Military_and_Constitutionalism_in_Nigeria

Military and Constitutionalism in Nigeria CHAPTER ONE 1.1 Introduction Military administration is the administration of a government by military men who basically ascend to power through military coup. A coup d'état or coup for short (French for overthrow of the state), is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a government, by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another body; either civil or military. A coup d'état succeeds if the usurper establish their dominance when the incumbent government fails to prevent or successfully resist their consolidation of power. Typically, a coup d'état uses the extant government's power to assume political control of the country. In a practical handbook on military coup, military historian Edward Luttwak says, "A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder", 1.2 Constitution A constitution is a set of rules for government—often codified as a written document—that enumerates and limits the powers and functions of a political entity. It usually contains fundamental political principles, and establishes the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government. From the above, we can decipher that a constitution is a document stating clearly what the limit of a government is, right of office holders, what obligation/protection is expected of a government, the rights of citizens and how they relate to one another. Constitutionalism on the other hand, is a concept in political theory that explains that a government does not derive its power from itself, but gains its power from a set of written laws that give the governing body certain powers. This concept is in sharp opposition to monarchies, theocracies, and dictatorships, in which the power does not derive from a pre-drawn legal document. In a monarchy, the power is derived as an inalienable right of the king or queen. In a theocracy, all of the power of a governing party is derived from a set of religious beliefs, which are thought to exist as a result of the will of God, and in a dictatorship, the power is derived from the will of a single or group of people and their ideology, which does not necessarily represent the will of the people. Constitutionalism therefore naturally prescribes a system of government in which the government’s powers are limited. Government officials, whether elected or not, cannot act against their own constitutions if they see fit. Constitutional law is the highest body of law in the land, which all citizens, including the government, are subjected to. Several nations around the world have adopted forms of constitutionalism in their governments. 1.3 Origin Of Military Rule For the first 2 million years of his existence, man lived in bands or villages which, as far as we can tell, were completely autonomous. Not until perhaps 5000 B.C. did villages begin to aggregate into larger political units. But once this process of aggregation began, It continued at a progressively faster pace and led, around 4000 B.C, to the formation of the first state in history with the sole aim of protecting the members from attack. A state then mean an autonomous political unit, encompassing many communities within its territory and having a centralized government with the power to collect taxes, draft for work or war. These central governments were manned by men with military experience or background knowledge, thus marking the first incursion of military into public rule. Though the military of this era were rudimentary in weaponry, training and organization, nevertheless, it was the bases for society organization and administration. After this rudimentary organization, the society underwent several transformations, from Greek colonies based on metal trade through Sparta and Athens that was based on rigid social structure to the Macedonian era. The military rule continued until the greedy commanders decided to seize power for themselves and retain it in their linage, thus began the history of monarchies:- the domination of the majority by the few sustained by belief system which justified their reign as divinely inspired and ordained. 1.4 Military Rule In Modern World Military rule in modern world is linked to the rise of industrial revolution in 1770 and its attendant quest for raw materials to power the growing industry, and the French revolution of 1787 which removed authority from monarchs and placed it on the people (military officers). This new reality of inadequate and insufficient raw materials for the growing population and industries in Europe necessitated the outward look for sources of cheap, sustainable raw materials which were to be used to power the fast-rising taste of the people. European countries therefore sent merchants and military men to other areas of the world to conquer and subdue such areas with the purpose of exploiting their resources and repatriating same to home countries. This led to forceful seizure and domination of other countries (like Africa) which the imperialists justified as divine and necessary for the enlightenment of the colonized. African continent witnessed balkanization in 19th century by the Europeans whose purpose was economic and exploitation. 