THE ARMY AND ITS ALARMISTS

THE Nigerian military high command recently raised an alarm over what it described as plans by the opposition group to “disrupt the public peace” following the verdict of the presidential election tribunal which upheld the election of President Umaru Yar’ Adua. The military command did not stop at that. The Chief of Defence Staff, General Owoye Azazi, specifically warned against such a “plot” (of disturbing the peace), adding that the military was behind President Yar’Adua and would, therefore, not allow anyone to disturb public peace.

THE Director of Defence Information, Brigadier General M.D Yusuf, quoted Azazi as stating that, “We have seen the rule of law in action and we will do our best to ensure the maintenance of public peace as enshrined in our nation’s constitution. Let us all join hands together to assist the President and Commander-in-Chief in moving the country forward to the lofty heights where we want Nigeria to be”.

AT best, this is a curious statement from the military high command. It becomes curiouser because the Nigeria Police did not corroborate what the opposition group regards as the figment of the rich imagination of the military high command.

INSTRUCTIVELY, Azazi’s statement was needless and ill-advised on three critical grounds. One, even if it is true that there was a “plot”, based on the way Azazi himself described it, to “disrupt the public peace”, the police are the primary and relevant authority to speak on, or react to, such a plot. That the military overtook the police in reacting to such a sensitive “plot”, that is where it is valid, is capable of exposing the military to charges of partisanship on the side of one of the parties in a legitimate dispute over the 2007 elections - as already acknowledged by local and international observers.

TWO, where the “plot” was real and considered grave enough for the military high command to make such a statement - over and above the police - it would have helped the command’s credibility if it had given credible information that would convince the public that it was not engaging in frivolity in its eagerness to discredit legitimate opposition in a democratic setting.

THREE, if this statement needed to have been made at all, the military high command would have indicated its non-partisanship by re-stating, even while warning against civil disruption, that it recognised the constitutional rights of Nigerians to protest against what they deem unacceptable. Such a protest, the military high command could have added, must, however, be conducted within the parameters of the law. This is so because Nigerians did not make all the sacrifices they made in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly against military adventurers, only to live in a democracy where their legitimate rights to civil protest would be criminalised by an institution that had for many decades represented the subversion of popular wish.

THAT Azazi was calling on Nigerians to “join hands together to assist the President and Commander-in-Chief in moving the country forward to the lofty heights where we want Nigeria to be” is a shade beyond his brief. A statement by a chieftain of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) would not have been significantly different.

GENERAL Azazi and his officers and men will do well to pay attention to their constitutional duties and resist the temptation to make frivolous, political statements. Already, opposition elements have challenged Azazi to name such persons or groups that were involved in the said “plot”, while a political party even derided the charge as a “blatant lie”. This does not bode well for the nation’s military.

THE decision of the election tribunal has been challenged and would be subjected to a review by the Supreme Court. Up till now, Nigeria has witnessed a commendable resort to constitutional and legal resolution of conflicts, particularly by the opposition group, in the last few years. In the elections held in 2007, for the most account, the reaction of the opposition group has been commendable. The fact that the judiciary has redeemed itself by making legal pronouncements that have largely reinforced the trust of litigants in the system cannot but be adduced as one of the reasons the democratic government has survived up till now in Nigeria. These are elementary matters that should be understood and appreciated by the military high command.

Azazi is advised to seek advice before he jumps into the fray next time.

BETWEEN PETER AND TIPPERS

A performance of a Beethoven recital was advertised this way: “Featuring Ludwig v Beethoven”. Two inner city young men saw the bill and one said to the other: “It will not be a good boxing match; I have never heard of them”.

It was, of course, not a boxing match. It was about a feast of music and had nothing to do with fisticuffs. It was not a bout pitting Ludwig against Beethoven. Beethoven’s full name was Ludwig van Beethoven.

Not many boxing fans can truthfully say that they do not know who Samuel Peter is. The Nigerian did a number on Oleg Maskaev in Mexico last week. Oleg had no leg to stand on at the end of the fifth found. The referee saved Maskaev from being massacred in the sixth round. Maskaev may have worn a mask for a few days to hide his swollen face.

IT was revealed a few days ago why Al Gore lost the 2000 United States presidential election. It was not because Jeb Bush, then governor of Florida, rigged the state’s vote for his brother, George. Al was knocked out by Tipper, his wife.

The former vice-president visited Nigeria after the 2000 presidential election was stolen from him. His wife made her own visit to Nigeria last week. Tipper took on revenue collectors and defeated them at Ikpoba slope in Benin City. Tipper gored them and the collectors almost became corpses.

Actually, it was tipper drivers, members of Tipper Garage Association, that caused the revenue collectors to groan in pain. The clash was a display of barbarity. They made rude sounds that would have outraged Beethoven; the sounds were not symphonic. We do not tip our hat to them.