THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 1 of 16

THE OPUTA COMMISSION: the "JUNE 12" and the "MILITARY"

by

Professor Omo Omoruyi

President 's decision to set up a Commission headed by a retired Supreme Court Justice, (Justice Chukwudifu Akume Oputa) to look into past human rights violations in at the inception of his government still remains one of the democracy dividends. The end of the Commission's effort is to bring about reconciliation among the Nigerian peoples. But there cannot be reconciliation among peoples without truth. It is this search for truth that posed problems in societies where this kind of commission had been set up in the past. Nigerian government must face this problem hence this paper.

It is an open secret that President Olusegun Obasanjo's action did not have the blessing of the outgoing military regime of General . General Abubakar and his Deputy Admiral even ridiculed the thought of something like that happening before the military junta shall have left office. They must have been shocked that it did happen; immediately General Abubakar and his junta left office, thanks to President Obasanjo. General Obasanjo's action was one of the policies he initiated to cope with the past.

However as something, which did not have the blessing of the past military administration, the elected President did not give the Commission the tool for the successful implementation of its assignment such as amnesty from prosecution and power to compel witness to testify. This shortcoming in the policy is a subject of another paper. The focus of this paper has to do with those who are coming forward from the immediate past, the regime of General Sani Abacha. This is logical or consequential to the horrendous human rights violations under the regime of General Sani Abacha. Should this be so? It should not be. I shall leave this to another occasion.

President Obasanjo decided to set it up as part of coping with the past. What is the past? That was an issue, which gave the new administration some problem, hence it had to shift the dates on two occasions and finally decided to leave the past open-ended. That is how it should be.

The on-going drama among political generals and the revelations by some of them of the sordid past at the sitting of the Oputa Commission raise two issues. One has to do with the "issues in the annulment" of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election and the second has to do with the "nature of the armed forces". I shall now address these two issues.

ISSUE ONE: THE OPUTA COMMISSION AND THE "ISSUES IN THE ANNULMENT"

The catalog of human rights violations detailed during the Lagos sitting of the Oputa Commission in the past in the tradition of the Truth and Reconciliation Tribunals unduly focused on the coup plot said to have been masterminded by the former Chief of General

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 2 of 16

Staff, Lt. General . The second issue, which unduly dominated the time of the Commission was the death of the winner of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election, Chief MKO Abiola. I say unduly because these two issues were not seen as the consequences of the singular act of June 23, 1993. That act, which took place in the early hours of June 23, 1993 was the annulment of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election by the military headed by General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida acting with over 1001 actors as he put it recently. Coincidentally, another act of June 23, this time a year later was by General Sani Abacha on June 23, 1994 acting with another clique, which included some Yoruba officers in Lagos, when Chief MKO Abiola the winner of that election was arrested in the early hours of June 23, 1994. Of course we knew he was then detained until he died in detention.

On why General Abacha had to go for Chief Abiola at precisely the same time a year later after the annulment one should not dismiss it as coincidental. It was a design as General Abacha was acting on some advice from the marabouts. General Abacha's regime was one governed by many marabouts from the Islamic world. Nothing happened by chance under the administration of General Abacha. Maybe this is what my friends call Allah's wish. It is not; it is the work of devils.

It should therefore be obvious by now that without the annulment of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election, we would not have had the rule of General Sani Abacha. Nigeria would not have had Al-Mustapha and other political Generals. Nigeria would not have had what the BBC called the "weeping Generals" of the kind of Oladipo Diya and Abdul Kareem Adisa. Nigeria would have been spared of the hatchet men such as Ishaya Bamaiyi and Ibrahim Sabo and others who ever discussed the idea of killing the winner of a free and fair election, Chief MKO Abiola after the death General Abacha and actually killed him. These were not all.

Of course, we would not have had the ugly spectacle of a Chief of Army Staff who was proud of his service to a dictator. I am referring to General Malu who is still proud of a Hitler in a Nigerian Army uniform called General Sani Abacha to the extent that he would openly boast of his personal loyalty to a killer and sadist at the expense of the nation. It is only in Nigeria that a dictator still being condemned by the world and Nigerians for his human rights record that is still being revered by many retired and serving Generals, especially the current Chief of Army Staff, General Malu. How does the Chief of Army Staff, General Malu explain his confession that he used to wear the General Abacha Forever Medal? He called this an act of loyalty to the Commander in Chief! He even admitted that if the situation were to arise again, he would gladly wear such a medal. Can we imagine a German General eulogizing his days with Hitler and who still wants to wear Hitler/Nazi emblem?

It is only in Nigeria that an elected President would tolerate such a political general, as his Chief of Army Staff after he openly confessed his loyalty to a dictator who once put him in jail for an offence he did not commit.

PRESIDENT OBASANJO SHOULD LEARN FROM THE US

President Obasanjo, Sir, you use the practice in the US as a model in what ever you do. Mr. President, can you reflect on the testimony of your Chief of Army Staff before the Oputa Commission in the light of the practice one would expect from a General in a democracy such as in the US? Mr. President, Sir, can you imagine a General in the US army wearing an "FOB Button", (Friend of Bill Button) as part of his unearned medals? Please do not allow any officer to wear "President Obasanjo Forever Button" or Obasanjo 2003 Button", even though General Malu answered in the affirmative that he would gladly wear such a button if asked to do so by Mr. President.

Well, there is no doubt that Bill Clinton is an elected President of the most powerful democracy

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 3 of 16

in the world. But no soldier would be wearing his button in violation of his oath. So Sir, do not take General Malu's advice on Button wearing as a mark of loyalty to you as his Commander in Chief. Only a Commander in "Thief" or a Commander in "Torture" that would allow such a Button wearing!

