The row over Amnesty International’s report

IN the last few days, the Nigerian Army and the Federal Government have taken on the international human rights watchdog, Amnesty International (AI), over its latest report accusing the Nigerian military of sundry crimes against humanity in the course of prosecuting the war against terror in the North-East. In that report entitled “Harvest of Death: Three Years of Bloody Clashes Between Farmers and Herders,” the organisation alleged that the government’s failure to investigate communal clashes and bring perpetrators to justice has fuelled “a bloody escalation” in the conflict between farmers and herders, resulting in at least 3,641 deaths in the past three years and the displacement of thousands more, with 57 per cent of the recorded deaths occurring this year.

The AI report claimed that security agencies were often positioned close to the attacks but were slow to act, ignoring prior warnings of imminent raids in some cases. It therefore called on the government to ensure thorough, effective and impartial investigation and prosecution of any security agent perpetrating abuses or deliberately ignoring attacks in some states. It canvassed that the findings of the investigations  be made public, while the government should urgently domesticate the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons in the national laws. Needless to say, the military did not take kindly to the report. Reacting to the report, the Nigerian Army called for the closure of all Al offices in the country, accusing the organisation of working hard to destabilise the country. According to the army spokesman, Brigadier-General Sani Usman, AI was attempting to destabilise the country through fabrication of fictitious allegations of human rights abuses against the security agencies. He accused the organisation of engaging in clandestine sponsorship of dissident groups to stage protests and make unfounded allegations against the leadership of the Nigerian military.

Usman said: “They have tried over the years using Boko Haram terrorists conflicts, Islamic Movement in Nigeria, some activists and now herders-farmers conflicts. The NGO is on the verge of releasing yet another concocted report against the military, ostensibly against the Nigerian Army. Consequently, Nigerians should be wary of Amnesty International (Nigeria) because its goals are to destabilise Nigeia and to dismember it. The Nigerian Army has no option but to call for the closure of Amnesty International offices in Nigeria, if such recklessness continues.”

• Violators of Electoral Act shall be prosecuted ― INEC chairman

On its own part, the Federal Government sided with the military, noting that the AI report had dampened the morale of the officers and men battling terror in the North-East. According to the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Mr. Garba Shehu, while President Muhammadu Buhari cherished the standards on which Amnesty International and similar institutions were founded, the organisation’s operations in Nigeria seemed geared towards damaging the morale of the Nigerian military. Shehu added: “It often appears as if the Nigerian government is fighting two wars on terror: against Boko Haram and against Amnesty International. The obvious bias and inaccuracies in Amnesty International’s recent country reports on Nigeria risk Amnesty’s reputation as an impartial international organisation. President Buhari appeals to the leadership of Amnesty International to scrutinise its advocacy in Nigeria, especially as it relates to the war against terrorism.”

To all intents and purposes, the reaction to AI’s report is unsatisfactory. Although we have, in our previous editorials, queried AI’s seeming obsession with the rights of terrorists, there is, we believe, sufficient reason for  a robust interrogation  of the central claims of the latest report instead of the rather peremptory, angry retort of the military and the presidency. To be sure, it would be a disservice to the country to dampen the morale of the hard-fighting, gallant officers and men of the military battling to protect the country’s territorial integrity in the North-East or indeed anywhere. Nevertheless, the country can ill afford wanton abuses of the rights of law-abiding individuals under the guise of fighting terror. If in conventional wars, errors are committed, there is no reason to suppose that the very unconventional war in which the military is engaged in the North-East could be an exception. This is the more reason the allegations by AI should be thoroughly investigated not only with a view to punishing offenders, but also ensuring that structures are put in place to prevent recurrences. This is why we agree with AI that the reports of previous probes should be released.

The foregoing should however not be taken to mean that AI does not have any questions to answer. For instance, it would be interesting to have, even if for once, a report by AI specifically detailing the murderous activities of terrorists and the effort to contain them. The organisation must do some soul searching and find out the merits, if any, in the army/government’s position. Surely, AI is not suggesting that it is always right while the government is always wrong? In carrying out its duties, it must not give the impression of bias against the Nigerian military or indeed any organisation. That cannot be too much to ask.