It’s Wrong To Say Election Was Militarised – Buratai | Nairalaw

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.

In fact, in the estimation of many observers, both Federal
Government and the Army stand condemned over the undue
militarisation of the electoral process.

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

When asked that the military was accused of aiding in election
malpractices like snatching of ballot boxes, Buratai said:
“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, he said: “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.