Were Nigerians not surprised that General Malu had words of commendation for Al-Mustapha as "an intelligent officer who used his power well"? (See the Vanguard, December 15, 2000). Al-Mustapha used his power well after what we have been told by many people! Malu would in his memoir credit Abacha with the highest intelligence, who used his power well! I am sure left to him, General Malu would have promoted Al-Mustapha to the rank of "general". Maybe he was one of the political generals, who wanted him to assume the position of "Head of State" after the death of Abacha, because he was "an intelligent officer, who used his power well".

GENERAL MALU IN ECOMOG NOT A ROLE MODEL FOR ARMY OFFICERS

It would appear that Nigerians have forgotten that this same General Malu was the same political general, who opened his mouth to denounce the Indian General and Commander of the UN troops in Sierra Leone for accusing the Nigerian political generals of complicity in all kinds of illicit diamond dealings. And of course, the Nigerian President, General Obasanjo supported him. I knew then that the Nigerian President was wrong.

When the President defended the Nigerian political generals on the BBC interview conducted by Tim Sebastian during his visit to the UK, I knew that the President was merely defending his officers in public and would deal with them officially later. A friend called me from Nigeria to ask me if I saw the President on the BBC show or heard what our President said about the conduct of the Nigerian political generals on ECOMOG mission. Of course, I saw the President denying the accusation in my living room in Boston. I was also able to get the transcripts of the actual words of the President in a BBC publication and later in most of the Nigerian newspapers. This fellow knew I had some knowledge of the genesis of Nigerian involvement in Liberia and later in Sierra Leone. This fellow knew that I knew the conduct of past ECOMOG Commanders. He tried to refresh my memory about what was a common knowledge within Nigerian official circle that the motive of Nigerian military officers getting involved in peace- keeping is at variance with the lofty goal of bringing peace to a fellow African country. He then asked: "who is kidding who?" He wanted to know whether the President was well briefed or whether he was acting to protect the military officers for reason of political survival.

Quite frankly I could not answer these questions, as I did not know the thinking of the President. I told this fellow Nigerian that I once wrote the President counseling him to rethink a military solution to the internal war in Sierra Leone. In that letter to the President, I strongly urged the new President to review the entire ECOMOG operations and work for a "Comprehensive Peace Settlement". I even directed Mr. President to documents on established international efforts at Comprehensive Peace Settlement in Cambodia and Mozambique, which Mr. President could use as a model in Sierra Leone. My advice was based on what I knew as (a) the genesis of Nigerian involvement in the ECOMOG venture, (b) the motive of Nigerian army officers in the venture, and (c) the nature of the internal war or insurgency in Sierra Leone. These three issues are still valid today and critical to the resolution of the crisis in Sierra Leone, if the President and the Ecowas leaders would listen.

Nigerians know better than what the President told them about the integrity of the peacekeeping officers. Nigerians know that the President's defence of the peacekeeping forces was misleading. Nigerians know that political generals campaign for peacekeeping assignments, because peacekeeping assignments are plum assignments. They are seen as a foreign exchange mission. Maybe President Obasanjo does not know about this when he was in service or maybe this was not the practice during his tenure as the Head of State.

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 4 of 16

Mr. President, things had changed since 1988. Assignment for peacekeeping assignment under the military regime since 1989 in Liberia/Sierra Leone was rated higher than Command or Ministerial appointment at home. ECOMOG Commanders handled more foreign currency than even the Minister of Petroleum Resources. The Commanders were also expected to make returns including the diamond and other precious metals to the authority above. Peacekeeping Commanders function like the policemen sent on "road blocks" or military officers sent to monitor customs services and the Ports. Under General Abacha, peacekeeping operation was seen as another avenue for siphoning out dollars into his pocket and the pockets of his cronies. General Olurin gave hints of this in the highly publicized interview in 1998. Mr. President, be careful with the way you jump to defend your inherited officers. They would soil your name, if you are not careful.

One should give the President the benefit of doubt when he said that he was waiting for an official report from the UN. I wonder if the Nigerian President and the former Commander of ECOMOG troops in Sierra Leone, General Malu had since read the official report on that episode submitted to the Security Council? It was this report the Nigerian President said he was waiting for before taking action. Can he take any action against the Army and its Chiefs, his former jailor and later installer who are still very much in charge of the political army and still calling the shot?

Nigerians would recall the point I made in April 1999 before President Obasanjo was sworn in, that the same officers who sent President Obasanjo to jail were still very much in charge of Abuja, just as the President-elect was thinking of how to put together his administration. I thought I was advising the incoming President to be careful with those he would be entrusting his security to. But I was called an alarmist.

I wish Nigerians would go back to my interview and article on the armed forces before General Obasanjo was installed the President by the geo-ethno-military-clique. Specifically I would like Nigerians and the President to read the Tell of April 5, 1999.

All these things we are reading today coming out of the Oputa Commission would not have occurred in a democracy. In other words, the show of shame by military officers who ruined or misruled Nigeria since 1993 and inflicted such cases of human rights violations is consequential to the "issues in the annulment".

OPUTA COMMISSION SHOULD PROBE ANNULMENT

To this extent the Oputa Commission is asking the wrong question by focusing on who killed Chief Abiola etc. A focus on this type of approach is likely to get the wrong answer and consequently the wrong prescription. The work of the Commission should have commenced with the "issues in the annulment", which are still with Nigeria and real; the actors in the annulment, who are still all over the place calling the shots in Abuja under many guises; and finally the aftermath of the annulment: such as the denial of human dignity to the Nigerian people, the killing of Chief Abiola and his wife, the exile of many Nigerians.

It would appear that the Commission is commencing its work with the denial of human dignity to the Nigerian people as an independent event, exclusive od the annulment, which gave rise to the denial of human dignity. This cannot be done without looking at the genesis. This is why sadly enough that none of these political generals in their testimony before the Oputa Commission ever confessed as to their roles in the sordid affair called the annulment; and the collusion with the annullists in the sustenance of the annulment after the exit of IBB.

