Is Nigeria Truly a Democratic State? –By Matthew Ma

“If we affirm that it is, it becomes imperative for all security officers to uphold the established laws and conduct themselves by these regulations. We must cultivate a culture of accountability beyond political status. Supporting misconduct cannot be justified simply because of an individual’s influence. In an actual democratic society, the rule of law must serve as the cornerstone of governance, guiding the state’s actions and its citizens’ behavior.”

A few days ago, the Nigerian Army came under renewed scrutiny due to troubling reports of misconduct by two officers. These individuals operate under the erroneous assumption that their positions grant them immunity from established legal protocols. Such behavior not only raises significant concerns but also fosters a perception of impunity within the military ranks. What was the issue? A video surfaced depicting two military officers assaulting a couple in Gwarimpa. The footage captured a man being brutally beaten by army personnel in front of his wife. The situation escalated from what seemed to be a minor confrontation into a heated argument, quickly spiraling out of control. Despite the woman’s heartfelt and desperate pleas for her husband’s safety, along with her urgent calls for the officers to exercise restraint, the aggressor showed no signs of halting his violent actions. The implications of such behavior by the military raise critical questions: How do these couples find themselves in situations where the military—an institution designed to protect them—ends up beating them instead? At what stage did Nigerian security agencies attain such power to operate with impunity? What factors have fueled this concerning shift, and how do societal, political, and historical contexts contribute to this erosion of trust? Let us begin by addressing the first question. A few days ago, a troubling incident involving an army general came to light, raising serious concerns regarding the abuse of power and violent conduct. Reports from Sahara Reporters reveal how Mr. Vershima Mker and his wife were targeted following what appeared to be a minor driving infraction. While on the road, Mr. Mker overtook the vehicle of Major General G.S. Mohammed, an action that reportedly angered the military officer. In a concerning display of authority, General Mohammed ordered the couple to pull over. Eyewitness accounts suggest that he, along with his aide, Corporal A. Abubakar, forcibly removed them from their car. The situation escalated quickly, indicating that the couple was beaten, threatened, and abused.

Following this brutal encounter, General Mohammed and Corporal Abubakar handcuffed the couple, placed them in the trunk of their own vehicle, and transported them to the Gwarinpa Police Station. Upon arrival, it was reported that General Mohammed used his influence to instruct the police to detain the couple indefinitely. He ordered that they remain in custody until he issued specific directives concerning their release, leaving them in a state of uncertainty and fear for an indeterminate period. This incident raised the following question: At what stage did Nigerian security agencies attain such power to operate with impunity? What factors have fueled this concerning shift, and how do societal, political, and historical contexts contribute to this erosion of trust? The strained relationship between Nigerian security agencies and the general population is not just a contemporary issue, but a legacy of a complex tapestry of historical, structural, and sociopolitical factors. The colonial police force was primarily established to serve the interests of the colonial government, which often prioritized its own authority over the welfare of the local population. This force focused on suppressing dissent among colonized people, employing tactics that included intimidation and violence against those who opposed colonial rule. Rather than acting as community protectors, police actions frequently centered on enforcing unpopular laws that benefited the colonial administration, such as restrictions on free speech and assembly, rather than ensuring justice or safety for the citizens they were supposed to serve.

As a result of these practices, the colonial police earned a reputation as an oppressive arm of the government. Their operations were marked by a lack of accountability and an emphasis on control, resulting in widespread distrust and fear among the populace. This approach fostered a legacy in which the police were perceived not as defenders of public safety and order but rather as instruments of oppression aimed at quelling any signs of resistance. Consequently, the relationship between the police force and the communities they served became profoundly adversarial, with many viewing them as enforcers of colonial domination rather than as public servants committed to the welfare of all. The situation deteriorated significantly during the post-independence period, particularly under various military regimes that favored authoritarian governance over democratic principles. During these times, security forces often used heavy-handed tactics, which included widespread human rights abuses, arbitrary detentions, and brutal crackdowns on dissent. This oppressive approach entrenched a culture of fear and skepticism towards law enforcement among citizens. Regardless of any political dispensation, this distrust, deeply rooted in the colonial era continues to shape the present. Each successive government has inherited these deeply rooted issues and perpetuated them through policies prioritizing state security over community safety.

