Imprisoning the Future – Worrisome Situations in Nigerian Prisons.

by Eze Eluuchie,

Below is the basic data on inmates at the Owerri federal Prisons in Imo State, South Eastern Nigeria: 
          Prison Maximum Capacity:         540 inmates

          Presently accommodates:         2, 260 inmates

          Convicts:                                       216 inmates

          Non-convicts/Awaiting Trial:    2,044 inmates

The Owerri Federal Prisons presently accommodates 418.5% above the number of inmates it was built to hold. 90.44% of the inmates in the Prison are merely awaiting trial and have no business being in the Prison in the first place – until and if they are convicted.

Some persons awaiting trial have been detained at the Owerri Prisons for over 10 years.

In the course of interviewing some of the inmates or going through their case files (for those who still have case-files). a startling revelations immediately becomes apparent: quite a great proportion of those merely awaiting trial have not only stayed in custody beyond the period they would have served if they had actually been convicted, and secondly, some were just detained, on framed up charges by some 'big-man', which in some cases can be as mundane as an uncle who wants to do away with a 'troublesome' youngster who refuses to let his late fathers property be wrongly taken away. And pronto the youngster is thrown in to the prison and rots away there ad infinitum.

Earlier pro-bono efforts, under the aegis of the Prison Decongestion and Human Rights Program (PDHRP of PADDI Foundation) aimed at ameliorating the dire statistics above and ensuring that at the very least persons awaiting trial who had spent overly long periods in the Prison were released were frustrated by bureaucratic bottle-necks, demand of gratification by officers of the judiciary and the general decay of the Nigerian system.

Though Owerri Prisons stands out as having the worst Prisoner : Awaiting Trial Men (P:ATM) ratio among Nigerian prisons, the pattern is reflected across all prisons in Nigeria to a lesser level.

We shame ourselves and humanity by our treatment of those who we have, rightly and at times wrongly, consigned to the prisons. A place that ought to serve to reform and probably make better, is transformed to a pit where the negative is multiplied and society eventually pays a high price for allowing evil to flourish.  

One really wonders where all the millions of dollars in developmental aids and donor grants accorded to various government agencies and ‘human right protection’ or ‘civil liberty’ non-governmental organizations by foreign governments, development partners and donor organizations filtered to.

The real sorrow for the peoples of Nigeria is that whilst some pick-pockets, small time bandits are wallowing in our jail-houses, the mega criminals who rape the contraption blind, pillage the treasury and launder their loot in foreign territories and sponsor mass atrocities in a desperate bid to hold unto political power are escorted around our poorly paved streets in siren-blaring convoys, maiming and killing at will.  

For the sake of those who are saddled with citizenship of Nigeria, the Nigerian contraption simply needs to be restructured and renegotiated.

Picture: Inmates in a sleeping position at a Nigerian prison.

Travel Ban on Nationals of Seven Muslim-Majority States: Donald Trump, You Got It Wrong!

by Eze Eluchie,

The bombastic that he is, when Donald Trump as a candidate for the US Presidential elections was announcing at virtually all his campaign stops that he would, if elected, ban all Muslims from travelling into America, many an observer felt that such gross talk was merely to key into the base sentiments of the so-called middle-class fellows who had been abandoned by globalization and felt a need to ‘retrieve their America’ from whosoever.

The candidate is now POTUS and to the consternation of the international community, what had been thought of as mere campaign rhetoric has been signed into an Executive Order which bans travel to the United States of America by nationals of the following 7 Muslim-dominated countries, to wit: Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq and Iran! By fiat, a blanket embargo had been placed on all individuals whose sole criteria was being nationals of the 7-listed countries irrespective of their personal differences.