We are talking of the period spanning the regimes of Generals Abacha and Abubakar.

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 5 of 16

Is it not amazing that none of those political generals including the Yoruba officers ever told the Commission how sorry they were in the part they played in the events leading to the annulment and its sustenance. None of them ever reacted to what Nigerians knew as to their complicity in the heinous crimes against the Nigerian people under General Abacha.

I had an opportunity to read the interview granted by General Tunji Olurin in This Day of November 1998. I was struck by the role General Diya played in wiping out Yoruba officers from the army. I was surprised that Diya never addressed this issue in his plea before the Commission. Yoruba leaders should demand from General Diya why he had to humiliate their Yoruba military officers, political class, including the leaders of NADECO, who believed in June 12 and the traditional rulers all in the name of loyalty to General Abacha.

These Yoruba political generals seem to be more concerned about their reputations, which they lost woefully when they unpatriotically joined General Abacha to deny Nigerian peoples their human dignity. They lost and abandoned their reputation and status as Generals in a professional army when they were kneeling down before a Hausa/Fulani major.

These Yoruba political generals should read the recent opinion of General Shola Williams that these "weeping generals" were guilty. I share this view. They reduced themselves to the level of Mustapha. They considered their loyalty to Abacha as superior to their primary commitment to the nation; they paraded their ill-gotten wealth; they showed themselves as products of the corrupt system; they called into question what it takes to make the grade of a General in the Nigerian Army; they were no role model for the up and coming military officers placed under their charge. See Tempo of January 4, 2001.

These Yoruba political generals should read what is said about them in the international media. Where is their reputation? In fact, the BBC was equally apt in calling attention to the quality of Nigerian political Generals. According to the BBC, the spectacle of the two "weeping generals" was a scathing commentary "on the calibre of some of the military officers who ruled Nigeria for 29 years". See BBC Home Page World Service Education of December 18, 2000. I hope President Obasanjo would take these remarks seriously when he is thinking of what to do to restructure the Nigerian army. There is no policy on this yet. The second part of this paper will further dwell on this.

It should have occurred to these political Generals that they were victims of the situation they created when they connived at the effects of the annulment and the aftermath of the annulment. Did they know the effect of the annulment and its aftermath on the people of the southwestern Nigeria and on the winner of the election and his family?

I wonder if Diya knew that Abacha would not have dared to take on the Yoruba elite including the winner of the June 12 and the former Head of State but for the support which he gave to him from the beginning. One wonders why Diya and his Yoruba generals did not see their problems as arising from the annulment, which they connived at, after the annulment through their complicity with General Abacha. Generals Diya, Olanrewaju, Adisa and others too numerous to name here have a case to answer with the Yoruba people in particular and with the Nigerian people in general. They assured General Abacha as members of the Lagos Clique after the annulment that they would be able to originate an alternative Yoruba leadership to June 12. Were these Diya's created "alternative Yoruba leaders" to June 12 not evident during the period of General Abacha as Ministers and Chairman of Corporations? They were all over the place, parading themselves as Yoruba leaders in search of a solution to June 12 when they did not know the real issues in the annulment. Unfortunately for Diya, these "alternative Yoruba leaders" became campaigners for Abacha's self-succession and abandoned their patron, Diya.

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 6 of 16

How they did this and failed can be found in my latest book on June 12. It is sad that Diya played host to many annullists like with the determination to trick the pro- democrats and mislead many of the original defenders of June 12 into a false sense of hope. It should be noted that he and his new team of renegade military officers with an ax to grind with General Abacha gave the hope to the pro-democracy groups in Lagos that they would de- annul the original act of June 23, 1993. Of course this was a complete lie. Are they not ashamed that they did not come to terms with their role in the post annulment government of Abacha?

Most seriously, up till now they did not openly come to terms with their role in the framing of General Obasanjo. What role did Diya play in the framing of a revered institution in the Nigerian army and in the international community?

Specifically one could ask some pertinent questions of these weeping generals about relationships.

Did they know that the death of Chief MKO Abiola was a bye-product of the annulment?

Did they know why General Babangida told Chief Abiola that death could result if he stuck to his mandate?

Did they know why General Babangida told Chief Abiola in his family meeting with Chief Abiola's on July 4, 1993 that death was awaiting him in the hands of the annullists if he stuck to his mandate?

Did they know that what was reported as being planned by the political generals after the death of General Abacha was necessarily consequential to the issues in the annulment?

Did they know that what IBB said before and after the annulment was not different from the original intention of General Abacha in keeping him in detention with out adequate medical attention?

Did they know that what IBB told Chief Abiola about death, if he stuck to his mandate was no different from what was reported as facing Chief Abiola in the hands of such political generals as David Mark, if Chief Abiola were to be sworn in as the President of Nigeria, Commander in Chief?

Did they know that what the political generals as reported by Mustapha, Bamaiye and Sabo under General Abubakar was no different from what IBB had personally conveyed to Chief Abiola as facing him in the hands of the political generals?

We should raise some further pertinent questions of the successor of Abacha about the last days of the revered Chief as guest of General Abubakar.

Why were the political generals including the Service Chiefs sent by General Abubakar to Chief Abiola in detention?

Why did General Abubakar not release Chief Abiola immediately he became the successor of General Abacha?

Why did General Abubukar not meet with Chief Abiola directly and sort out the "issues in the annulment" as the basis of the way forward?

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 7 of 16

Why did General Abubakar not see Chief Abiola as part of the solution to the crisis after the death of General Abacha?

What would General Abubakar say today as a matter of hindsight?

Was General Abubakar's behavior and inaction not in consonance with and in furtherance of the plan to kill Chief Abiola, if he stuck to his mandate?

