Nigerians, who are old enough, would remember a foolhardy “Daniel,” who entered into the lion’s den at the Zoological Garden of the University of Ibadan in the late 1980s. He ended up as lunch for the lion that was minding its business in its lair.
Those who went to the Ministry of Defence, to ask the military to intervene in the dispute about the acceptability of the election that produced Bola Tinubu as President-elect, may be biting more than they can chew.
And they do not seem to realise the danger they are putting everyone into. They have not enough sense of history to appreciate the depth of despair that they may plunge Nigeria into if the military stages a coup and disrupts the ongoing transition programme.
No one doubts the contribution of the military to the development of Nigeria. But the cost and collateral damage of another military incursion into Nigeria’s political space far outweighs the advantages.
The impunity from the military’s jackboot orientation, and the Command-and-Control mode of military operation that forced a unitary political system on Nigeria, contributed to setting Nigeria backward by decades.
These kids have no idea of what they are getting Nigeria into, if the jackboots accept the silly and unconstitutional invitation and move into the centre stage of Nigeria’s politics once again. One thing is clear: No one can tell when the military will go away.
These kids need to know that Section 1(2) of Nigeria’s Constitution states that, “The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the government of Nigeria, or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”
Section 1(1) emphasises that, “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons (including those asking for a military intervention) throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
They must understand that the mere call for a coup d’état is an act of treason and insurrection that attracts capital punishment. The worst is that anyone picked up for treason or insurrection is assumed to be guilty until he proves himself innocent.
This is unlike the Anglo-Saxon presumption that an accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt even when the accused was caught red-handed with his gun still smoking!
Section 37 of Nigeria’s Criminal Code provides that “Any person who levies war against the (Nigerian) State, in order to intimidate or overawe the president or governor of a state, is guilty of treason, and is liable to the punishment of death.” Nigeria has a sitting President.
Even the seemingly less severe felony is defined as any offence, which is punishable, but without proof of prior conviction, with a death sentence or imprisonment of anywhere from three years to life.
Those who are calling for a coup d’état should stand back from this most dangerous mission. They, and those instigating them, should remember that those who ride on the back of a tiger may not dismount from it alive.
However, no one should discourage any individual or group of Nigerians who feel like protesting against the presidential election result as declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission, even though it may seem like campaign after election.
While congratulating President-elect, Bola Tinubu, America’s, Department of State, notes: “We understand that many Nigerians and some of the parties have expressed frustration about the manner in which the process was conducted and the shortcomings of the technical elements that were used for the first time in the presidential election cycle.”
Section 40 of Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees Nigerians the right to peaceful assembly and association. Even Section 45 that delimits this right is applicable only if there is threat to public safety, public order, public morality, public health or in the interest of defence or protection of the rights and freedom of others.
Not too many Nigerians want a military president, however imperfect the current democratic dispensation may be. Therefore, let no one set Nigeria on a time machine that is rapidly racing backwards.
Those individuals need also to be reminded of Section 24(a) which categorically states that, “It shall be the duty of every (Nigerian) citizen to abide by this Constitution, respect its ideals and its institutions, the National Flag, the National Anthem, the National Pledge, and legitimate authorities.”
By “legitimate authorities,” one can suppose that the Constitution is referring to a government constitutionally elected through the ballot box, certainly not a government whose authority is derived from the barrel of a gun.
While noting that aggrieved presidential candidates have gone to court to seek redress, Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, former president of the Nigerian Bar Association, insists that there is “no constitutional provisions for Interim Government.” Even the Labour Party dissociates itself from the Interim Government idea: “We are not part of any insurrection plan whatsoever.”
Timi Frank of the Peoples Democratic Party thinks the DSS’ purported intelligence is fake, and a plot to crack down on protesters and arrest opposition political leaders before the May 29 swearing-in of the next president.
But why doesn’t the DSS arrest those involved instead of merely announcing that it has identified those behind the Interim Government idea? Maybe it’s not really an offence punishable by the law, as the Constitution is silent over it.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Afe Babalola, probably the most prominent Nigerian to moot the idea of Interim Government, may have moved on after the election was held and a president-elect was announced.
While no one doubts that Sections 38 and 39 of the Constitution grants every Nigerian the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression, those rights do not include a call for insurrection and compromise of the state, the aggregation of the monopoly of violence that can only be exercised by the government on behalf of the people, who willingly submit their sovereignty to the state.
Though American President Abraham Lincoln has given the idealistic definition of democracy as government of the people, by the people and for the people, in practical terms, democracy is about rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balancing and opportunity for the electorate to choose their leaders at regular and agreed intervals through the ballot box.
The right of the people to choose their leaders through universal adult suffrage is the most sacrosanct. Added to that is the need for an arbiter who will always adjudicate in any dispute between and among contestants for any of the elective offices and their partisans.
It is commendable that former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and ex-Anambra State governor, Peter Obi, of the PDP and LP, respective first and second runners-up, have approached the courts.
Those crying more than the bereaved should save already distressed Nigerian citizens from the risk and possibility of enduring another military regime. The pseudo-military regimes of retired generals Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari are more than a full course.
Any Nigerian, calling for a military regime, is probably unaware of the scourge of military rule that is no longer fashionable. Anyway, it’s safe to assume that the military, who didn’t even deign to acknowledge the protesters, won’t take the poisoned chalice.
The protesters, who are asking for a military solution, may have acted in vain.
