The incident at Banex Plaza

THE spokesman of the Nigerian Army, Major-General Onyema Nwachukwu, recently made an announcement about the shutdown of Banex Plaza, the scene of an unfortunate incident that culminated in assault on some army personnel by an irate mob at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. Not a few persons have interrogated his authority to make such an unguarded pronouncement in a democracy. Worse still, the army authorities are insisting that the plaza will not be reopened until the owner fishes out the soldiers’ assailants, thereby forcing the proprietor of the plaza to illegally assume the role of the police, as it were. Yes, it is normal for the army authorities to frown on any incident that subjects its personnel to avoidable mob action, but it is patently illegal for it to take the law into its own hands. Nigeria has come a long way in the practice of civil rule and should not be witnessing the leadership of an important state institution taking precipitate action that flies in the face of reason, and more significantly, the rule of law, in a bid to redress the alleged injustice meted out to its personnel. That is self-help, which is abhorrent. It is most unfortunate, and indeed disturbing, that the army, by the ill-advised announcement of shutting down Banex Plaza, misinterpreted its role in a democracy. If a Major-General does not know or is conveniently pretending not to know or, worst still, wouldn’t care a hoot about following due process in a clear case of conflict between soldiers and civilians, then it is little wonder that junior officers and soldiers often tend to be lawless in similar circumstances.

The background to the incident even calls for circumspection on the part of the military, except it has given authority to its personnel to act outside its mandate by playing the role of the police without the approval of the Commander-in-Chief. The transaction that allegedly resulted in the unfortunate incident reportedly happened between two civilians. One was said to have bought a phone from the other but later discovered that the device was faulty. He then reportedly went to complain about the faulty phone to the sellers in company with four soldiers! Pray, what is the business of these army personnel intervening in a simple transaction between two civilians? Apparently, the buyer wanted the soldiers to force the seller to resolve his complaint in his favour. The matter later resulted in an altercation as the seller reportedly resisted the attempt by the buyer and the soldiers to coerce him to replace the faulty device. And in the process, some misguided persons reportedly launched a vicious attack on the soldiers.

Were the army authorities justifiably provoked by the unwarranted attack on their personnel? Yes, but they went overboard by announcing the shutting down of Banex Plaza when they could have allowed the appropriate security agency, the police, to handle the arrest, investigation and prosecution of the assaulters. Even if the army had apprehended the assailants, the most apposite thing to do would have been to hand them over to the police. It, therefore, beggars belief that the army could be insisting on the owner of Banex Plaza fishing out the hoodlums as a condition for reopening the plaza it shut down. Could that mean that it intends to handle the case by itself if the assailants are arrested rather than hand them over to the police? If the army intends to handle the matter by itself, then it would be acting contrary to the law because neither the constitution nor the Armed Forces Act authorizes it to investigate criminal offences involving citizens who are not subject to service law.

Without doubt, the shutting down of Banex Plaza constitutes a dangerous signal. It suggests that the army leadership is still ingrained in the culture of shirking lawful processes in the society while seeing itself as not bound by laid down rules and regulations for settling disagreements in the society. A situation whereby the rank and file easily descend into violence and mob justice in their interaction with civilians if things do not go their own way, with the military authorities turning around to provide justification for their lawless actions or even trying to get justice for them by disregarding extant procedures, as in the instant case, is highly condemnable. This kind of lawless disposition cannot and should not be tolerated in any decent society, especially under a democratic administration where the rule of law is very pivotal in guiding the decisions and actions of everyone.

To be sure, we see the incident as deplorable and we condemn in no unmistakable terms the assault on military personnel or uniformed persons in general. The military is one of the most respected institutions not just because of the critical role of protecting the Nigerian state against external aggression, but also because of the high degree of discipline associated with it. It can therefore be disappointing if this discipline is not reflected in its interaction with the public. Regardless of the provocation, it should follow due process. For instance, it is not the place of the military to lock up business premises because it is not a court of law. The military should not be the judge in its own case. The police should be allowed to prosecute crime: police roles should not be subjugated. Army personnel should be seen to be exhibiting a high degree of discipline each time they have an encounter with members of the public. The Banex incident is not the first incident of such flagrant disregard for due process by army or military personnel in general. Military personnel must learn to exercise restraint at all times: mob action, each time there has been an infraction, is a demonstration of lawlessness. Innocent people get brutalised in the process, and that shouldn’t be happening at all in a civilised clime, let alone the patently intolerable frequency with which citizens are treated to such shows of shame in the land. For instance, how can the army ask the proprietor of the plaza to produce the suspects who attacked military personnel? Is that not the job of the police? We call on the political and professional leaderships of the military to take appropriate steps to rein in the excesses of military personnel and improve military-civilian relationship.

It is imperative, too, that members of the public guard against undue provocation of people in uniform as it is tantamount to irresponsible and dangerous gambit for unarmed persons to trade violence with personnel of the military. Yes, their frequent use by the state to help in the maintenance of internal security might have made members of the public to become unduly familiar with military personnel, and perhaps the familiarity over time has started to breed contempt, but it must be remembered that this category of compatriots was, first and foremost, trained to kill their enemies. It is, therefore, foolhardy, and indeed suicidal, to engage soldiers in violent confrontations. Besides, the uniform represents the authority of the state which must be respected at all times. In civilised climes, soldiers are treated with reverence as they are known to often sacrifice their own comfort in order for the rest of the citizens to enjoy theirs. Nonetheless, we urge the officers and men of the Nigerian military to always act within the ambit of the law, and refrain from unauthorised engagements/assignments that predispose them to attacks by civilians.

In the same vein, we urge members of the public to realise that any attempt to demystify the military through incessant civilian attacks on its personnel can only result in the enthronement of self-help and anarchy, which does not bode well for any society. It is, therefore, important that awareness is officially created and promoted on proper military-civil relations so that both sides can see each other as partners in progress.

ALSO READ: Emirship tussle: Move Aminu Bayero out of Kano, deputy gov begs Tinubu