It is a matter of public knowledge that General Abubakar and the Service Chiefs were opposed to any thought of having Chief Abiola as part of the solution to the political impasse as long as the "ghost" of Abacha was very much around Abuja during the thirty-day state mourning period. Was it coincidental that Chief Abiola died at the end of this period? It was not; it was the work of a marabout or maybe Allah, as our Islamic brothers and friends would want Nigerians would want Nigerians to believe.

It was also a matter of public knowledge that General Abubakar and his Service Chiefs were opposed to the idea of investigating the past human rights violations. They counseled their installed successor, President Obasanjo against it in their handing over notes. We now know why they were opposed to the setting up of a panel to investigate the past human rights violations. Thank you President Obasanjo for daring them; Nigerians should support you for taking this step to cope with the past.

GENERAL ABUBAKAR SHOULD GO BEFORE THE COMMISSION

My knowledge of the former Head of State convinces me that General Abubakar is a good man at heart. I did not believe that he would willingly and knowingly connive at the plan to kill Chief Abiola. What I could not understand, which sane persons would be asking till today was why did General Abubakar not let the ailing Chief languishing in Abacha's Gulag to go home and deal with the issue of his mandate from his residence surrounded by his family and advisers? I could not understand why General Abubakar did not respond to the call of the medical advisers of the winner of a free and fair election to be given his freedom as he commenced a transition program. What we knew was that he allowed the Chief to remain in detention and he allowed him to slowly die in accordance with the plan of the annullists or Allah. We are dealing with devils, who want to impress Nigerians of their piety when they are doing mischief. This is what the Oputa Commission should probe.

General Abubakar, may I humbly advise you as a friend to avail yourself of the opportunity offered by the Oputa Commission to make history; you should defy all and bare your mind on the constraints on you at that time especially immediately after the death of General Abacha and within the 30-day state mourning period. Nigerians would want to know why you did not and could not allow Chief Abiola to go home as soon as you took over from General Abacha. Nigerians would want to know why you should allow Chief Abiola to die in what was originally an Abacha Gulag. Nigerians would want to know why you allowed the original Abacha gulag in the end through an act of omission and indiscretion to become an Abubakar Gulag. Al- Mustapha made this point so forcefully that you, General Abubakar cannot avoid appearing before the Oputa Commission and publicly confronting your accusers and clear yourself. History will not buy your silence on the principle that "silence is golden". Not on this occasion!

ALLAH OR GOD

The use of the name of Allah or God by former military officers is distasteful. Whenever one reads of the invocation of Allah by Muslim political generals or God by President Obasanjo one wonders what type of Allah or God they are referring to? Allah or God is just; Allah or God therefore abhors injustice. But the acts of these generals are unjust. Why should they be

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 8 of 16

deceiving Nigerians by capping their unjust and anti-peoples" acts in the name of Allah or of God? I know that Muslims and Christians share the same belief about not calling the name of God in vain.

How many Nigerians had read of the justification of the injustice done to the south by Britain before and at independence by the President? Let me refer to the President's interpretation of the act of amalgamation of 1914. The way President Obasanjo justified it recently at Gombe in the north is very disturbing. President Obasanjo argued that the north should no longer call the 1914 as "the mistake of 1914". Instead, the President advised the northerners to see what Britain did to the southern Nigerian ethnic nationalities and states in making them second class citizens to the north in Nigeria as the work of God. President Obasanjo should read of how Britain incorporated the ethnic nationalities and states in pieces into a unified north in the name of amalgamation in 1914. Was this act of Britain ordained by "God"?

The President was preaching to the choir. He should have known or he ought to have known that the northern elite since the end of the Civil War had started to see the amalgamation no more as the "mistake of 1914" as was said in 1953 and in 1966. The condition, which made the Sardauna of Sokoto or the northern elite in 1953 and 1966 respectively to see the amalgamation as the "mistake of 1914" had changed radically since 1970. The northerners would die to protect the Nigeria in its present form with oil as a Nigerian property and the military under them as the "blessing of 1914".

With all the documents available to us from the British Foreign/Colonial Office and with all the authorities cited in my recent book on the June 12, the issue of the intention of Britain should no longer be in doubt. Britain was not sent by God to inflict injustice on the southern people. Britain was not sent by God to rob the oil producing areas of the south their God-given resources in the name of the Minerals Ordinance of 1948, which the successor regime called Nigeria now uses today to lay claim to oil as a Nigerian property. As was recently argued by the eminent lawyer, Chief Richard Akinjide it is the south, especially the people of the oil producing states that have reason to call the amalgamation the "mistake of 1914".

How many Nigerians read the excuse given by General Babangida in all the highly orchestrated news magazine interviews that no one could hold back anyone from dying if it was the wish of Allah. Ibrahim Sabo, who was told by Ishaya Bamaiyi that Chief Abiola should not be allowed to live after the death of their patron, General Abacha also used General Babangida's expression in order to excuse themselves from the death of Chief Abiola. Our Muslim Nigerians attributed their belief in Allah to wrath mischief on fellow Nigerians and loot the country. President Obasanjo is playing the Muslim game of attributing all acts from the ruler as Allah ordained, even if the act is unjust and corrupt.

Yes, IBB would uncharitably say that Allah said you could not hold back a dying person. This is common sense. General Babangida should credit Nigerians with some modicum of common sense and the benefit of independent knowledge of what happened to his friend, Chief Abiola. Nigerians don"t want to be preached to by fellow Nigerians less religious as they are. General Babangida should therefore stop preaching to Nigerians what Allah wishes for him and for others. One can understand why the revered religious leaders like the former Sultan of Sokoto invoke the name of Allah in what ever they do. Certainly not from the professional coup plotters, usurpers, and annullists! Nigerians are asking if Allah told the professional coup makers when and how to stage a coup and who to install as the Head of State.

