuman practices in 2016?  In some communities in the East, a woman cannot taste the new yam of the season as they call it.  Men must taste it first. Among Igbos, even the most enlightened man will not allow a woman break kolanut in a gathering of men. Leviration is still practised in some Nigerian communities.  One year after the millennial deadline on gender equality, there are still families in Nigeria where the girl-child is considered fit only for marriage, and so when male children are sent to school, the girls are asked to hawk wares, until they are ripe enough to be married off. In other places, wives cannot inherit their husbands’ estates, and daughters are disinherited on the basis of gender. Patterns of this discrimination against the female gender exist even in workplaces today, and significantly in politics. I recall the case of one of these banks, which once instructed female employees not to get pregnant, within the first year of employment! And in politics, women are organized as separate groups with someone called Woman Leader, whereas there is no such equivalent for men.

The manifold existence of constructive gender discrimination explains the speed and alacrity with which the gender and equal opportunity bill is always dismissed whenever it is brought up in the National Assembly. The advocacy for women empowerment and an end to gender discrimination is also severely limited. It is restricted to non-governmental organizations, and a few influential voices in society who understand the issues, attend international conferences and who over the years have been organizing workshops and rallies to conscientize political, religious and traditional leaders.  But this has not quite helped, and this may well be because the majority of the core affected women are excluded from the campaign.

The Biodun Olujimis of Nigeria are not necessarily the ones seeking freedom from discrimination. They can hold their own, they can negotiate power at many levels; the ones in need of help are the poor women and girl-children who are trapped under male domination, poor, disempowered, voiceless, and incapable of realizing their potentials to the fullest.  The ones in need of help are those poor widows who are humiliated by in-laws, the millions of girls who are out of school just because they are female, the under-aged girls who are married off to old men, against their wish, and the army of dispossessed women whose lives have been condemned to a routine of raising children, fetching water and working on the farm.

These victims themselves need to be mobilized into the struggle for the full recognition of the human rights of women.  They need to be given a voice.  It is not a task for NGOs alone. The struggle must become more inclusive. We have Ministers and Commissioners in charge of women affairs and social development.  They are busy travelling from one international workshop to the other. Such a department of government can do a lot more. To get Nigerian men to respect the human rights of women, the womenfolk must work together and support each other, and develop the kind of advocacy that was defeated last Tuesday into a sustainable, organized movement.  The tone of the advocacy should also change: too often, gender and equal opportunity issues are presented as pleas, as if women are seeking favour and understanding from the men: please-give-us-more-powers, allow-us-to-also-exercise-authority; we-want-more-women-in-government. For as long as the language of negotiation sounds that beggarly, not much progress can be made.  Nothing short of an organized women’s movement around the core issues is what is required.

In the long run, education is probably the best policy option. Every child must go to school and no child should be allowed to be an artisan until after secondary school education.  Once upon a time in this country, the social welfare department used to arrest any child found on the streets during school hours. The disparity in the education of men and women in Nigeria is alarming, given the fact that women constitute about 50% of the national population. The school drop-out rate for the girl-child is as high as 44%! There are extant laws, which prescribe punishment for parents who keep their children out of school; such laws must be enforced. State governments should vigorously promote education at all levels.

Education is the strongest weapon for liberating people from the clutches of harmful religious and traditional practices. Education in this regard means being enlightened enough to know what parts of religion and tradition are humane and progressive. Even where these prove resilient on the basis of social legitimacy, the truth is that it will be difficult to maltreat a woman who is fully aware of her rights. The Senators opposing gender equality and rights would never allow their own daughters to be exposed to any form of indignity. They quote culture and religion out of sheer hypocrisy. Their reliance on the Holy Books to justify the inferiorization of women as the weaker sex is dubious.