Whenever there is a blanket labelling of any group of people based on their religion, race, colour, particular physical peculiarities or other subjective criteria, and such subjective criteria forms the sole basis of apportioning benefits or liabilities, humanity hurts; as fairness, justice and equity takes the backseat. Experts in human psychology will readily confirm the commonality of our humanity. Human beings, of whatsoever race, creed, colour and wheresoever they may be located on earth are comprised of a similar number of basic building blocks, chromosomes. Saintly or criminal dispositions can be found in peoples of all races, nationalities and religions. Just like there are persons of saintly dispositions who happen to be nationals of European and North American countries or of any creed whatsoever, there are also persons of same disposition amongst the countries who are now subjected to very unfair categorizations resulting from the Executive Order, irrespective of creed.

What really did Mr. Trump hope to achieve by this clearly not well thought out blanket ban? Further alienate the nationals of these countries? Increase the recruitment base for extremist Islamist terror organizations? Make nationals of the listed countries who might have contributed or are contributing or intending to contribute to US advancement have a rethink? Ready the minds of other Muslim-dominated countries and Muslims generally where ever they may reside of whatever nationality (including Americans) begin to harbour ill-will against the US? The questions are endless, all in the negative without any likely positive purpose of such blanket ban.

When it is realized that nationals of the embargoed countries have not participated in any terrorist attacks against the US on US soil for the past several decades, as opposed to some other financially and strategically well-endowed countries Muslim-dominated countries within the same region whose nationals seem to have a passion for attacking the US (particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia whose nationals formed the bulk of the terrorists who participated in 9-11), the use of the guise of security threats posed by nationals of the listed countries as the excuse to place the blanket ban exposes a unique personal flaw of Mr. Trump that had previously only been hinted at – a willingness to move against supposedly weaker states whilst shying away from confronting stronger adversaries – the countries whose nationals are banned from travelling to the US, with the exception of Iran, are relatively weak states.

Immediate dire consequence of this ban will manifest firstly in Somalia, where efforts to shore up the internationally recognized Government will be be dealt a near fatal blow by the blanket categorization of all Somalis.  Al-Shabab will be celebrating the travel ban as most Somali’s will now have no other option than to pitch tents with its ‘the-West-hates-us’ ideology.  The people of Sudan who are now made to join their long-term dictator and fugitive from ICC-trial, Omar al-Bashir in the list of those banned from travelling to the US may begin to rethink their hostility to Al-Bashir who is now made to look like ‘one of them’. The only entities who are celebrating the travel ban will surely include ISIS, AQIM, l Qeida and other extremist Islamist terror groups whose job of soliciting for more converts has suddenly been made easier.

There is no doubt that every country has the right to protect its citizens from harm and terrorists the best way it knows how, but such protections cannot be in a manner that contradicts basic norms of decency and has all the potential of boomeranging  to cause greater harm.  It is difficult to see in any way the travel ban would benefit any interests of the United States or its position as a leading democratic nation or the so-called ‘leader of the free world’.  

On the ban of travel to the United States for nationals of 7 Muslim majority countries, Mr. Trump, you got it woefully wrong!

Picture: Placard at rally protesting the travel ban.

Nigeria's Continuing Manifestations of Religious Bigotry and Intolerance

by Eze Eluchie,

When an ethnocentric and religious bigot presides over a secular country, systematic efforts to outlaw all other religions except the bigots religion takes center stage (such as the present instance of exclusion of all other religious associations except the Islamic Muslim Student Society of Nigeria in a university funded from state treasury).

This effort at religious cleansing by the Umar Musa Yar'Adua University, Katsina State, is merely one of several of its kind going on simultaneously across the country masterminded by government agencies. Other manifestations of religious bigotry (some of which have taken place with explicit support and or encouragement of Nigeria's Federal Government, include: Ethnic and religious cleansing, interference in the management of Christian religious organizations, demolition of Christian places of worship, abolition of Christian association from educational institutions and other public forums, and so on. These efforts will continue and perhaps only abate when frontally confronted.