Speaking specifically, Nigerians are asking some pertinent questions about all the death notices IBB and his successors served on Chief MKO Abiola since June 1993. Nigerians are asking if it was the wish of Allah, which finally came to pass in July 1998. We can ask further questions.

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 9 of 16

Was Allah actually speaking to them? How and when?

Did Allah act through Babangida in denying Chief Abiola his mandate?

Did Allah act through Abacha in sending Chief Abiola to detention?

Did Allah act through Abubakar and through A-Mustapha etc., etc. in their acts of commission, omission and indiscretion, leading to the untimely death of Chief Abiola?

Did Allah say that the international community led by the US, the Commonwealth and the UN should be mobilized by General Abubakar to finally end the life of the revered Chief?

Did Allah talk to these mortals that Chief Abiola would die at the end of the 30-day state mourning period, which ended on the day Chief Abiola actually die; July 7, 1998?

Did Allah say that General Abubakar was to be made to bear the "cross" or "crescent", by his inaction after June 8, 1998, which eventually led to the death of Chief Abiola.

Maybe the foregoing incidents were due to Allah's injunction. This is a lie. These are some of the issues that should be probed by the Oputa Commission. Nigerians knew that Chief Abiola died in captivity, in Abacha cum Abubakar Gulag. Nigerians knew that Chief Abiola died in the hands of the military. How they did it and when cannot be known without a thorough investigation of the issues in the annulment.

So too I would have said that the extra-judicial murder of Ken Saro Wiwa arose because of the nature of rule, which was a post annulment phenomenon. What about the death Chief Rewane, the death of the son of the former Attorney General, and other killings during this period?

ABUJA IS THE VENUE

Now that the Commission is moving to Abuja, the foregoing "issues in the annulment" should form the basis of further investigation. Annulment took place in and around Abuja. The original death notice on Chief Abiola was served on him on July 4, 1993 at Abuja. The plan to put Chief Abiola in detention was hatched and executed at Abuja. The conspiracy to kill Chief Abiola after the death of General Abacha was conceived and executed at Abuja. Finally, Chief Abiola was eventually killed at Abuja. The actors in these episodes are still alive and residing in and around Abuja.

The decision to go for General Obasanjo when he was in prison was hatched at Abuja even though the winner of the June 12 election was still alive and in the military Gulag. All the issues involving the Diya coup and other matters arising from it took place at Abuja. Abuja is very critical to the catalog of human rights violations and not Lagos. The actors in these episodes are still alive and residing in and around Abuja.

For reconciliation to take place all those involved in the foregoing episodes should be given immunity from prosecution if they would come forward and testify truthfully as to their roles. What we saw in Lagos is against the whole idea of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. No truth came out of the Lagos session and no reconciliation took place from there. If we are not careful and if what happened in Lagos is allowed to repeat itself in Abuja, I am afraid, the goal of truth and reconciliation shall have been thwarted.

ISSUE TWO: THE OPUTA COMMISSION AND "THE NATURE OF THE NIGERIAN ARMY"

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 10 of 16

In the first part of this paper, the focus was on the relationship between the revelations at the Oputa Commission on Human Rights Violations and the "issues in the annulment". On this part of the paper, the focus will be on the relationship between the revelations at the Oputa Commission and the "nature of the armed forces".

It should have been obvious to all Nigerians from the revelations at the Commission that Nigeria does not have a national army, but that what Nigeria has in the name of Nigeria is a geo-ethno-military organization. It is an army in the name of Nigeria but operating with a regional agenda. General Diya was displaying his naivetÈ when he confessed after his appearance at the Oputa Commission that "when the chips are down, you always find the north, no matter their differences being united against you if you are an outsider". Was this new to him in the Nigerian armed forces?

From the way the political generals behaved at the Commission and from their testimonies about their actions in the immediate past in the military, it should be obvious by now that Nigeria does not have a professional army, but soldiers of fortune, with an economic and political agenda.

I do not want to belabor this point. I am on record on the nature of the armed forces; this was analyzed in my latest book on the June 12. I dealt with the matter in many lectures in different fora. What I said is that the Nigerian armed forces can be likened to the dreaded apartheid regime of old in South Africa or of the Japanese and German armies during the Second War. Just as the world came down hard on these regimes" armies, the world and Nigerians should impress on President Obasanjo that he cannot save the so-called Nigerian army through piecemeal reforms. This was why I advocated wholesale demobilization and depoliticization, the two Ds as the solution to the nature of the "military in politics".

I am glad that there is a ground swelling movement for restructuring even though the Nigerian political class, especially those in the National Assembly, who are still lukewarm to the idea. This is understandable because many of them went into politics on the ticket of some military officers, while others are either the annullists or the so-called "militicians". I would have thought that after the revelations at the Oputa Commission, Nigerian would be calling for the disbanding of the armed forces in its present form. Of course, the lone voice of a democrat from the June 12 days is still talking. I am referring to the Governor of , Chief Segun Osoba.

The Governor of Ogun State voiced his usual dissent from the lukewarm politicians at the National Assembly. According to him from what he saw and read of the testimonies by the so- called generals before the Oputa Commission, he came to the conclusion "that the nation's army has to be restructured". (See the Vanguard, January 1, 2001).

President Obasanjo and the Nigerian political class could learn from the "weeping general". I am referring to Adisa who held the view "that those who participated in the issues at stake are still in Service". According to Adisa, "they are in the ranks of majors and colonels". He went on "they are still there holding important posts". And he virtually sent a serious warning indirectly to the President to be careful as "they were used by the authority in 1995 and 1997. The President should know what happened in the 1995 episode as he was a victim of that.

Political general Adisa then dropped the bombshell with the warning that "unless these people are retired, I don't think things will be different" (See the Vanguard, December 18, 2000). When I warned the incoming administration along this line in April 1999, I was called an alarmist. The question is who will "bell the cat"?