Successful women should be prepared to support other women. More women should take interest in politics, and seek political power at all levels. Nigerian women must get into the arena and seek decision-making positions, to enable them influence and implement policies.  Let Nigerian women form their own political parties and contest the public space with the misogynists. The women’s movement in Nigeria has lost its steam. Some Nigerian women are involved in partisan politics but they either end up behaving like the men, or they claim they are technocrats with no interest in feminist matters. They reinforce stereotypes and even work against the interest of other women seeking progress. Such women cannot lead the struggle; new recruits and role models are needed. To give meaning and bite to Senator Olujimi’s kind of intervention, progressive Nigerian women must unite and re-organize. [myad]

In December last year, the Supreme Court upheld all the disputed governorship elections conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on April 11, 2015 and undertook to adduce reasons for each of the judgments at a later date. Last month, the court announced the reasons for the decisions. Essentially, the apex court vehemently disagreed with the judgments of the Court of Appeal which had set aside election results which emanated from manual accreditation instead of the card reader machines prescribed by the INEC. For not validating the use of card reader for voter accreditation some commentators, including lawyers, have criticized the verdicts of the apex court. The criticisms which have greeted the judgments are not unexpected given the controversy which trailed the use of card reader for the elections.

Before subjecting the position of the Supreme Court on voter accreditation by the reader machine to a critical analysis it is germane to review the introduction of the electronic device into the electoral process. Following a successful and comprehensive compilation of biometric registration of Nigerians of voting age in 2011 the INEC decided to improve on voter accreditation for all elections. The device was designed to deal with the manipulation of election results through the declaration of bogus votes that have no correlation with the number of registered voters. Thus, with the use of the card reader machines the number of total votes cast in an election cannot exceed the number of accredited voters. The strident opposition to the use of card reader for voter accreditation by seasoned riggers of elections was borne out of the realization that it could substantially eliminate the manipulation of election results

Although the national assembly had approved fund for the purchase of the card reader machines in the Appropriation Act of 2014 the then ruling party wanted to use its control of the federal legislature to discredit the electronic device. Hence, the immediate past chairman of the INEC , Professor Jega was summoned to the Senate to justify the introduction of the card reader for voter accreditation. In taking up the challenge Professor Jega demonstrated the use of card readers and its capacity to eliminate electoral fraud perpetrated at the accreditation stage of election. At the end of the exercise the Senate was compelled to endorse the use of card reader for the 2015 general election. Thereafter, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2015 which sought to legitimize the use of card reader was unanimously passed by both chambers of the national assembly. The Bill was signed into law by former President Goodluck Jonathan on March 20, 2015.

Prior to the amendment section 52 of the Electoral Act had prohibited the INEC from the use of any form of electronic voting. But following the amendment of the provision the INEC has been conferred with the power to determine the procedure to use for any election. Specifically, section 52 states that “voting at an election shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission.” With the amendment of the law the INEC was on terra firma when it determined to use the card reader machine for the accreditation of voters for the 2015 general election.

In spite of the initial hiccups encountered by voters with respect to the use of the card reader machines it is generally agreed on all hands that the technological device enhanced the credibility of the 2015 general election. Indeed, a number of the election petitions filed by aggrieved candidates were anchored on the gap between the number of voters accredited with the card reader machines and the fake election results declared by some returning officers. At the election petition tribunals the INEC, through its lawyers, canvassed rather curiously, that the directive on accreditation of voters with the aid of card reader machines was not backed by any law. And that failure to comply with the directive could not vitiate any election conducted by the INEC.

Some members of the Election Petition Tribunals and the Justices of the Court of Appeal upheld the submissions of the INEC lawyers. In their judgments they ignored the figures of accredited voters obtained via the card reader machines. Others were however convinced that the directive on the use of card reader was backed by the letter and spirit of the Electoral Act. In the case of APC v Kolawole Agbaje Ogbuinya JCA traced the genesis of the card reader when he said “The evolution of the concept of smart card readers is a familiar one. It came to being during the last general election held in March and April, 2015 in Nigeria. On this core it is a nascent procedure injected into our infant and fledging electoral system to ensure credible and transparent election. Specifically, it is aimed to concretise our fragile process of accreditation – the keystone of any suffrage. The concept, owing to its recent invention by INEC, a non-legislative body, traces its paternity to the manual for election officials, 2015.”