Nigeria endured an extended military rule from the 1960s until the late 1990s, significantly influencing its political landscape. During this time, the military seized control through coups, establishing regimes prioritizing power consolidation over democratic governance. The security forces, especially the police and the army, were systematically deployed to quash any political dissent, often employing violent measures to maintain order and control. Human rights violations became widespread as these regimes implemented policies aimed at silencing opposition. Protests against government actions were met with brutal crackdowns, instilling widespread fear among the populace. A lack of accountability reinforced a pervasive culture of authoritarianism, enabling security agencies to operate with impunity and frequently abuse their power without consequences. This environment not only stifled civil liberties but also eroded public trust in the institutions meant to protect citizens, further complicating Nigeria’s pursuit of actual democratic governance and societal stability.

Corruption within the ranks of the security forces has significantly eroded public trust and perception. Once viewed as a beacon of national pride and a symbol of strength, the Nigerian army has sadly become the subject of ridicule and disillusionment. The respect it once commanded has diminished, leaving many citizens questioning its effectiveness and integrity. In previous decades, the Nigerian army demonstrated remarkable capability and courage, particularly during its interventions in the Liberian and Sierra Leonean civil wars, where it played a crucial role in restoring peace and security. However, the current landscape is starkly different. The army now grapples with numerous pressing security challenges within Nigeria itself, such as rampant terrorism, kidnappings, and communal conflicts. This shift raises severe concerns about whether the military retains the formidable prowess it once possessed. Many Nigerians find themselves pondering the underlying reasons for this decline. What has transpired to transform such an esteemed institution into one that struggles to safeguard the nation’s security? This pervasive uncertainty and disappointment points to a deeper issue within the military’s leadership and operational efficacy, compounding the need for urgent and immediate reforms and accountability.

Following our return to democracy in 1999, a shared understanding emerged among the populace that the military, having substantially influenced the prior authoritarian regime, needed to withdraw from the political arena. The expectation was for them to resume their traditional role, which entails defending the nation and maintaining peace from within the confines of their barracks. However, as the years have progressed, I have increasingly observed a troubling trend: the military’s conduct and demeanor suggest that they have not entirely relinquished their previous political influence. Rather than serving solely as protectors of the nation and champions of the democratic ideals we fought to restore, their presence has increasingly assumed a more oppressive and intimidating character. This has resulted in a palpable sense of distress among the citizenry—those they are ostensibly sworn to protect. Such behaviors raise significant questions about their genuine commitment to their duty as military personnel. Furthermore, it compels us to reflect on the fundamental principles of democracy, which thrive on respect for civil rights and the autonomy of political institutions free from military interference. The dissonance between their mandate and actions breeds unease and casts doubt on the health of our democratic system. This situation necessitates weighty introspection and open dialogue regarding the military’s role in our society and the safeguards required to ensure that democracy can thrive, unencumbered by undue military influence. It is crucial that we protect our democratic principles from such encroachment.