My advocacy of the two Ds was based on empirical cases from Germany and Japan. My study

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 11 of 16

of the "military in politics" between 1966 and 1999 made me come to the conclusion that only a wholesale demobilization was desirable after the era of General Abacha, which would be followed by a fundamental reorientation of the new armed forces. This would have been the only way to redeem the armed forces of Nigeria. General Danjuma confessed this much in his Guardian interview of December 24, 2000 that he underestimated the enormity of the problems facing the armed forces before he assumed office. Can the administration of President Obasanjo pursue both goals of demobilization and fundamental reorientation of the armed forces? This is a million-dollar question.

I have my doubt that the President would be able to perform these functions in order to promote the twin goal of a national army and a professional army. My doubt arises not from the President's inherent weakness arising from his crisis of legitimacy even though this is real and life threatening politically. All efforts made in the past by Nigerians who meant him well to make the President move to the side of the Nigerian were rebuffed. It is now demonstrated over and over that President Obasanjo derived his rule from the armed forces and not from the Nigerian voters, hence he is in a dilemma.

The attempt made by me after the Arewa Consultative Forum called into question his basis of legitimacy to counsel him to shift his basis of rule from the Arewa to the Nigerian was also rebuffed. My trilogy on the agenda of the Arewa and what the President could do to overcome it is still there for the President or his handlers to read and consider. It would appear that either the President or his handlers rejected or ignored this unsolicited counsel, unfortunately.

The basis of the Arewa's claim is the military and recently the army made it clear that they called General Obasanjo while he was still in prison and after the death of Abacha to come out of the prison to succeed the military junta. The President has not refuted this claim and newsmen have not pushed him to deny this claim.

Was the President surprised at the disclosures of the former Chief of Army Staff, Lt. General Ishaya Bamaiye and the Minister of Defence? General Bamaiye disclosed that the former Head of State General Abubakar called him immediately after the death of Abacha and told him of the decision of the government to make an ex-military officer (Obasanjo) the civilian President? Bamaiye also went to on to name Generals Danjuma and Aliyu Mohammed Gusau, who later approached him to cooperate with the choice of Obasanjo as the successor of Abacha. Nigerians would want answer to this matter.

Was the president aware that the Minister of Defence later confirmed Bamaiyi story in the well-publicized Guardian press interview of December 24, 2000? Speaking about the incidence, the Minister said: "I know he was the best man of the moment when it came that we started to look for people to succeed Abacha after his death".

The question Nigerians would want to ask is, "Who are the "we"? It was not a political party; it was not a council of elders; it was a clique of northern military officers, retired and serving to protect the northern interest and not the national interest. It certainly did not include the defence of the democratic rights of Nigerians, who voted for a man who was languishing in the military Gulag or of the rights of the oil producing areas.

I would have thought General Danjuma should have availed himself the opportunity of the Oputa Commission to bare his mind why the "we" had to decide to ignore the mandate of the winner of the free and fair election and explain why Chief Abiola was not allowed to go home. It was amazing that General Danjuma never made reference to the winner of the June 12 election in his considerations of what should be done after the death of Abacha. Nigerians would be interested in what made him decide on General Obasanjo who he and others ignored and allowed languishing in jail when Abacha was alive. The search for a successor was only

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 12 of 16

embarked upon, because Abacha died. Does this not mean that he General Danjuma was in support of the self-succession bid of General Abacha?

As that was not enough, General Danjuma led his readers to the way he made General Obasanjo the Head of State in 1976 and compared it with the way he made him the President after the death of General Abacha. That Guardian piece is a historical document about (a) "the person of the Minister" and (b) "the making of the President." With the greatest respect to you General Danjuma, if I were you, I would have yielded to my instinct of survival and stayed away from the stressful life of politics of the armed forces. You cannot cope with it. Coming to the two episodes of 1976 and 1998, the Honorable Minister was wrong; the two episodes were not identical.

The situation in 1976 was under a military regime and the politics of succession after the assassination of the Head of State General Murtala Muhammed could only be dealt within the rules governing succession in military in politics.

Under the situation of 1998 after the death of General Abacha we were told that we wanted to usher in a democratic transition. What Nigerians wanted then was that a Sovereign National Conference under a Government of National Unity would have been a way out especially when the winner of the election of June 12 was still alive. This was not all.

In 1998, there was a winner of a democratic election whose mandate was still valid and who was in the military Gulag. General Danjuma did not allude to these two facts in his highly advertised press interview in the Guardian of December 24, 2000. The interview of the esteemed Minister of Defence raised many questions.

I am referring to some pertinent questions in search of answers.

What was the rationale for the decision to make the latest U-turn of by Defence Minister on demobilization?

Why did the Nigerian democratically elected President take the decision to enter into a military pact with the US without a National Assembly approval?

Why did the President that is supposed to derive his rule from the "will of the Nigerian people" take the decision to commit Nigeria to a defence pact with the US without letting the Nigerian people know the implications for Nigeria domestically and internationally?

What is the relationship between the decision to shelve the demobilization plan and the grumbling among the Arewa Consultative Forum about the retrenchment of the security officers from the north?

Why did the Minister not tell Nigeria the attitude of the government to the latest revelations from the Oputa Commission that General Obasanjo while in prison was invited by the same northern military officers serving and retired to become the successor to the military junta immediately General Abacha died?

THE PRESIDENT AND THE ANTI-RESTRUCTURING POSTURE OF GENERALS DANJUMA AND MALU?

If President Obasanjo wanted to restructure the armed forces he would not have named Lt. General TY Danjuma as the Minister of Defence and General Malu as the Chief of Army Staff. The reasons for my coming to this position ought to be obvious by now and from the above

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 13 of 16

analysis. They are the wrong persons to be entrusted with the policy of restructuring of the military. Their past and their commitment to a given constituency in the armed forces ought to have disqualified them.

