Connect with us

Headline

Army 38: Injustice and The Nigerian Army

Published

on

By Eric Elezuo

Lt. Col. Ojebo Baba-Ochankpa had gone to bed that fateful night in January 2017 physically okay but psychologically full of worries. His heavy heart took the best of him as he slept, and on he slept even as the day dawned and activities ladened in loud noises surrounded his environment. He continued to sleep, and never woke. He had died in his sleep. The worries of injustice and hopelessness of the future forcefully placed on his military shoulders claimed his young life, leaving behind a young wife, Ruth Baba-Ochanpka, and three children; Joshua, Esther and Abigail. Ochankpa was one of the 38 senior army officers who were arbitrarily booted out of service by retirement by Gen. Buratai under the false narrative of partisanship in the 2015 General Elections and the Defence Contracts scam.

For the 38 senior army officers unceremoniously dismissed on June 10, 2016 for reasons bordering on ‘partisanship, indiscipline and corruption’, according to the Army, what transpired was just bare-faced injustice. The victims are not the only ones who believe that injustice took a greater part of the decision, but also a greater section of the public, who have gone through the nuances of the so-called dismissal.

The following is the statistics of the officers retired compulsorily; 9 Major Generals, 10 Brigadier Generals, 7 Colonels, 11 Lieutenant Colonels and a Major.

The 38 officers, who many described as the country’s brightest in internal and external security operations, were believed to have been forced out of service without recourse to the rules of disengagement in the Nigerian military, and even as legal battles have gone on in the last three years, the Army, under General Tukur Buratai, has remained adamant in considering a reinstatement, raising questions from many quarters as what could be the real reasons behind the disengagement.

Accusing fingers has however, been pointed at the Buhari administration for deliberately orchestrating an ethnic cleansing and lurching out a vendetta attack against the South notably the South East and South South regions. This is considering that seven officers out of the lot are from one state – Rivers, and none of them, not a single one of them was found guilty of an offence. Therein lies the crux of the matter, none of the Army 38 was found guilty of an offence. That is quite interesting. One question therefore, that needs answer is can Buratai dismiss seven officers from Katsina or Kano or any other states of the North in one fell swoop like he did to Rivers State? With none of them being charged, tried or found guilty of an offence.

Many have argued that the army clearly and blatantly refused to follow its own precedence as was observed in the case of the General Officer Commanding (GOC) of 7 Division in 2014, Major General Ahmadu Mohammed from Kano State, whose troops mutinied against and even fired at his vehicle. Mohammed was accused by the troops of dereliction of duty and sending them to the battlefield with minimal logistic supports thereby leading to many deaths. Those were grave offences that led to his retirement in January 2015. However, he was retired without fair hearing or due process. Similarly, he failed to appealed against his retirement within the stipulated 30 days by law, but waited a whole nine months after before appealing. His appeal was pampered, fast tracked and given smooth attention leading to his reinstatement in January 2016 and backed dated in such a way that he was never retired.

In defence, Buratai’s Army argued thus: “Although, it is not an aberration for the international human rights body to raise such an observation, however, it did not take into cognisance the circumstances leading to his illegal retirement and the legal procedure that was followed in his reinstatement. The compulsory and premature retirement of Major General Mohammed did not follow due process and was rather arbitrary.

“The senior officer was never charged, tried, let alone found guilty of any offence that justified his premature retirement. The action was therefore a clear violation of extant rules, regulations, as well as terms and conditions of service of the armed forces of Nigeria. This obvious violation prompted the senior officer to seek redress using the appropriate legal means.

“Consequently, the realisation of these omissions called for a review of the case by the Army Council and his subsequent reinstatement into the service.” This was a logical and reasonable explanation for the reinstatement.

Alas, but it is still the same army under Buratai, that proceeded to retiring 38 budding and intelligent officers without trying them nor following laid down military procedures. Why will he, Tukur Yusuf Buratai, falsely accuse and then illegally and wrongly retire young officers without finding anyone of them guilty of an offence in a competent court? This has given the impetus to many to believe that there are sacred cows in the army and there are sacrificial lambs.

More worrisome is that 18 of the senior army officers that were dismissed did not at any time appear before any one of the two panels that were set up to investigate the 2015 General Elections and the Defence Contracts scam or any other inquiry or investigation for that matter.

According to a petition made to the President by the aggrieved officers, “the 18 officers were never investigated for any infraction, they were never indicted, they were never tried and they were never convicted of any disciplinary or criminal breaches whatsoever.

“Additionally, many of these officers have no relationship whatsoever with election duties or procurement office as falsely alleged by army leadership. Most importantly, Your Excellency, none of the 38 senior officers that were compulsorily retired was at any time ever charged or tried by a court martial or found guilty of any offence in line with due process of the armed forces extant rules and regulations, before they respectively heard of their retirement in the media. Interestingly, none of these officers has been informed of the particulars of any alleged offence till date,” the petitioners explained.

In response however, the Minister of Defence and the Chief of Army Staff went to the media with the narrative that the 38 army officers were professionally corrupt and that these officers were punished after due process. This is however, totally false and untrue, according to evidence on ground.