FREEMIND and the various media associated with it and FB Page had, prior to the 2015 presidential elections, severally warned Nigerians of the character and persona of Mr. Buhari prior to the 2015 general elections. Now as religious bigotry manifests in high political offices in Nigeria, and the highest political office for that matter, Nigerians and the rest of the interested international community should brace themselves for what portends to be a most turbulent period – as there is bound to be resistance to the unfolding evil.

For any still interested in keeping the Nigerian contraption as an entity, the very first steps must be how to, within the provisions of the law, get the Muhammadu Buhari-led junta and its ethno-religious extremist mannerisms out of office as soon as possible.

Restructure and Renegotiate the Nigerian contraption whilst there is yet time.....

Picture: Copy of circular banning all religious except the Islamic Muslim Students Society of Nigeria in a publicly funded university in the home State of President Buhari.

ECOWAS Illegitimate War of Aggression Against The Gambia.

by Eze Eluchie,

For starters, let it be clearly understood that the actions of the President of The Gambia, Yahya Jammeh, to unilaterally seek to annul the results of the Presidential elections held in his country on 1st of December 2016 which he himself (President Jammeh) had voluntarily accepted defeat and publicly congratulated the winner thereof, is most reprehensible, unfortunate and unbecoming of a genuine leader.

President Jammeh’s action has been rightly condemned by the international community, with unanimous resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Presidential Council, amongst several others.

All over the world, there are international conventions and protocols, and proper procedures and channels for addressing misconducts and harms by Heads of States or other high ranking state officials,  against the people over whom they rule, particularly if such misconducts threaten the peace and stability of the country concerned and the sub-region or the wider international community. Proper care is always taken to ensure that justice is served

It is in the light of the foregoing that it has become imperative to assess the reaction of the Authority of the Heads of Government of ECOWAS to the political crisis in The Gambia and gauge whether such reaction is legitimate, commensurate with the transgressions/wrongs allegedly committed, or if the ECOWAS reaction itself opens another Pandora box of transgressions and illegalities which the international community should rightly step into to ensure that justice is served.

After its initial response of condemning Presidents Jammeh’s repudiation of his concession of defeat and the failure of a Delegation of its member states Heads of Government which sought to compel President Jammeh to leave office as scheduled, the Authority of Heads of State of ECOWAS (the highest organ of the West African sub-regional inter-state union) proceeded to order President Jammeh to vacate his office at the expiration of his tenure by midnight on the 18^th of January 2017, or risk being forcefully removed from office by military action.

The order of the Authority of Heads of State of ECOWAS immediately raised tension across The Gambia, leading to mass exodus of peoples from Banjul, its capital city, to the hinterland and, with several thousands more fleeing from The Gambia to neighbouring Senegal and beyond. As the deadline approached, military hardware and soldiers from ECOWAS member states (Nigeria, Senegal, Togo and Mali) amassed around The Gambia in very hostile manners, preparatory for an invasion to implement the order to vacate office imposed by the Authority of Heads of State of ECOWAS.

ECOWAS ACTION IS UNLAWFUL AND ILEGAL.

The relationship amongst ECOWAS member states is governed, basically, by the provisions of the ECOWAS Treaty as revised. A fundamental principle upon which ECOWAS is rooted is the principle of non-aggression against member states, as provided in Chapter II, Article 4(d) of the ECOWAS Treaty.

Chapter II, Article 4(e) further provides for “maintenance of regional peace, stability and security through the promotion and strengthening of good neighbourliness”, whilst Chapter II, Article 4(d)  provides for “peaceful settlement of disputes among Member States, active co-operation between neighbouring countries and promotion of a peaceful environment as a prerequisite for economic development”.

Nowhere in the ECOWAS Treaty is there a mandate for member states to wage war against other member states.

The Authority of Heads of State of ECOWAS has no powers whatsoever to unleash war or send in troops under any guise, more particularly in an aggressive manner, against the Government and peoples of The Gambia.