General Danjuma's past, which is very rich in the literature on "military in politics" in Nigeria ought to have sensitized the President to rethink the decision to entrust the distinguished General with the assignment of restructuring the armed forces. I was with a retired General in Washington and a political scientist with a thorough knowledge of Nigeria. He asked: "Omo, is the President actually serious when he named General Danjuma, the Minister of Defence? He went on; Is the president aware of his record as an expert in the use of the army for partisan political end?" What the General was saying is that General Danjuma cannot be a role model for the up and coming apolitical army officers. This is a fact of life and we should not believe that the past is not haunting the distinguished political general of the 1960s and 1970s. His past should be haunting him. With the greatest respect to the distinguished General who I happen to know from his commitment to secularism and fairness for all ethnic groups in Nigeria since 1975, the General's past makes him an issue in the twin goal of promoting a representative armed forces and of depoliticization of the armed forces.

General Danjuma in recognition of his competence, which he demonstrated in the private sector since leaving the service and in appreciation of his position in the political dispensation the President should have found a befitting role for him to play. He should have been sent to revitalize one of the ailing utilities, such as electricity or water or telephone and certainly not to the armed forces where he was seen by many officers as one of the problems, unfortunately.

Nigeria would recall that it was his plan to demobilize in 1975 that precipitated one of the most violent bloody coup in February 1976 in which one of the most popular military Heads of State in Nigerian history, General Murtala Muhammed died. It is a contradiction in terms to use a "professional coupists" to undertake the function of demobilization and reorientation of the armed forces. This was why General Babangida decided to choose General Salihu Ibrahim in preference to a professional coupist, General Joshua Dongoyaro as the successor to General Abacha as the Chief of Army Staff. President Babangida decided to send General Dongoyaro to Liberia as the first Ecomog Commander and on return from Liberia, he was made the Commandant of the Command and Staff College.

The President should revisit the Valedictory address of General Salihu Ibrahim in 1993. He had reason to declare the Nigerian army as "an army of anything goes" where soldiers prefer political appointment to service appointment. This was no different from the brief I gave to the committee of officers who consulted me when I was the Director General of the Centre for Democratic Studies (CDS). If government keeps record, all these can still be found in the records of the Ministry of Defence. General Salihu's valedictory address still remains one of the most brilliant analysis of the professional decay in the Nigerian army. Nothing has changed since then. It is in fact worse. They see a lot of hypocrisy in the message and the messenger of professionalism.

In the first part of this paper, I dealt exhaustively on the disqualification of General Malu to be a Chief of Army Staff. He was part of the past, which President Obasanjo wants to correct. General Malu just cannot be part of the past, which he is, which all of us condemn and be an instrument of change at the same time. This came to the fore at the Oputa Commission. He wore a button of Abacha along with his service medals; he was a member of the Provisional Ruling Council that sentenced the present President to life imprisonment; he was privy to many acts of human rights violations in the past and he was an ECOMOG Commander.

The President should entrust the fundamental restructuring of the armed forces to eminent

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 14 of 16

Nigerians of proven integrity. I can name three eminent Nigerians who could have embarked on the fundamental restructuring of the armed forces, if that is the goal of the President. May I recommend an economist with a track record of accomplishment known internationally such as Professor Adebayo Adedeji. May I also recommend a public administration specialist of international repute, Professor Ladi Adamolekun of the World Bank. May I further recommend a seasoned administrator and diplomat with a track record of accomplishment such as the former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku. Any of these three could have been asked to handle the function of fundamental restructuring of the armed forces. Any of them would have been made the Minister of Defence by President Obasanjo to handle the fundamental restructuring of the armed forces. They could still serve on a panel to do the job today.

I am sure, they would not be making the excuses, attributed to the Defence Minister about the cutting of the size of the armed forces. Haba! Minister, how can you say that the ADC or a military assistant of the A-Mustapha type as political functionaries were "involuntary and peripheral"? The Minister should know that Nigerians are more sensible tha that. General Danjuma should read the analysis of one of the most brilliant army officers the Nigerian army ever produced on the effect on the young officers of the scathing revelations from the Oputa Commission. I am referring to the latest interview by General Shola Williams on the Diya saga on the military assistants in Tempo January 4, 2001.

A seasoned civilian Minister of Defence certainly would not have supported the military pact between President Clinton and President Obasanjo with out the National Assembly authorization. No sane civilian Minister of Defence would have supported the use of the army to destroy a community as Odi. No civilian Minister of Defence would support the use of the US Marines to train "unrepresentative" Nigerian army for an undefined function of "peacekeeping" when there is no peace to keep. No civilian Minister of Defence would have allowed the Abacha Button wearer as the Chief of Army Staff in a democratic Nigeria.

It is obvious that what the US is doing with the supposed military assistance for the army and the navy is to ensure protection for the US investment in Nigeria. Do Nigerians know that one of the foreign policy successes of President Clinton was the success he had with making the post-military junta to agree to the release from prison and eventual enthronement of President Obasanjo as the successor regime after the death of General Abacha? Of course the military pact between the US and Nigeria includes the survival of President Obasanjo with peace in the such region as secondary. Will this assistance outlive the present administration in Nigeria? I have my doubt, because it is not based on the promotion of the Nigerian national interest.

The new policy of "leave the armed forces as it were" is a US policy of "don"t rock the boat" and "do not precipitate problems for your self". This US policy accords with the position of the top brass of the so-called Nigerian armed forces. It is in accord also with their northern patron of the military that President Obasanjo should honor the pact he entered into with the military. This was the pact between the President and the military officers from the north, retired and serving when he was made the successor of the junta. This pact also includes benign neglect to the role of Chief Abiola in the democratization of Nigeria. What the Minister of Defence told the Guardian on December 24, 2000 amounts to a realization that President Obasanjo is capitulating to these forces.

