NIGERIAWORLDNIGERIAWEBODILI.NETMESSAGEBOARDNAIJA PERSONAL WEB PAGESNAIJANET.COM


 
Nowa Omoigui's response: Malu on Odi
 

ANNOUNCE THIS VIEWPOINT TO YOUR FRIENDS!
 Monday, January 31, 2000



 Nowa Omoigui
 [email protected]


 




DUMP YAHOO!
DUMP HOTMAIL!

Get Nigeria's own NAIJANET.COM FreeMAIL!

It's Fast, Private, No Junk Mails.

Brought to you by Odili.NET
and
Nigeriaworld

 SIGN UP





  NEWSTALK
  GENERAL MESSAGES
  DIASPORA ISSUES
  REUNIONCENTRAL
  SCIENTIFIC NIGERIAN
  BUSINESSLINK
  FUNNIES
  SPORTSTALK NIGERIA
  ANNOUNCEMENTS

  CHATROOM

Dear Editor:

I am responding to Emmanuel Obi's understandable reaction to General Malu's recent Press Conference.

That Press Conference and the way it was reported by various local and international news media raises numerous questions about selective news reporting and analyses.

The Press Briefing itself was primarily directed at announcing Promotions and Retirements in the Army based upon decisions made at a January 6, 2000 Army Council Meeting chaired by the President and C-in-C.

The Odi statement by General Malu was in response to a question by a reporter. To analyse it fully and fairly the original question (or questions) and the context in which the question (or questions) was (or were) asked needs to be fully aired.

But there is a recent development that bears comment. Lt. Col. Agbabiaka, the officer widely credited in the Press for the sacking of Odi has been promoted to the rank of full Colonel.

He would not have been promoted if his actions on the ground did not meet with the approval of his Brigade Commander, GOC, Army Chief , and ultimately the C-in-C - our very own elected President. A look back into the careers of officers who have been involved in prior internal security operations in Nigeria reveals that some have had their careers cut short when the government did not approve of (or empathize with) the collateral damage (i.e. civilian casualties) that resulted from their actions in the field.

But obviously what General Malu is claiming is that the Army WAS asked to undertake a type of urban operation at Odi in which the rules of engagement permitted soldiers to destroy buildings from which rifle fire allegedly came. According to the General, that is his training. In other words, if you do not want that kind of outcome, do not ask the Army to go in. What the General did not discuss are the range of options that could have been exercised by his soldiers - if any.

Thus, whether or not the "type of operation" Col. Agbabiaka allegedly undertook (on behalf of his superiors) is the "type of operation" he was asked to undertake and whether or not the outcome was consistent with his rules of engagement appears to have been answered by the General's comments as well as the fact that the officer concerned has been rewarded with a promotion. One concedes that this promotion might indeed have been due (or overdue) with or without the Odi imbroglio. Nevertheless, given the sensitivities involved, it does send signals to aggrieved parties.

Whether or not the rules of engagement and actions in Odi were lawful and prudent in an internal security (minimum force) context is a different matter. Even then one should not prejudge the answer to this question without more specific information.

Hopefully, our representatives in the Federal House of Representatives and Senate have the information with which to make these judgements and bring the matter to closure.

Nowa Omoigui
Columbia, SC, USA




Privacy Policy