Quite contrary to the use of force and waging of war against member states, the ECOWAS Treaty, very explicitly provides for referral to its Community Court of Justice, which is situate in Abuja, Nigeria. Most unfortunately,  in its haste to remove President Yahya Jammeh from office, ECOWAS and its Authority of Heads of States is in default of Chapter III, Article 7 (3) {g} and {h} of the ECOWAS Treaty which provides as follows: “to refer where it deems necessary any matter to the Community Court of Justice when it confirms, that a Member State or institution of the Community has failed to honour any of its Obligations or an institution of the Community has acted beyond the limits of its authority or has abused the powers conferred on it by the provisions of this Treaty, by a decision of the Authority or a regulation of the Council;

(h) request the Community Court of Justice, as and when necessary, to give advisory opinion on any legal questions”

Only the African Union and the United Nations Security Council have the mandate, under their enabling charters to order military actions against recalcitrant governments and or entities. The activities and war being waged against the peoples of The Gambia by the ECOWAS and its Authority of Heads of States tantamount to a war of aggression under international law.

Impending Mass Murders and Mass Atrocities.

Having concluded that military action by ECOWAS and its constituent states against The Gambia over mere electoral matters is a wasteful and vicious war of aggression, it  will be apt to access the quantum of harm that will be occasioned, the entity leading the assault on The Gambia and its peoples and likely consequences thereof.

Already, an armada of forces comprised of soldiers from Nigeria, Senegal, Togo and Mali have amassed on the borders of The Gambia. The Gambia basically has no functional army. Considering the number of troops amassing at the borders of The Gambia, in the event of an appropriate and expected resistance from security personnel of The Gambia, a massacre of Gambian forces will ensue.  

Also considering the records of precision in the deployment of bombs and other arsenal of the lead-country in the assault against The Gambia, heavy civilian causalities will certainly occur. The Nigerian troops who are leading the assault against The Gambia are synonymous with abuse of right of civilians in Nigeria and just within the past 48 hours had bombed an Internally Displaced (IDP) Camp situate in Nigeria killing over 100 civilians comprised of the IDP’s and some field staff of international humanitarian organizations. Massive civilian causalities can be presumed from the war of aggression being waged by ECOWAS against The Gambia.

For the deaths and atrocities resulting from an illegitimate and unlawful war of aggression, there ought to be consequences to prevent repeats of such rascality in international relationship between states.

Worrisome Consequences:

What makes the situation in The Gambia more worrisome is the fact that internal and domestic conflict resolution mechanisms were basically not explored as the Authority of Heads of State of ECOWAS appeared in a haste to flex powers that were far outside its mandate. To compound matters, the Parliament of the Republic of The Gambia, had as a stop-gap measure, passed a resolution conferring legitimacy for a 90-day extension of tenure for President Jammeh, a resolution whose validity was yet to be tested in under existing mechanisms of The Gambia. In other words, if forces of the military of ECOWAS member states invade The Gambia to install a new President on the 19^th of January 2017 as is being threatened, ECOWAS would have set a very worrisome precedent of ousting a legitimate government of one of its member states.

ECOWAS is setting a dangerous precedent for itself and countries within the union. If an invasion can be undertaken for mere electoral issues for which available local remedies have not been exhausted, who knows what excuse will found the next military invasion of another member state further down the line? Will it be legitimate if the military of any two or more member states of ECOWAS invade another ECOWAS member state to stop the maltreatment or marginalization of ethnic minorities? Will it be legitimate for such invasion to be undertaken over commercial issues? ECOWAS has indeed opened a new vista of problems and conflict for itself from which extrication will not be easy.

Picture: Map and Flags of ECOWAS member states and the Arch 22 in Banjul, the capital city of The Gambia.

The 45th POTUS, Donald Trump: Will He Last in Office?

by Eze Eluchie,

United States of America’s President-elect, Donald “some-mothers-do-have’em” Trump, will be inaugurated as the 45th President of the US on the 20th of January 2017. From all indications, Mr. Trump does not intend to last his tenure. Trumps mannerisms, taking on the powerful Intelligence institutions, getting combative with the Media and general bombastic posture is suggestive of a man in a hurry to exit the Oval Office.

