It’s Wrong To Say Election Was Militarised, Says Gen Buratai

The Nigerian Army has been in the eye of the storm over the conduct
of soldiers deployed to provide security during the 2019 elections. The
soldiers have been roundly accused in several quarters of committing
infractions, including partisan interference in the electoral process,
that seriously undermined the credibility and sanctity of the elections.

But it is an accusation that the Chief of
Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai, in this interview with pressmen,
dismisses in its entirety.

The military was accused of
aiding in election malpractices like snatching of ballot boxes. Your
reaction? Militarisation has to be defined. What do you mean by
militarisation?

“How exactly did the military take part in
the elections? Generalisation is not the best. People just use the word
militarisation without defining it. Was the so-called militarisation
everywhere across the country? Why are people making so much noise about
it? They are giving the impression that the military was involved in
the entire process in the whole country.

“It is just probably a
definition they only restricted to Lagos or where? ..Niger-Delta mostly,
People cannot just use the word militarisation in general terms to say
the security agencies were involved.

“Who are the people
involved? What does the Constitution say about the role of the military?
We have the constitutional provision. We have made it very clear; we
are not part of these elections, we are only supporting the police.
Anything we do there is helping the police who are representing the
civil authority in law enforcement and it is very clear that we have
been called out to support the civil authority. That does not mean
militarisation.

“And once we go out there, we are performing
police role, it is not a military role, we are supporting the police
essentially; that is very clear. The military was called out to come and
support the police. So, they are just using the military in order to
justify their failures, to justify their inadequacies, to justify their
inability to rig because the security forces provided the needed
security to prevent massive rigging, ballot box-snatching and so on.

“But
strictly, the use of the word, militarisation is misplaced, it is
wrong. We were there to perform our responsibilities based on the
invitation to support the police which is legitimate. There is no way
you will say that the election was militarised; it is misuse of the
term. If really the election was militarised, I tell you, nobody would
take the law into his hands the way they did brazenly and deliberately
did, even attacking our men, killing our personnel.

“An officer
was killed, policemen were killed so if we were to take drastic steps to
really show we were involved, it would have been worse than this. We
were able to maintain law and order; we were able to conduct ourselves
within the rules of engagement which is legitimate.

“So there is
a deliberate misconception or misinterpretation of the role of the
military in order to malign the military and discredit it despite the
stupendous efforts we have made to ensure security in support of the
civil authority.

“And you know very well if the security
agencies, including the military, had not come out to support the
elections in providing security, the level of insecurity, the level of
killings, arson, ballot box-snatching and so on, would have been worse
than what was experienced. So many of the stakeholders, both at home and
abroad, have commended the military for remaining neutral, impartial
and conducting themselves professionally; but a few elements who felt
they were not given the chance to rig and to disturb on a massive scale
the election process, are the ones shouting that the whole process was
militarised.

“The military was not there to support any
political party; we were there to provide adequate security as
requested, in support of the electoral process. That was essentially
what we did. So to say that the process was militarised is a misplaced
use of word; it is unfortunate. Over the years, from our historical
experiences, the outcomes or results of elections have been the major
cause of instability in our polity.

“They have led to a lot of
killings, arson, you name it: in Kaduna, Zangon-Kataf, Modakeke and so
many other places. So historically, if you look at it, we had those
unfortunate incidents because they were allowed to go out of control.

“We
had so many underlying factors; even in the First Republic, we saw the
underlying factors that led to the civil war; it is the same outcome of
elections that led to that, characterised by so many malpractices. So
government doesn’t want the same thing to happen and that was why the
military was called in to support the police. There is no way we would
be partisan; the country’s stability, the country’s peace is our
watchword, it is very, very fundamental. Some people just chose to blame
different entities and bodies for their failures.”

On the allegation that the soldiers caught snatching ballot boxes are fake
“Yes, that is another dimension because as I said, those people that
did not want the election to go smoothly, created their own local
militia, gave them military and police uniforms to be moving out here
and there to misbehave, snatch ballot boxes, to disrupt the electoral
process and so on. So anyone that sees them will automatically say it is
the military and that is completely at variance with our code of
conduct, with our ethics and the way we train our officers and men to
ensure they behave professionally; that is very clear.

“We
arrested several of them and you must have seen our press releases with
pictures of the fake soldiers, fake policemen, fake security operatives
and so on. So once you see this, it is not the Army that created those
ones and gave them uniforms; so instead of them to admit their
shortcomings and misconduct, they are covering their heinous
activities/crimes under the guise of militarisation.

“It is so
painful, so terrible that they don’t have conscience and continue to
blame the military for their own mischievous actions. This is where the
Press needs to be objective, look at it critically. The Army cannot go
and dress fake people or criminals to go and act on their behalf. We
have seen the thugs, the militias; so where does the military come in?

“These
are very clear. So we have to be reasonable and objective; we are paid
by the state to ensure that we defend our country and prevent breakdown
of law and order for us to progress; there is no other way. It is very
important.”