During Donald Trump’s first term as president, he significantly tested the boundaries of military engagement to achieve various policy objectives. He made a prominent pledge to withdraw a substantial number of American troops stationed overseas and relocate them to the U.S. border with Mexico to strengthen his administration’s immigration enforcement policies. Additionally, Trump signaled his intention to remove military officials he viewed as ideologically opposed to his administration, indicating a desire for loyalty within the military leadership. In pursuing these strategies, Trump entertained the controversial notion of deploying military personnel for domestic policy initiatives, including deportations and managing civil unrest during heightened social movements. However, as these plans unfolded, the military hierarchy clarified its foundational mission: to defend the United States from external threats rather than engage in civilian matters on domestic soil. This commitment to a defensive posture was underscored by Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who emphasized that the deployment of active-duty military personnel for such purposes would only be considered a last resort to be employed in the most urgent and critical situations. Esper’s firm assertion—that the nation was not in a dire state then—was particularly significant. His opposition to invoking the Insurrection Act carried substantial weight, reflecting his understanding of the proper roles of military and civilian authorities and his dedication to maintaining the integrity of military operations in accordance with constitutional principles. This stance reinforced the idea that military resources should focus on their primary objective of external defense rather than being drawn into domestic conflicts, which could jeopardize public trust and disrupt the established order. The implications of such actions were profound, suggesting a potential reevaluation of the military’s role within American society. This potential shift in the military’s role invites critical reflections and essential questions, sparking intrigue and thoughtful consideration among military officials and civilian observers about the effects on America’s global standing and the conventional boundaries that limit military intervention in domestic affairs.

The situation would have been markedly different if Mark Esper had been Nigerian; he likely would have permitted the military to retaliate. There are numerous instances of this occurring in Nigeria, with the Odi and Zaki-Biam incidents, as well as the EndSARS protests, serving as prominent examples of military actions taken against civilians. This raises important questions: What provisions and regulations does our constitution outline regarding the operations and limitations of the armed forces? Additionally, when can we realistically expect a reduction in military involvement in domestic matters, especially those typically under civil governance? Addressing these questions is crucial as we examine the relationship between military dynamics, management, and civil liberties.

The situation would have been markedly different if Mark Esper had been Nigerian; he likely would have permitted the military to retaliate. There are numerous instances of this occurring in Nigeria, with the Odi and Zaki-Biam incidents, as well as the EndSARS protests, serving as prominent examples of military actions taken against civilians. This raises important questions: What provisions and regulations does our constitution outline regarding the operations and limitations of the armed forces? Additionally, when can we realistically expect a reduction in military involvement in domestic matters, especially those typically under civil governance? As we await further developments in the criminal assault case involving military officers, it becomes increasingly important to address the broader systemic issues of brutality experienced by many citizens in Nigeria. A significant number of Nigerians encounter violence, often at the hands of individuals from wealthier and more privileged segments of society. Numerous instances highlight this troubling trend, such as a high-ranking official mistreating a ride-hailing driver or affluent parents hiring security personnel and thugs to intimidate educators who enforce discipline with their children. This pattern of abuse reveals a stark reality: those in positions of wealth and power frequently evade accountability, allowing them to maintain their privilege and status without facing consequences for their actions.

There is another concern among Nigerians regarding the frequent use of sirens by security authorities, particularly when they are not actively pursuing a fleeing suspect. The public is curious about the circumstances that warrant such displays of urgency. In my observations, aside from emergencies involving ambulances and police cars in pursuit of suspects, it is pretty rare to see law enforcement, military officials, or politicians utilize sirens in North America. In contrast, the situation in Nigeria is markedly different. Local government chairpersons, councilors, and even private entities like banks routinely employ sirens in various, often questionable, situations. Moreover, it is somewhat unusual for ambulances transporting deceased individuals to activate their sirens, raising further questions about the appropriateness of this practice. The unconventional use of sirens in civilian contexts has sparked a conversation about established protocols and the specific circumstances that might warrant such dramatic measures in everyday situations. For instance, a pressing question remains: What was the destination of the general in question, and what urgency justified this level of response? Such unanswered inquiries linger in the minds of those who witnessed the incident, highlighting a broader need for immediate legal clarity regarding the motivations behind these actions and the standards that govern them.

