considering how stoical men of the nigerian army are potrayed, i was really surprised to read on page 65 of the Guardian of Wednaesday May 13 2009, a response from a certain Lt.Col Adegbenro to the many public queries (ably led by defence counsel to the accused soldiers, femi falana) on the incredulous life sentence handed down on the 27 soldiers who had the audacity to ask that the right thing be done.
in a country rife with unbridled corruption, none of the many excuses given by this questionably knowledgeable gentleman sufficed to quell the many question marks that have arisen as a result of the sentence handed down by the military tribunal.
short of boring you with the excerpts of his monologue, it went from insulting the intelligence of any member of the public that was sane enough to query the basis of the sentence (by calling them "sympathisers...poorly educated on military norms") - to calling the respected femi falana a man that has "carried am image of himself as a populist and controversial lawyer" - to an ill-fitting and cheap attempt to validate his article by quoting out-of-context from the writings of the great Charles de Gaulle. pathetic.
Finding my way through the stinging maze of grammatical errors replete in his response, i observed that he mentioned that the officers in the Pay and Account department responsible for the non-payment of these soldiers, were also handed varying sentences. it would have been the sole value of his response if he could avail the reading public with an idea of what these sentences might be in order that we might compare the punishment of the offender to that of the aggrieved.
in all, although the matter requires some form of reaction from the military authorities (by the way Lt. Col, even a primary school kid knows about a citizens right to appeal so you didn't need to waste a full paragraph lecturing us about that), this sort of personalized attack that deviates from the issues and places mediocre arguments in the place of sound reasoning makes the following advice apt: "if you have nothing of value to say, then say nothing at all".
Restraint is valuable at this time, good Sir.
in a country rife with unbridled corruption, none of the many excuses given by this questionably knowledgeable gentleman sufficed to quell the many question marks that have arisen as a result of the sentence handed down by the military tribunal.
short of boring you with the excerpts of his monologue, it went from insulting the intelligence of any member of the public that was sane enough to query the basis of the sentence (by calling them "sympathisers...poorly educated on military norms") - to calling the respected femi falana a man that has "carried am image of himself as a populist and controversial lawyer" - to an ill-fitting and cheap attempt to validate his article by quoting out-of-context from the writings of the great Charles de Gaulle. pathetic.
Finding my way through the stinging maze of grammatical errors replete in his response, i observed that he mentioned that the officers in the Pay and Account department responsible for the non-payment of these soldiers, were also handed varying sentences. it would have been the sole value of his response if he could avail the reading public with an idea of what these sentences might be in order that we might compare the punishment of the offender to that of the aggrieved.
in all, although the matter requires some form of reaction from the military authorities (by the way Lt. Col, even a primary school kid knows about a citizens right to appeal so you didn't need to waste a full paragraph lecturing us about that), this sort of personalized attack that deviates from the issues and places mediocre arguments in the place of sound reasoning makes the following advice apt: "if you have nothing of value to say, then say nothing at all".
Restraint is valuable at this time, good Sir.
Comments