It is imperative that the US Senate does the needful as soon as possible to pave the way for a President Mike Pence (the 46th).

The established democratic institutions of the US makes it possible to right wrongs as soon as the people desire it – unlike across most of Sub-Sahara Africa, and more particularly in Nigeria, where our perverted pretense at democracy ensures that the people remain in bondage to whosoever is able to scam his way into power for the remainder of the tenure – irrespective of how much the country wants to change the change.

From the sub-Sahara perspective, Mr. Trumps victory was important and relevant for what it underscored and established:  the world was spared the specter of a lady who cohorts with extremist Islam, did not understand BH as a terrorist organization and would probably have continued with Obama's suspicious qualification of the dictatorial Nigerian ruler as a 'man of integrity', occupying the Oval Office and its attendant consequences for the African continent - an occurrence that would have spelt disaster for much of the African continent as evidenced by the horrendous spectacle unfolding in Nigeria where the Obama regime had backed an Islamist into office. Americans voted right, it is now time for the world to move forward.

http://ezeluchie.blogspot.com. ng/2016/08/us-2016- presidential-elections-donald. html

Picture: US Vice President elect and incoming 46^th President, Mike Pence.

The Squeeze on Freedom of Worship is on in Nigeria.

by Eze Eluchie,

By falling for the trap set up for them, Pentecostal churches have set the pace for further regulations which will eventually lead to their extinction, and which may adversely impact freedom to practice the Christian faith in Nigeria and compound the several schisms afflicting the Nigerian contraption.

Citing a ‘new legal requirement’ announced by the Financial Regulation Council which forbids heads of religious organizations from holding office for more than 20 years, the Chief Executive Officer and General Overseer of one of Nigeria’s largest Pentecostal churches, of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) announced that he was stepping aside from his leadership position of the Nigerian branch of the Church, though he would still retain control as the head of the ‘international arm’ of the Church {a cunningly spurious attempt at compliance with the regulations}. Other Pentecostal Churches were also cited as being on the verge of similar compliance with the FRC’s regulations.

When it is realized that previously, the membership of these churches had thought, or been made to believe, that their leaders were ‘God-ordained’ or the ‘Elect-of-God’/’Man-of-God’, then the assault on religious freedoms and beliefs occasioned by the FRC’s regulation becomes more apparent. If religious leaders can be forced to depart office by virtue of so-called legal requirements of the Financial Regulations Council, then more regulation and harm is in sight. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to conclude that the Sultan of Sokoto, who also doubles as the head of the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, will not comply with this regulation and step aside from this position – the target of the ‘financial regulations’ are crystal clear from the announcement of the regulations. This same Sultan, in flagrant display of his self-accorded 'supra-constitutional' status, had stated unequivocally that Muslims cannot be expected to comply with provisions the Nigerian Constitution for equality of the sexes; as such equality is not in conformity with injunctions of the Islamic faith.

Interestingly, these Pentecostal Churches as exemplified by Mr. Enoch Adeboye (alias G.O./CEO of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, whose Personal Assistant also surreptitiously happens to be his own son and who opted on a queer ethnocentric appointments of his own replacements) and his cohorts, who are blinded by greed and the desire to retain their ‘closeness’ to the political rulers, have unwittingly set an unquenchable fire on their own house, a fire that will consume much more than the personalities who fell for the trap.

With the high flying Pentecostal pastors, some of who own fleet of private jets whilst most of their congregation exist below the poverty line, queuing in line to comply with regulations from the FRC, will the Islam-centric government of Muhammadu Buhari feel emboldened to tell the Catholic or Anglican Bishops or other Heads of so-called orthodox churches to forcefully vacate office? Is this scenario the next phase of these FRC regulations? Will these Churches take such interference lying low?