Separately and collectively; at different times and different settings, the affected officers had taken their cases to various authorities seeking fair hearing and consequent reinstatement. Most of them have also described the reasons given for their compulsory retirement as untenable because the action clearly contravened the Armed Forces Act (AFA), CAP A20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, which states that “all military officers are entitled to appear before a Court Martial to ascertain their guilt or otherwise when accused or alleged to have committed an offence”.

It is assumed that in taking such hasty decision which affected mostly officers of a particular region, the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Buratai, actually had a hidden agenda that tends toward ethnic cleansing. It is even funny that some of them were out of the country at the time some of the infringements were allegedly committed, while others had neither been queried nor ever received any summons before a civil or military tribunal or inquiry.

Specifically, four of the officers: Brig. Gen. Aghachi, Brig. Gen. I.M Lawson, Col. M.A Suleiman and Lt. Col T.E Arigbe, were actually on assignment out of the country, but were also retired without fair hearing.

In all of the cases, Buratai and the Army Council, with impunity, ran foul of the Nigerian Constitution, which under Section 36 (2) (a): “Provides for an opportunity for the persons whose rights and obligations may be affected to make representations to the administering authority before that authority makes the decision affecting that person.”

It was alleged that the officers supposedly refused to cooperate with the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) strongholds. Consequently, they lost the states and tend to take their pound of flesh, having won at the centre. It was also alleged that a prominent minister from the South South, who is also close to the government of Buhari, highly instigated the dismissals.

Nigerians want to know the following: 1. Why the Buratai-led army will lie against the officers just to dismiss them; 2. Why were the officers not granted fair hearing and why was due process not followed? 3. Why has it been difficult for the army to reinstate Colonels Chidi Ukoha, Danladi Hassan and Osita Nwankwo, who were exonerated by the National Assembly and Industrial courts till date like they quickly reinstated Gen. Ahmadu Mohammed. 4. Could it be that Buratai/Army actually has some skeletons in its cupboard?

It is quite saddening and disheartening to note injustice has been meted out to these fine officers by the army leadership with flagrant disregard for the laws and Constitution of the land, military justice in addition to plain honesty and integrity. The burning question therefore, is for how long will we remain unjust as a nation?

In a budding democracy like ours, upholding truth, justice and the constitution are crucial for the growth of the nation. Simply put, why have the officers been denied the cardinal tenets of justice, fair hearing and due process as enshrined in the constitution. Anyone who has denied them these things must be reminded that he has breached our laws. Such a brazen act of injustice and illegality should not be allowed to stand as none of the Army 38 was charged, tried or found guilty of an offence.

It is imperative that the June 10 decision be reviewed in the interest of justice and fairness and let the young officers in their prime of nation building return to their chosen career.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headline

Second Term for Tinubu Will Turn Governors into Total Slaves, Dele Momodu Warns

Published

on

By

Chairman, Ovation Media Group, and former presidential aspirant, Aare Dele Momodu, has expressed strong concern over what he described as growing political support for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu among state governors across the country.

Speaking during an interview on News Central TV, Momodu said he was shocked by the level of backing the president is reportedly receiving, warning that Nigeria’s democracy could face serious risks if the current political trend continues.

The media entrepreneur cautioned that allowing Tinubu to secure a second term in 2027 could, in his view, lead to excessive concentration of power. He particularly criticized what he described as a growing wave of opposition figures aligning with the ruling All Progressives Congress> (APC).

Momodu referenced reports of opposition governors, including Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri, allegedly moving closer to the ruling party, describing the development as politically troubling.

According to him, some governors are allegedly competing to demonstrate loyalty to the president ahead of future elections.

“The governors are fighting to ensure Tinubu wins a second term, fighting to be the biggest thug for him. If a man in his first term can capture the bodies and souls of Nigerians this way, imagine what he would do with a second term. It will be a full-blown dictatorship, and the governors will regret it as they become total slaves to him,” Momodu said.

He concluded by urging Nigerians to remain vigilant and actively protect democratic institutions, warning that unchecked consolidation of political power could threaten the nation’s democracy and future stability.

Gistmania

Continue Reading

Headline

Court Validates PDP 2025 Convention in Ibadan, Affirms Turaki-led NWC

Published

on

By

The Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan has affirmed the validity of the 2025 Elective Convention of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), which produced Dr. Kabiru Turaki as the substantive National Chairman of the party.

Delivering judgment on Friday, Justice Ladiran Akintola upheld the convention in its entirety, ruling that it was conducted in full compliance with the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions governing party elections in Nigeria.

The decision marked a significant legal victory for the party’s leadership and brought clarity to the dispute surrounding the convention’s legitimacy.

The ruling followed an amended originating summons filed by Misibau Adetunmbi (SAN) on behalf of the claimant, Folahan Malomo Adelabi, in Suit No. I/1336/2025.

In a comprehensive judgment, the court granted all 13 reliefs sought by the claimant, effectively endorsing the processes and outcomes of the Ibadan convention.