There are some nagging questions for the US.

Why should the US be opposed a fundamental restructuring of the armed forces?

Why should the US be opposed to making the Nigerian military representative of the ethnic

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 15 of 16

nationalities in Nigeria?

Why should the US not work for a military that is accountable to a democratic order?

Why did the US not push for the immediate release of Chief Abiola after the death of Abacha?

Why was the US against the winner of a free and fair election to be part of the solution to the political impasse after the death of Abacha?

Just as the US agreed with General Abubakar that General Obasanjo should be released and made the successor of the military junta, the US should have pushed for a simultaneous release of Chief Abiola as part of the general peace in Nigeria.

Maybe we would want to know if the US policy in Nigerian today is in accord with the Arewa Consultative Forum that is vehemently opposed to the idea of fundamental restructuring of the armed forces? Washington should answer these questions. Maybe the incoming administration in Washington would have to subject the entire US-Nigerian policy to a fundamental review. It is too one sided. The current military pact between Nigeria and the US entered into by President Clinton and President Obasanjo is against the Nigerian national interest. The decision to arm the Navy in the oil producing areas with the US naval patrol boats is inimical to the interest of the wretched of the oil producing areas who have been fighting for resource control and federalism. Any change of administration in Nigeria in 2003 would put the US on trial and its investment in jeopardy. Colin Powell should take note.

The present U-turn by the President through the Minister of Defence with respect to demobilization is a capitulation to the top brass in the armed forces. It is the serving the military calling on the retired armed forces that entered into agreement on its behalf with General Obasanjo to demand from President Obasanjo the IOU. This is very dangerous.

LET NIGERIANS DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE ARMY

Yesterday, the complaints were from the civil society and the solution they came to was that a Sovereign National Conference should be called to raise, discuss and resolve these issues. The commitment of the President to the northern led military put the President in a dilemma as to how to approach the issues raised by all the ethnic nationalities except the Arewa. The Arewa put the President on notice that agreeing to a Sovereign National Conference would amount to a capitulation to those who want a fundamental restructuring of Nigeria including the fundamental restructuring of the armed forces and break up the country. This is wrong, as the end of such a conference would lead to "a more perfect union". Otherwise, the President has no reason why he should be opposed to Nigerians through their accredited representatives talking. He should allow them to talk.

Very soon, the Arewa leaders are beginning to see the Oputa Commission as another way of getting at them and reaping the benefits of a Sovereign National Conference. Is this why the President is not interested in increasing the power of the Commission? Nigeria expects more from President Obasanjo, if he really wants Nigerians to cope with the past human rights violations of the military regimes. This is why in terms of focus and effectiveness, the Oputa Commission would not compare with the pioneer settings in Argentina in South America and recently in South Africa. The past in Argentina was a military unjust rule and the past in South Africa was about the unjust rule of a racial minority. Both compared with the military regime in Nigeria. We should call a spade a spade. We thought the nascent democracy in Nigeria understood what our past meant and was was picking from these experiments and beating about the bush. President Obasanjo can still revisit the instruments setting up the Commission otherwise the noble intention behind the setting up of the Commission would be defeated.

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008 THE OPUTA COMMISSION Page 16 of 16

The issues so far raised at the Commission ought to have convinced the President that he should allow Nigerians to talk about (a) how they want to live together and (b) how they want to be governed. That after forty years of independence, Nigerians are still concerned with these two issues. No opportunity had been created for Nigerians representatives to freely come together and tackle these two issues. All the post 1966 Constitutional Conferences were held under the auspices of the military, which set "no go areas" for the various assemblies. The post annulment era in 1998 posed such a monumental opportunity for the two lingering political issues to be raised, discussed and resolved. Nigeria embarked on a foreign/military backed transition program, which produced a civilian regime. Of course we know today that this civilian regime has not been able to prove to be independent of the past. Is it not why President Obasanjo's administration is proving unable to deal with the lingering political problems? Maybe so! President Obasanjo would have like to leave some legacies behind if he were to use the second opportunity given by God to serve as an instrument for dealing with these problems.

DOES THE MILITARY HAVE A VETO OVER PRESIDENT OBASANJO?

Today, the frightening issue is that we now have the effect of the veto power of the armed forces with respect to the role of the armed forces in politics. It is now the turn of the armed forces to make its views known. Now that the Oputa Commission is being told of the gruesome stories arising from the anti-democratic conduct of the military especially since 1993, do we still believe in the armed forces as presently composed and led with the prevailing orientation? Do we believe that the Nigerian military of today is relevant to the nascent democracy? The two Ds are still the minimum objectives and the military as presently led at the Ministerial and Command levels would resist the two Ds. The solution therefore lies in the Sovereign National Conference with or without the present administration should pursue for the sake of Nigeria.

If the President had any reason to believe in the fear ably canvassed by the Arewa leaders that a Sovereign National Conference would lead to the disintegration of Nigeria, the President should have read the reasoned opinion of eminent and apolitical persons canvassing for a Sovereign National Conference. I am referring to the former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, the former Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Africa, Professor Adebayo Adedeji, the former Governor of the Central Bank, Chief Ola Vincent and recently the former Chairman of the Daily Tines, Alhaji Babatunde Jose.

Could all these eminent Nigerians be canvassing for the disintegration of Nigeria? Could all these eminent Nigerians be said to be politically motivated? What I find common among them is that they want the Sovereign National Conference as the only solution to the lingering Nigerian problem, which is beyond the President and the National Assembly and beyond the 1999 Constitution.

Professor Omo Omoruyi

Read a review of 'The tale of June 12' a book written by Prof. Omoruyi

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/oarticles/oputa_commission.htm 7/18/2008