There have been urgent and widespread calls for the immediate dismissal of the two military officers involved in this deeply troubling incident. Some people argued that these officers should not only lose their positions but also face full accountability for their misconduct, which has not only harmed the couple but also undermined community trust in military personnel. The expectations for administrative consequences are high, and a thorough investigation into their behavior is imperative. Such an investigation should be transparent and involve oversight from independent bodies to avoid any potential bias that could arise from within the military hierarchy. However, a critical question lingers over the likelihood of justice being served. Given historical precedents set by similar cases and the systemic issues that often hinder accountability for law enforcement and military officials, there is genuine apprehension about whether the necessary steps will be taken. Many are left to wonder if this incident will simply become another example of overlooked misconduct, leaving victims without the justice they deserve and perpetuating a cycle of impunity. The community and advocates for justice are left questioning whether genuine accountability can ever be achieved in such cases.

Nigerians have repeatedly voiced deep concerns regarding the lackluster response of security agencies to the threats posed by Boko Haram and various kidnapping groups. Instead of concentrating their efforts on tackling these violent organizations, there is a disturbing trend of security forces disproportionately targeting innocent civilians. This pattern of employing violence against non-combatants is entirely unacceptable, regardless of any alleged offenses attributed to these individuals. The implications of this behavior reveal a significant failure in our approach to security and justice, undermining the trust between the public and the institutions meant to protect them. Moreover, this situation highlights the critical need for a robust and impartial judicial system to effectively address wrongdoing and ensure justice is served fairly and equitably. Our judicial framework is essential for holding accountable those who perpetrate acts of violence rather than punishing the innocent. Therefore, we must advocate for a system that prioritizes protecting civilian rights and reinforces the rule of law in tackling the prevalent threats to our safety.

It is profoundly troubling—and quite frankly shocking—that a portion of the Nigerian population seems to justify or rationalize the severe treatment imposed on Mr. Mker and his wife. This reaction does not surprise me, as it reflects a troubling tendency within our society to defend wrongful actions, even when such actions are undeniably egregious. We often turn to tribal affiliations as a shield for individuals we know to be in the wrong, a phenomenon seemingly rooted in a collective Nigerian mentality that is ingrained in our cultural DNA. This reaction raises significant concerns about societal attitudes towards justice and compassion, as it suggests a willingness to overlook or excuse potentially abusive behavior. The implications of such a mindset could lead to a broader acceptance of unjust treatment, undermining the principles of fairness and humanity essential for a thriving society. Therefore, this situation raises critical questions about our legal framework: What does Nigerian law state regarding overtaking a convoy of military officers? Are there specific penalties for such actions? Moreover, why is there a widespread reluctance among Nigerians to ask these critical questions and demand accountability from those in power? We must cultivate a culture in which holding our oppressors accountable is a priority. This begins with us engaging in necessary public discourse rather than allowing a mindset that excuses abuse and injustice to persist.

The essential question in our discussion is: Is Nigeria genuinely a democratic state? If we affirm that it is, it becomes imperative for all security officers to uphold the established laws and conduct themselves by these regulations. We must cultivate a culture of accountability beyond political status. Supporting misconduct cannot be justified simply because of an individual’s influence. In an actual democratic society, the rule of law must serve as the cornerstone of governance, guiding the state’s actions and its citizens’ behavior. If Nigeria is a democratic state, we must collectively reject using military personnel to resolve family feuds, land disputes, local issues, or internal crises. The police can effectively manage such situations if trained and equipped to handle civil matters. However, if the police force is under-resourced or lacks the necessary tools and training to fulfill its duties effectively, proactive measures to enhance its capabilities become essential. This may involve increased funding, improved training programs, and a steadfast commitment to eradicating corruption and external influences that could compromise the integrity of the police hierarchy. By taking these actions, Nigerians will become more aware of the nation’s commitment to establishing and maintaining a genuinely democratic state.

Rev. Ma, S.J., is a Jesuit Catholic priest of the North West Africa Province of the Society of Jesus. He currently writes from the Kukah Center in Abuja, Nigeria.