These Pentecostals have set the stage for further regulations, perhaps regulating time and length of prayers, size of congregations, declarations of tithes and other incomes et al. .....

Picture: CEO/General Overseer of one of Nigeria’s richest and fastest growing Pentecostal churches, Mr. Enoch Adeboye. 

The Lame-Duck President Hiatus – Unhelpful for Emerging Democracies.

by Eze Eluchie,

The disdain and odium the ‘lame-duck’ posture foisted on the occupant of an executive political office (particularly that of President) by virtue of the time lag between the election of a new candidate and the departure of the incumbent from office, often times presents a risky and fluid transitional period which if not properly controlled may lead to unsavoury outcomes. For instance, whilst the pacifist nature of former Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan, who conceded defeat early as soon as it was clear he had no path towards being re-elected had served to douse tension and give the incoming President a smooth path to office, ensuring a smooth ‘lame-duck’ period; on the other hand, the picturesque West African country of The Gambia, is currently in a state of political flux resulting from comments made by the President-elect and some of his supporters during President Yahya Jammeh’s ‘lame-duck’ period, after the incumbent had publicly conceded defeat, were deemed sufficiently provocative and troubling for the incumbent and his supporters, for the incumbent to renege on his earlier resolve to depart office at the end of his tenure and support the President-elect/incoming President.

In the case of the United States, the space between 8^th November of the election year and the 20^th January handover date has always served to facilitate a smooth transition, preparing the incumbent to ease out in peace whilst allowing the incoming President sufficient time to understudy the enormity of functions and issues to be addressed by US Presidency distinct from the euphoria of electoral campaigns. This arrangement, which had worked near seamlessly for decades, is now unraveled in a most unpalatable way, leading to the ridiculing and scaring of the exalted office of the President of the United States.

After his party’s candidate lost in the Presidential polls despite his having thrown in all the political capital he could muster into the fray, including degenerating into some uncouth language in response to now President-elect Donald Trump’s bombastic and highly unrestrained gutter approach to campaigning, US President Barack Obama was left in the very awkward situation where his successor in office had promised to virtually wipe away whatsoever legacies he, Obama, might have laboured for during his stint in the White House these past eight years.

In a bid to preserve his legacies, particularly in the areas of environmental protection/conservation and health insurance, President Obama had to resort to Executive actions which to all intents and purposes were geared to frustrating the ability of his successor-in-office to easily roll-back achievements of the Obama presidency – incredulous as it was, a US President was in effect, undermining the abilities of his successor-in-office to succeed/fulfill his electoral promises. 

Had the schism been restricted to domestic affairs, it would have been partially all well and good. Things however get murkier when the efforts to undermine the successor regime got extended to involve actions impacting on foreign authorities and Governments. From the surprising abstention in a UN Security Council vote against the State of Israel, to a scathing address, shortly thereafter by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, castigating the Government of Israel and the decision to expel 35 Russian Embassy officials and the closure of two Russian diplomatic building in the US, the outgoing administration of Barrack Obama seemed to have become hyper-active in seeking to undermine the powers and integrity of the succeeding Government of the US. The actions concerning the State of Israel had clearly been geared towards stoking ill-will against the incoming Trump administration which had promised to revive US-Israeli relationships, a relationship which had gone sour during the Obama days, and recognize Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel; whilst the Russian diplomatic face-off was clearly aimed at rubbishing the promised rapprochement Trump had assured the US electorate he intended to seek with the Russians and making any efforts by the incoming President Trump to fulfil the pledge on Russia appear at variance with common sense and the interests of the United States.

For the stature of the United States, the age old injunction never to wash dirty linen in public soon came haunting. In response to the Secretary of State’s comments against the State of Israel, in addition to the unprecedented and swift tongue-lashing of the US Secretary of State’s comments by the Israeli Prime Minister, the British Government, (yes, even the British Government who ordinarily would never utter a sound against any US position), felt emboldened enough to condemn John Kerry’s remarks. On its part, the very matured Russian response of no response whatsoever, to the extremely hasty expulsion of Russian Embassy staff and closure of Embassy premises, certainly portrayed the US presidency in poor light before the international community.