1.5 Military intervention in modern Africa Since independence, Africa as a third world country has suffered serious usurpation of governments by military men who routinely remove either the civilian government or military government governing such a country. Since the Egyptian revolution in 1952 Africa has experienced approximately 90 violent or unconstitutional changes of government, though many more unsuccessful attempts have been made to overthrow governments. This number does not include the numerous instances where individual government leaders were forcibly removed without a regime change taking place. Cases in point are the assassinations of General Mohammed in Nigeria (1976) and Egypt's President Sadat (1981), resulting in General Obasanjo and Vice-President Mubarak respectively succeeding them. No less than 26 presidents and prime ministers have lost their lives in successful and unsuccessful coups and various kinds of power struggles. Nevertheless, most of the violent takeovers were relatively bloodless affairs. In the rest of Mediterranean Africa and in sub-Sahara Africa, the first violent changes of government occurred a few years after former colonies had become independent, namely in Sudan (1958) and in Benin, Congo Brazzaville and Togo (1963). Since then at least one government was overthrown every year (except for 1970 and 1988) until as recently as May 1999. The years 1966 and 1979 saw the most coups, six in both years. With few exceptions, the successful coups and armed revolts were staged by military officers and armed rebels. Only in Sudan (1964) and in Seychelles (1977) were civilian leaders the driving force behind power grabs, respectively from military rulers in Sudan and from a civilian government in Seychelles. There were also two cases (Uganda, 1966 and Lesotho, 1970) where civilian heads of government launched pre-emptive coups in order to stay in office. 1.6 Military Intervention In Nigeria On October 1, 1960, Nigeria gained independence from Britain. An all-Nigerian Executive Council was headed by a Prime Minister, Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. On November 16, 1960, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, a pioneer of West African Nationalism, became the first Governor-General of a Federation of three Regions of the North, East and West, with Lagos as the Federal Capital. Each of the Regions was headed by a Premier with a Governor as Ceremonial Head. On October 1, 1963, Nigeria became a Federal Republic and severed whatever ties were left with Britain. She decided, however, to remain in the British Commonwealth of Nations. The Governor-General's position was, therefore, re-designated as President. From 1966 to 1999, seven military regimes succeeded, beginning in 1966, interspersed between the fourth and fifth military regime by a return to civilian rule with the Second Republic between October 1979 and December, 1983. The final military regime left power on May 29, 1999, when the current Fourth Republic was installed and the president democratically elected president. 1966-1966: Col. Chukwuma Nzogwu coup 1966-1975: General Gowon regime 1975-1979: General Murtala/Obasanjo regime 1984-1985: General Buhari regime 1985-1993: General Babangida regime 1993-1998: General Sani Abacha regime 1998-1999: General Abdulsami Abubarka regime Nigeria also had lots of unsuccessful coups which helped in retarding the progress of the nation CHAPTER TWO 2.1 REASONS FOR MILITARY INTERVENTION IN AFRICA The reasons for coups and counter-coups in Africa nay third world countries since independence, has been given by various authors who maintain that it may not totally be bourn out altruistic motive. While earlier authors saw it as heroic, modern writers condemn it ostensible for its inadequacies in addressing and proffering solutions to the numerous challenges bedeviling the society. Ukana B. Ikpe, maintained that military intervention in politics was a result of side-lining and suspicion of the military by independent politicians, who saw the military as enemy owning to their collaboration with the colonialist to stifle calls for independence. These suspicions led to estrangement and no-love lost relationship between the politicians and the military men and its attendant result of shoving the politicians away from power. Ukpata k. submitted that the reason for the wave of military coups after independence in African states were imperialist orchestrated, owning to the reality of loss of cheap economic raw materials and the independent mindedness exhibited by the new political leaders. This led to the sponsoring of military across Africa by their colonial master to oust the independent politicians who were not subordinate and subject to their whims and caprices. Example of this was the killing of Murtala Mohamed which was believed to have been sponsored by the British government. Ukpata B. Ikpe in enunciating further said that the noticeable corruption, nepotism, tyranny and undemocratic attitude were the reasons for military intervention. The disposition of African leaders towards corrupt tendencies immediately after taken-over from the colonial masters and intolerance of opposition as seen in western Nigeria was the reason for the military intervention led by Major Nzogwu in 1966. It was observed also, that in some African countries, the military banqueted to the independent government, was “foreign” army that comprised a large number of foreigners and few locals in her services. In Congo for example, out of the twenty-four thousand personnel, nineteen thousand were foreigners. The situation led to constant mutiny and the eventual overthrow of the government. Some military men out of greed and quest to protect their interests initiated mutiny which removal of existing government 2.2 Justification Of Military Regime In the past, military juntas have justified their rule as a way of bringing political stability for the nation or rescuing it from the threat of "dangerous ideologies". In Latin America the threat of communism was often used, while in the Middle East the desire to oppose Israel and later Islamic fundamentalism proved an important motivating pattern. Military regimes tend to portray themselves as non-partisan, as a "neutral" party that can provide interim leadership in times of turmoil, and also tend to portray civilian politicians as corrupt and ineffective. One of the almost universal characteristics of a military government is the institution of martial law or a permanent state of emergency. 