Still On The Alleged $1bn Arms Fraud

Recently, the public space has been inundated with allegations regarding the $1 billion earmarked for the procurement of arms for the security services.

There were claims that the money was not used for the purpose for which it was approved and disbursed. Or at least, not all the money was spent on arms purchases, leading to allegations of misappropriation or even fraudulent misapplication of the princely sum.

At the time the allegation was floating around, the National Assembly became interested soon after the service chiefs, of whom General Tukur Yusuf Buratai was one, retired and new ones came on board, but not enough was achieved to put the matter at rest.

General Buratai, according to media reports, has just reopened the conversation by insisting that the money did not pass through the military. That is to say, none of the three arms of the military – army, navy and air force had anything to do with the money.

He averred that the procurement processes were handled by the Ministry of Defence. He even suggested that the allegation was malicious and politically motivated as it emerged during the 2019 election cycle.

In the opinion of this newspaper, who got the money, or for that matter, who handled the procurement processes ought not be part of the conversation. All the parties in the deal, the military and the ministry, agree on the main point: that the money was approved and disbursed, and that this was at the very peak of the war against insurgency.

Our concern then and now is that soldiers at the frontline complained that they were sent to battle with counted bullets and obsolete weapons that made them easy prey for the better-armed terrorists.

At that time, Nigerians also expressed concern about the opulence exhibited by those in command and control of the nation’s security apparatus, whether in the military or the civil service. They wondered aloud that the security situation in the country might have unwittingly opened an industry all its own that is thriving against the best interest of the Nigerian citizens who were undeservedly exposed to the firepower of ruthless criminals that had become chameleonic, manifesting as kidnappers, bandits and all sorts.

In the face of that life-threatening scenario, the security chiefs kept assuring the rest of the people that they were on top of their game in the fight against non-state actors predatorily feasting on the fears and anxieties of the nation and its hapless citizens.

For the record, $1 billion is not a piece of cake. People get killed for lesser amounts. Therefore, for a people at war to be told that issues are not clear as to who got what part of this sum or could not explain how it was spent is, indeed, a rude slap in the face.

Nigerians expected the lawmakers at that time to get to the bottom of the matter and determine the veracity or otherwise of that matter, which remains of utmost public interest. But as usual, they dithered and failed to make effective use of that opportunity to let the people know the truth about how much is being wasted in the guise of security operations.

With the whereabouts of such a humongous volume of money a subject of speculation and finger-pointing, is it, therefore, a surprise that the war on terror is seemingly endless and has actually become a tool in the hands of unpatriotic actors who exploit it for their own selfish aims and purposes.

Now that General Buratai has reopened the conversation, we are persuaded to invite the National Assembly to take another close look at the matter, with the intention of naming and shaming those who profited from the pain and misery of the Nigerian people.

As a newspaper, we refuse to accept that military or security expenditure should not be scrutinised, especially in a situation such as the one that exists presently in Nigeria, where the dramatis personae are pointing fingers at each other about who got what, spent what, how, and why.

In our view, that arms deal is inexplicably shrouded in such opacity that only a thorough forensic investigation might assuage the pervasive misgivings.

Furthermore, we consider it morally reprehensible that such an amount of money was allegedly misapplied, just as ill-equipped soldiers in the frontlines were engaging the terrorists literally with their bare hands, in most cases, with their welfare also unattended to.

The tragedy, as we perceive it, is that with political activities heating up, scant attention, if any, will be paid to this important issue.

Regardless, we will continue to insist that the truth must be told about what happened to all that money. We will also insist that those who had anything to do with it are exposed and brought to deserved justice. Nothing less will suffice.