The lacuna in leadership in the White House created by the lame-duck period, made more prominent by the confusion as to who was really in charge, with the in-coming President tweeting policy statements and making pronouncements which further diminished the stature of the incumbent occupant of the US Presidency. Many outside the United States felt moved to respond more to utterances from the incoming who had a full term ahead in the White House than the out-going who with less than 2 months left in his tenure was more focused on ‘protecting legacies’ than governance; the post-election transitional period in the US presidency is proving to be a huge burden to not only the stature of the US but also to the transitional process in a democracy.

The United States has a long and well established pedigree in democratic governance and practices, and so has inbuilt institutional structures and mechanisms to withstand the affront posed by the Lame-Duck period or the likelihood of an in-coming President being publicly disrespectful and cantankerous of the incumbent out-going President. Sub-Sahara African states or others with yet evolving democratic structures might not have the patience and capacity to withstand the tension and pressure inherent in the Lame-duck period.   

Why should anybody outside of the United States and particularly non-citizen of the US be concerned about the any diminution in the stature of the Office of the President of the US? Just like the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had hitherto served as a balancing factor in international affairs and relations was a great minus for the global community; the loss of stature of an Office that personified the ideals of democratic precepts should likewise be of concern to the international community as a whole.

Soon enough, the consequences of the US having an inward-focused President with diminished global stature and respect will come haunting. Already, increased volatility in relationships between South Korea and Japan, a likely 4^th Intifada, and a weakened NATO are but a tip of the iceberg of what portends to be an interesting period for global affairs and inter-State relations sequel to the self-inflicted wounds of the lame-duck period of the US presidency. 

Picture: The outgoing 44^th and incoming 45^th US Presidents.

Pyrrhic Victory: Buhari Celebrates the ‘Capture’ of a Piece of Rag!

by Eze Eluchie,

What really did Mr. Buhari and his military commanders think they had achieved by ‘capturing’ a rag-tag hand painted flag of Boko Haram from the over-hyped Sambissa Forest? Is the piece of cloth representative of the Boko Haram spirit and its 'capture' thus indicative of the end of Boko Haram?

Did Buhari and his Officers mistake this rag-tag piece of cloth for the ‘Military Colors’ associated with standard armies that must be protected at all costs and never be captured? Are Nigerians and the wider international community supposed to applaud this ‘feat’?  

It is perhaps high time an evaluation of the curricular of the various Military trainning courses some of our military leaders attend is undertaken, to ascertain the efficacy of such training to modern day realities. It’s either the curricular of such military training institutions are suspect or Nigeria has been sending intellectually challenged personnel to such institutions leading to graduates of such institutions not imbibing what they had been taught. I doubt that the Military training institutions in Aldershot, Sandhurst, Carlisle or Chennai, on which Nigeria has spent several millions of dollars on training of military officers could have taught our soldiers to celebrate the capture of a rag from a bunch of terrorists.

The fact that what they claim to have ‘captured’ is at variance with the known Boko Haram flag does not seem to douse their misplaced sense of achievement. And to imagine that the 'captured' flag was handed over to the Commander-in-Chief at an elaborate event held at the official residence of the President, to which the media was invited!@# 

Clearly, these guys are far more clueless than one had ever envisioned – and the malaise is clearly getting worse by the day.

Picture: Nigeria President, Muhammadu Buhari receiving the ‘captured’ Boko Haram ‘flag’ from Major General Irabor (Commander of Nigeria Army’s Operation Lafiya Dole) at a lavish ceremony in the State House, Abuja; second pix, Abubakar Shekau, with the Boko Haram ‘flag’ serving as his background.