The speech Buhari shouldn’t have made by Bayo Olupohunda

Bayo Olupohunda

The Muhammadu Buhari Presidency is making the same grave error that doomed the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan in the fight against Boko Haram terror war. Unfortunately, with the fallout from the recent controversial speech that subtly sought to blame the United States as being partly responsible for the protracted Boko Haram terror war, it seems the President may have fallen into the same old assumptions that blighted the Jonathan Presidency.

Nothing demonstrated my fears that this administration may be toeing the same path that rendered the Jonathan administration powerless and emboldened the insurgents than the just concluded trip to the US. The trip, which has been hailed as successful on many fronts, was however dampened by a speech the President should never have made.

The urgency to stop Nigeria’s terror war while seeking the support of the US government had topped Buhari’s visit. But when the issue came up for discussion, it almost turned awry. President Buhari had shockingly adopted the stance of his predecessor which was to hold the US government as partly responsible for Nigeria’s failure to defeat the insurgents. Ironically, the speech had reflected the understanding of the previous administration of the US role in the fight against Boko Haram, an approach which had prolonged the terror war and almost ruined the country’s relations with the US.

Addressing an international gathering at the United States Institute for Peace, President Buhari was quoted to have said: “Regrettably, the blanket application of the Leahy Law by the United States on the grounds of unproven allegations of human rights violations levelled against our forces has denied us access to appropriate strategic weapons to prosecute the war against the insurgents. Unwittingly–and I dare say unintentionally – the application of the Leahy Law … has aided and abetted the Boko Haram terrorists in the prosecution of its extremist ideology and hate, the indiscriminate killing and maiming of civilians, the raping of women and girls and other heinous crimes.”

My first reaction as I listened to the President was shock and disbelief. How can the President indict the US government from which he seeks support? Does he fully understand the provisions and limitations of the US laws as they relate to other countries?

I have studied the video of the President’s speech and saw he spoke from a prepared speech. The question is: Did the President just read a blanket speech without being aware of its implications? Whoever wrote the speech ought to be queried and sanctioned. How can you go to seek help to fight your internal domestic problems only to indict the people you are seeking their help to address the problem in the process, before an international audience?

My point is: The President should not have made that speech. At worst, he could have raised the issue at private discussions with the stakeholders in the US President and the parliamentary committees on Foreign Relations. The President could have assured them that our military institutions were making a fresh start under him while assuring them of their accountability. Listening to him speak, I was hugely disappointed. Strikingly, there were a lot of inconsistencies in the speech. The President told the audience that the US refused to supply arms to Nigeria because it was acting on the “grounds of unproven allegations human rights violations levelled against our forces.” This was actually scandalous. On what grounds did the President base his conclusion? Was it not the same President that assured the international community that he would look into the allegations of human rights violations by our military? Specifically, when an international human rights organisation Amnesty International, indicted the military in its recent report on the country, the President had said he would look into the allegations and had ordered the military to conduct an internal inquiry.

The President’s speech raises some disturbing questions. Since he had accepted to look into the allegations levelled against the high ranking generals, has the probe been carried out? When was the report submitted? Has the military been acquitted of the allegations? The last time I checked, Nigerians have not been officially informed that the probe ordered by the President has cleared the military of the allegations that have been detailed in several local and international reports. It was thus shocking to hear the President dismiss the allegations “as unproven” when no known investigation had been conducted. Unless the President is saying he considers the allegations as lies against the military.

The Nigerian government has had challenges procuring weapons with its own resources.The Leahy Law does not apply to arms sales financed with Nigeria’s own funds. It only applies to assistance being drawn from the US Treasury. The law actually supports President Buhari’s previously avowed goals of Nigerian forces that are accountable to the rule of law. As the President had noted, disciplined and accountable armed forces will do more to end the reign of Boko Haram’s brutalities than undisciplined forces. The Leahy Law supports this conviction and seeks to encourage internal accountability.

Contrary to popular assumptions championed by conspiracy theorists, the law is not specifically targeted at the Nigerian military. It originally focused only on the US assistance to Colombian armed forces. Senator Patrick Leahy wrote the law after finding out that several Colombian army units that had massacred poor civilians had been receiving assistance and training from the US.

Instead of cutting off all the US aid to the Colombian police and military, Leahy prohibited assistance to any particular Colombian security force unit that the US State Department believed had committed gross violations of basic human rights until the Colombian government investigated the crimes and held the responsible members of the unit accountable. The law has been expanded over the years and now prevents the US government from providing taxpayers money to any foreign military or police unit anywhere in the world, if the US government believes those particular units have engaged in the worst human rights violations.

As the Buhari government seeks to end the Boko Haram insurgency, it must avoid the belligerent blame game and deliberate propaganda that typified the Jonathan era in its relationship with the US and the International community. Over the years, the US has assisted our military. This government must continue to seek constructive engagement with our international partners while ensuring that our military institutions act professionally at all times and respect international best practices as they fight the terror war.