2.3 Result Of Military Intervention In Africa In retrospect, the results of military rule in this vast continent have been very disappointing indeed. Besides being unable to solve the problems they set out to solve in the first place, military regimes in some cases have created situations that did not exist with civilian governments. Military rule has not necessarily been free of incompetence, corruption and maladministration that their civilian predecessors were alleged to have encouraged. Soldiers have been known to be more of wealth-seekers, property grabbers and bribe-takers. They have openly engaged themselves in self-enrichment activities through the barrel of the gun and through intimidation. They have become better embezzlers than their forerunners. They have made better smugglers and tax evaders. In Uganda, General Idi Amin expelled the entire Asian community without any compensation. All the Asian-owned businesses, premises, dwelling houses and plantations were literally dished out to fellow soldiers, friends and any other Ugandan who caught the General's fancy. Within about two years most of those businesses had closed down or gone bankrupt owing to mismanagement and neglect. It soon came to light that the Asian participation in the Ugandan commerce and industry formed a very dynamic part of the country's economy. Essential consumer goods became scarce and in turn this prompted smuggling across the borders from the neighboring countries. By the time Dr. Milton Obote made a comeback, Uganda was at the brink of bankruptcy and total economic decay. Further-more, the soldiers in Uganda were no longer accountable for their actions. The rule of law was a total breakdown and thousands of people were massacred or simply "disappeared" without trace. Events in other countries echoed of economic mismanagement and political instability. There were threats of further coups, counter-coups and assassinations. Although the general public had initially welcomed, hailed and celebrated coups, they were now disillusioned by there outcome. CHAPTER THREE 3.1 MILITARY INTERVENTION AND CONSTITUTIONALISM “Military regimes in Nigeria exhibited patrimonial characteristics such as personal rule, absence of separation between the public and private realms, patron-client administrative networks, veneration of the ruler, massive corruption, ethnic/sectional-based support, and repression of opposition and violation of human rights.” Ukana B. Ikpe Most modern nations have fundamental documents which are especially designated as Constitutions that define the scope and limits of the powers of organs of government which run their affairs. Constitutions provide boundaries and contexts for legislative acts of national and sub-national parliaments and they circumscribe judicial interpretation of legal enactments by legislative assemblies. In Nigerian political history, there has been an abundance of these constitutional documents, stretching from colonial times to the current version of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Ultimately, any nation’s written constitution derives its underlying authority and legitimacy from its compliance with the Spirit of the Constitution which informs the people’s respect for governance. Despite its suspension of the country’s 1963 Republican Constitution during the Western region crisis, the Nigerian constitution remain supreme until the military incursion into politics. Though the military rule in Nigeria initially respected the spirit of the Nigerian Constitution. Indeed, throughout the era of the civil war and while General Yakubu Gowon presided over the Central Government, Nigeria’s political affairs were ruled by a healthy respect for the central tenets of the spirit of the Nigerian constitution that was inherited from the civilian era of governance before the onset of military rule. A major departure from such implicit adherence to the spirit of the Nigerian Constitution began with the military putsch of 1975 led by General Murtala Muhammed and General Olusegun Obasanjo. Their military regime imposed a new constitutional framework that sharply revised the doctrine of Nigeria’s Independence Constitution. It is that new framework, introduced by an ideologically impassioned military regime from 1975 onwards, which has taken hold in post-military Nigeria. The current 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, decreed into being on May 5 1999 by General Abdulsalami Abubakar and his exclusively military Provisional Ruling Council, is ultimately a product of that newer constitutional framework. In many ways, both in terms of the structure and the culture of the Constitution, the existing constitutional framework and its rendition in the 1999 Constitution contrast sharply with the older principles of constitutionalism that we inherited from the colonial era and its immediate aftermath. 