Justice Akintola held that the convention, organised by the recognised leadership of the party, satisfied all laid-down legal requirements as stipulated in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Electoral Act 2022 (as amended), and the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.

The court found no breach of due process or statutory non-compliance in the conduct of the exercise.

In the same proceedings, the court dismissed the Motion on Notice seeking a stay of proceedings and suspension of the ruling, filed by Sunday Ibrahim (SAN) on behalf of Austin Nwachukwu and two others. The applications were described as lacking merit.

Earlier in the proceedings, the court had also rejected a bid by Ibrahim to have his clients joined in the suit.

Justice Akintola ruled at the time that the joinder application was unsubstantiated and consequently dismissed it.

Continue Reading

Headline

Opposition Parties Reject 2026 Electoral Act, Demand Fresh Amendment

Published

on

By

Opposition political parties have rejected the 2026 Electoral Act recently passed by the National Assembly, which President Bola Tinubu swiftly signed into law.

The parties called on the National Assembly to immediately begin a fresh amendment process to remove what they described as “all obnoxious provisions” in the law.

Their position was made known at a press briefing themed “Urgent Call to Save Nigeria’s Democracy,” held at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel in Abuja on Thursday.

In a communiqué read by the Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) Ahmed Ajuji, the opposition leaders stated:

“We demand that the National Assembly immediately commence a fresh amendment to the Electoral Act 2026, to remove all obnoxious provisions and ensure that the Act reflects only the will and aspiration of Nigerians for free, fair, transparent and credible electoral process in our country. Nothing short of this will be acceptable to Nigerians.”

Some of the opposition leaders present in at the event include former Senate President David Mark; former Governor of Osun State, Rauf Aregbesola; former Vice President Atiku Abubakar; former Governor of Rivers State, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi; and former Governor of Anambra State, Peter Obi, all from the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The National Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), Ahmed Ajuji, and other prominent members of the NNPP, notably Buba Galadima, were also in attendance.

The coalition said the amended law, signed by Bola Tinubu, contains “anti-democratic” clauses, which they argue may weaken electoral transparency and public confidence in the voting system.

At the centre of the opposition’s concerns is the amendment to Section 60(3), which allows presiding officers to rely on manual transmission of election results where there is communication failure.

According to the coalition, the provision weakens the mandatory electronic transmission of results and could create loopholes for manipulation.

They argued that Nigeria’s electoral technology infrastructure is sufficient to support nationwide electronic transmission, citing previous assurances by officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The parties also rejected the amendment to Section 84, which restricts political parties to direct primaries and consensus methods for candidate selection.

They described the change as an unconstitutional intrusion into the internal affairs of parties, insisting that indirect primaries remain a legitimate democratic option.

The opposition cited alleged irregularities in the recent Federal Capital Territory local government elections as evidence of what they described as a broader pattern of electoral compromise.

They characterised the polls as a “complete fraud” and said the outcome has deepened their lack of confidence in the ability of the electoral system to deliver credible elections in 2027.

The coalition also condemned reported attacks on leaders of the African Democratic Congress in Edo State, describing the incidents as a serious threat to democratic participation and political tolerance.

They warned that increasing violence against opposition figures could destabilise the political environment if not urgently addressed.

In their joint statement, the opposition parties pledged to pursue “every constitutional means” to challenge the Electoral Act 2026 and safeguard voters’ rights.

“We will not be intimidated,” the leaders said, urging civil society organisations and citizens to support efforts aimed at protecting Nigeria’s democratic system.

On February 18, 2026, President Bola Tinubu signed the Electoral Act (Amendment) 2026 into law following its passage by the National Assembly. The Act introduced several reforms, including statutory recognition of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and revised election timelines.

However, opposition figures such as Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi have also called for further amendments, particularly over the manual transmission fallback clause, which critics say leaves room for manipulation.

The president said the law will strengthen democracy and prevent voter disenfranchisement.

Tinubu defended manual collation of results, questioned Nigeria’s readiness for full real-time electronic transmission, and warned against technical glitches and hacking.

The Electoral Act sparked intense debate in the National Assembly over how election results should be transmitted ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Civil society groups under the “Occupy NASS” campaign demanded real-time transmission to curb manipulation.

In the Senate, lawmakers clashed during consideration of Clause 60, which allows manual transmission of results if electronic transmission fails.

Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe (ADC, Abia South) demanded a formal vote to remove the proviso permitting manual transmission, arguing against weakening real-time electronic reporting.

The move led to a heated exchange on the floor, with Senate President Godswill Akpabio initially suggesting the demand had been withdrawn.

After procedural disputes and a brief confrontation among senators, a division was conducted. Fifteen opposition senators voted against retaining the manual transmission proviso, while 55 supported it, allowing the clause to stand.

Earlier proceedings had briefly stalled during clause-by-clause review, prompting consultations and a closed-door session.

In the House of Representatives, a similar disagreement came up over a motion to rescind an earlier decision that mandated compulsory real-time electronic transmission of results to IReV.

Although the “nays” were louder during a voice vote, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas ruled in favour of rescinding the decision, triggering protests and an executive session.

Continue Reading

Trending