The Nigerian Army recently decried reports of Amnesty International (AI) as inimical to efforts at securing the country and consequently demanded closure of Nigerian offices of the global human rights body. Curiously, the demand by the army coincided with similar denunciation of AI by the Presdency. In a statement, the president’s spokesperson, Mallam Garba Shehu expressed displeasure over reports highlighting abuses by soldiers engaged in the war against terror in the northeast.
It would be recalled that AI had in a number of reports drawn attention to varying degrees of human rights abuses by soldiers which the military authority has often refuted. Mallam Shehu in the statement acknowledged the crucial roles of non-sate actors in the monitoring and reportage of human rights abuses but nevertheless frowned at activities of AI which it claimed have contributed in dampening the morale of the Nigerian military.
A statement by the spokesperson of Nigerian Army, Brigadier General Sani Usman accused AI of acts capable of destabilising the country on account of successive indictments of the military of perpetrating human rights abuses against innocent civilians; particularly Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) who are victims of Boko Haram insurgency.
However, the head of AI in Nigeria, Auwal Rafsanjani insisted the action of the military could not be the solution to negligence or failure to timely respond to issues relating to human rights abuses and the compelling imperative of securing the country. We are of strong conviction that the apex leadership of AI should be worried by allegation from no less quarter than the Presidency that the war against terror was being fought on one hand against Boko Haram and on the other hand against the global human right body.
To this extent, we would expect AI international office to verify the vexatious country reports which indicted the Nigerian military. While we do not imply AI does not scrutinise its reports, we are however convinced it behoves on the global body to avoid future contentions capable of impugning on its reputation.
However, regardless of the grouse of the Nigerian Army and the government, we consider demand for the closure of offices of Amnesty International (AI) in the country as most disturbing. It is regrettable that the frosty relationship between the military and global human rights group has worsened rather than improve since the war against terror in Nigeria’s northeast intensified.
A situation where the military considers AI as working at cross purposes and antagonistic to its quest to safeguard lives and property in Nigeria is most unfortunate and cannot be in the interest of humanity. Considering the spate of worsening insecurity across the country, we do sincerely hope the military would not expect to be trusted with the responsibility of carrying out the onerous duty of protecting lives without being held to account.
The world has since transited the era whereby military exercises are carried out under whatever guise without periodic oversight and evaluation by critical global stakeholders like AI. Indeed, Human rights groups ought to be seen as partners in progress in the bid to wage successful war against terror. To this extent, the long-drawn faceoff between the global human rights body and the Nigerian military was unwarranted and ought not to have degenerated to such abysmal level which is bound to be counter-productive.
More importantly, we appreciate the genuine concerns and frustration of Nigerian Army in its effort to keep up with the momentum of widening insecurity in the country. No doubt, the war against the dreaded Boko Haram insurgents has been quite challenging and if not confounding in the light of the number of soldiers who have fallen victims in recent months.
We are however concerned about the likelihood of unintended consequences of hostility against human rights groups; particularly global groups who ordinarily should be seen as partners in quest to deepen democracy, good governance and security in Nigeria.
We are therefore compelled to counsel the Nigerian Army against any form of arm-twisting that could translate into forcible harassment of human rights campaigners and their platforms. The military and the government should therefore resist the urge to muffle AI and other human rights groups in the country.
We recommend continuous engagement with all humanitarian partners in the northeast and across Nigeria. Forcing AI out of the country would only amount to wrongheaded approach that is bound to culminate in undesirable consequences for the military and the country at large.
Notwithstanding, we consider allegation of clandestine sponsorship of dissident groups to protest against the leadership of the Nigerian military as grievous enough to warrant concrete proof beyond mere altercation. On the last note, we demand caution from the parties in the dispute while we reiterate the need for closer collaboration in future engagements.
END
Be the first to comment