WHY THE RUTHLESS COMMAND  OF PMB MAY BE A RED-CARD OFFENCE. 

Directive of Mr President in his speech at APC caucus meeting held on Monday 18th February after INEC rudely aborted and postponed the presidential and National Assembly elections scheduled for 16th February ,  2019 to 23rd was a charge to the police and the army to deal ruthlessly with  ballot box  snatching even if at the cost of the lives of the suspects   .  Should those potential lawbreakers be treated otherwise ; with kid gloves ?  I don’t think that is the case being made by those criticizing the President for sanguine directive . 

The concern  is that such directive had unintended and deleterious consequences that ill augurs for our democracy and constitutional order .  Reasonable proportionality is the true test of appropriate response by law enforcement agencies to any present danger to societal peace , good order and effective governance .  Election drenched in blood birth can only be fit for  a nation of baboons ; the healing may not come fast enough for the regime that benefits from it.   It  is all the more regrettable because it is an issue that has been tested , contested,  settled and tested by the court in a previous election litigation  in which President Buhari  as a respondent and Alhaji Atiku Abubakar (by privity ) were directly involved . 

Bellot box snatching is not the only egregious electoral malpractice that deserves stern deterrence and punishment . It is not a criminal business exclusively  conducted by hoodlums and party thugs - they are a physical manifestation of the scheme for an  offense which does not tell the full story  ; the politicians backed by state security connivance intiate the deed and supervise it from  their comfortable  hideouts.  When you shoot the actors dead at the place of actual commission (locus criminis) , you break the chain of investigation trajectory  to the actual masterminds .  Plus the thugs get the Dutch courage to act from assurance that they are protected by the coercive powers of the state .  It’s an unfortunate turn for PMB to make that  pronouncement . Regardless of the intention or anger that provoked him , it is a settled matter of abuse of powers by an incumbent President to unleash and inject armed soldiers  into the venue of electoral ballots ( polling units).  The Presiding Officer at the polling unit is vested with command powers over security details on duty who must keep a distance from the actual designated  voting area . The security operatives  are only entitled to approach the voting area where invited by the presiding officer when there is cause to apprehend electoral offense or disturbance .  The presiding officers are by law the chief security officers in their station during election . This issue was litigated to finality  in the aftermath of 2003 presidential election .  A petition was presented to contest the outcome returning PDP candidate as winner : it was between  MD Yusuf  v OBASANJO (2005) NWLR [Pt. 956] . Permit my modesty - I handled the case . The court held that on no account should the army be deployed for election duties by the President to whom they owe unquestionable loyalty as their commander in chief - by contrast the IGP is not liable to take instruction from President in its specific operational deployments - only general instructions . Plus , only the  police and other civil Defence (as at  then non arm  bearing ) paramilitary services can be so engaged as first security responders - this is partly because expert testimony  accepted  as such by the court of appeal , established that military are only required to intervene in civil disturbances or threat where  the civil police are shown to be overwhelmed by the Occasion . The next level of force will be anti riot police and if still not adequate ; then the soldiers are to be brought into the fray not necessarily to co- operate with civil police ; because at that moment the police are presumed ill suited to contain the threat  . Where then  did PMB derive the intelligence to anticipatorily debrief soldiers to deal ruthlessly with misbehaving civilian poplulace during elections in the manner of his pronouncement? Let’s not validate ill- thought precedents that may  boomerang  and haunt us in the future . 

In the context of the issue , this is the holding of the Court of Appeal  - at page 175-176  of the report , here is what Salami JCA said in his lead opinion of the unanimous judgment of the court of appeal which stood undisturbed on further appeal to the Supreme Court. 

“Notwithstanding that constitutional issue or issues cannot be  canvassed as a ground in an election petition , the people charged with responsibility should should be able to draw on the wealth of experience of the first petitioner , a former Inspector General of Police when first respondent was Head of State  and has become an institution in his own right .  He stated thus- 

“ When I was the Inspector General of Police there was a standard procedure laid down for police to ask for  support of the military and on such occasions it was not that they worked together . In such circumstance the police merely withdrew from the area and allowed the soldiers to move into the place and that would certainly occur when there was a break down of law and order such as Maitasine incident in Kano . There was no incident between January and May 2003 warranting the situation I have just described justifying calling out the army .  When military are deployed they serve under the command of their officers . The Commsnder-in-chief is in charge of all the armed forces and the military take command in accordance with their hierarchy or command structure .” 

I concur . General Akale himself substantially echoed the view expressed in the testimony of Alhaji M.D. Yusuf. It is up to the police to protect our nascent democracy and not the. Military otherwise the democracy might be unwittingly militarized .  This is not what the citizenry bargained for after wrestling power from  the military in 1999.  Conscious step or steps should be taken to civilianise the polity and thereby ensure survival and sustenance of democracy . “ 

It is remarkable that the present President was originally joined in that suit ; while Present Candidate of PDP was the vice - President elected along with President Obasanjo in the election being challenged in the petition leading to that judgment .  General Buhari fought gallantly up to the Supreme Court to his name struck out as a co-respondent in the petition.  His appeal was upheld and his name was accordingly struck out paving way for him to prosecute his own separate petition .  

  What a shame that the issue so eloquently settled in  2005 has been thrown up afresh for debate and re-litigation by the ruthless comment of  President of General Buhari - a contestant in the postponed 2019 presidential election and who is also the incumbent president. Do we ever learn lessons of history in Nigeria ?

It is remarkable that the present President  was originally joined in that suit ; while Present candidate  of PDP was the vice - president elected along with President Obasanjo in the election being challenged in the petition leading to that judgment .  What a shame that the issue so eloquently settled in  2005 has been thrown up afresh for debate and re-controverting  by the ruthless comment of  President of General Buhari - a contestant in the postponed 2019 presidential election and who is also the incumbent president. Do we ever learn lessons of history in Nigeria ?

For fuller access to the judgment , I have supplied an online link to it.