3.2 Suspension Of Constitution, Rule By Decree And Abuse Of Human Right Due to its inherent lapses of illegality in ascension to power, the military regimes swiftly suspend part or complete constitution to enable them “muscle” down whatever opposition the might have before settling-in into the leadership position of any country they usurped power. In Nigeria, one of the most odious attacks on freedom of the press in the history of military rule and indeed the history of journalism practice in Nigeria must be the notorious Decree 4 of 1984. It was a vengeful decree designed by maniacal military leaders not only to silence freedom of expression and of the press but also to silence the truth. Some media commentators had argued, in the heydays of the decree, that its enactment signaled the desire of the creators to intimidate the Nigerian press (and Nigerians in general) from carrying out its social role in society: that is, to act as a check on government and as a watchdog of society. Muhammadu Buhari and Tunde Idiagbon, the former military head of state and his "Man Friday" who endorsed Decree 4, used the decree to impose the most restrictive anti-press freedom laws in Nigeria. Decree 4 was designed to shield Buhari and his minions from being accountable to the Nigerian people. The intent of the decree was clear -- to silence opinion, speculation and even the truth. Decree 4 was evil in intent and execution and went against all norms of decency in civilized society. Indeed Decree 4 was an abuse of the fundamental principles of human rights. It violated the spirit and letters of Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights of which Nigeria was a signatory. Article 19 had stated that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression - and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any medium and regardless of frontiers". In Nigeria no one, certainly not the military leaders, listened or respected human rights clauses of the United Nations. When Buhari took over, his new military regime suspended several parts of the constitution (primarily those relating to freedom of assembly, association and political activity. People complained about the draconian Decree 2 of 1984 – the State security (Detention of Persons) Decree which permitted the Federal Military Government to detain any person considered by the Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters to be a security threat, for up to three months without charge or trial. In fact, he jailed two journalists, Thompson and Nduka Irabor of the Guardian Newspaper, while the newspaper was fined N50, 000 for publishing what the military authority termed a false report. Another journalist, Haroun Adamu of the Kano based Triumph Newspaper, was also imprisoned for writing a feature on him. Vera Ifudu, a reporter with the Nigerian Television Authority, NTA, was sacked by Buhari’s administration. He also used Decree No2 to jail many politicians. Among the politicians jailed under this decree include: Ebenezer Babatope, Solomon Lar, and Chief Jim Nwobodo among others. Civil liberties organizations fumed and breathed a sigh of relief when Babangida took over, expecting Babangida to repeal Decree 2. Babangida not only retained it, but extended the detention period under Decree 2 to six months and used it to detain those civil liberties and pro-democracy movements that had welcomed his assent to power. Babangida suppressed the press to the extent of parcel bombing Dele Giwa a leading journalist and one of founder of Newswatch magazine on account of investigation he was carrying out. The military regimes often on assumption of power promulgate decrees which are done with the sole agenda of stifling opposition voices. This over the years ensured total or limited guarantee of rights of the citizen, unlike in constitutionalism where right are protected by the constitution and a redress can be pursued vigorously when its infringed upon. 3.3 Conclusion Today, the coup d'etat phenomenon has reduced over Africa because it has been proved that coup has not improved the African economic conditions. Military administrations have not been a source for political stability. Rather than solve African contemporary political and socio-economic problems, military coups d'etat in Africa have tended to drive the continent into even further suffering and turmoil. And then there is that aura of insecurity and uncertainty. When and where is the next one going to be' But one thing is certain, as long as there is economic and political stability military coups will not occur; and because the new Worlds order, military regimes are seen as anachronistic, obsolete, archaic and unproductive to human progress. Bibliography Robert Carneiro, (1970): A Theory of the Origin of the State, Science 169 . Jonathan Haas, The Evolution of the Prehistoric State Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and Timothy Earle, eds., (1987) Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies Internet materials: http://www.saharareporters.com/article/dele-giwas-murder-babangida-did- it-writes-dele-giwas-brother en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_coup http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/carticles/nfessions_of_a_prosecutor. htm http://www.kwenu.com/publications/max/giwa_fact.tm http://www.waado.org/nigerdelta/Nigeria_Facts/MilitaryRule/federalism_ ekh.h