The above view of Ogbuinya J.C.A was adopted in toto by Ejembi Eko J.C.A. in the case of Umana v Emmanuel … when he stated that “I do not believe that with the fast pace of development globally and the whole world embracing the latest IT technologies, that resistance should be placed to emerging technologies geared towards transparency in elections, by backward thinking interpretations that can only be deleterious to the system. Holding otherwise would be to truncate the great efforts of the 3rd respondent (INEC) in its bid to ensure a credible election and in so doing attempt to plug all loopholes that can be exploited by unscrupulous persons.”

Regrettably, the Supreme Court did not share the progressive view of both Ogbuiya and Eko JJ.C.A on the legal validity of the technological device. Thus, in the case of Edward Okereke v Dave Umahi the apex court held that the appellant failed woefully to prove the allegation of over voting as he did not tender the voters’ registers along with the card reader reports. Justice Cletus Nweze who read the leading judgment of the court held that “Indeed, since the Guidelines and Manual, which authorized the use and deployment of the electronic Card Reader Machine, were made in exercise of the powers conferred by the Electoral Act, the said Card Reader cannot, logically, depose or dethrone the Voters’ Register whose judicial roots are, firmly, embedded or entrenched in the selfsame Electoral Act from which it (the Voters’ Register) directly, derives its sustenance and currency….since the National Assembly has not deleted the provision of Section 49 of the Electoral Act (2010), which allows manual accreditation, it would be wrong for any Petitioner to seek to rely solely on the report of the Card Reader (which is intended as a supplementary measure to the already provided means of accreditation) to prove over-voting.”

However, in spite of the clear position of the INEC on the mandatory use of card readers for the governorship and state legislative elections, it did not adduce any argument in favour of the use of electronic device at the various election petition tribunals and the appellate courts. It is particularly intriguing that the INEC did not defend the card reader by relying on section 52 of the Electoral Act (Amendment Act) 2015. If the attention of the Justices of the Supreme Court had been drawn to the 2015 amendment of the Electoral Act, they could not have held that accreditation by the card reader machine was supplementary to manual accreditation. In other words, the judgments of the apex court would have legitimized the use of card reader for voter accreditation.

From the foregoing, it is undoubtedly clear that the Supreme Court did not declare the card reader illegal. However, it is the view of the apex court that the card reader is a supplementary measure to manual accreditation. With respect, the appellants did not pray the court to ignore the voters register which were tendered and admitted in evidence at the various election petition tribunals. What was in dispute was the validity of the power of the INEC to replace manual accreditation with voter accreditation with the aid of card reader machine. Since manual accreditation was susceptible to manipulation it was replaced with electronic accreditation by the INEC in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Electoral Act. In Shinkafi v Yari (unreported suit no 907/2015 of 8th January, 2016) John Okoro J.S.C. rightly noted that “… the function of the card reader machine is to authenticate the owner of a voter’s card and prevent multiple voting by a voter.” Since the INEC has replaced manual accreditation with electronic accreditation the law does not require a petitioner to tender evidence of manual accreditation along with the report obtained from the card reader machine.

However, in spite of the clear position of the INEC on the mandatory use of card readers for the governorship and state legislative elections, it did not adduce any argument in favour of the use of electronic device at the various election petition tribunals and the appellate courts. It is particularly intriguing that the INEC did not defend the card reader by relying on section 52 of the Electoral Act (Amendment Act) 2015. If the attention of the Justices of the Supreme Court had been drawn to the 2015 amendment of the Electoral Act, they could not have held that accreditation by the card reader machine was supplementary to manual accreditation. In other words, the judgments of the apex court would have legitimized the use of card reader for voter accreditation. No doubt, the legitimisation of the card reader would have had dire consequences on the results of the disputed governorship elections.

Finally, in view of the clear provisions of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Act 2015 it is indubitably clear that the INEC acted within the ambit of the law when it issued the directive for the use of card reader machine for voter accreditation during the last general election. To that extent, the suggestion that the law be further amended to legalise the use of card reader is totally uncalled for.

Femi Falana, SAN wrote in from Lagos. [myad]