Former Abacha Killer squad member, Sgt Rogers has recounted his participation in the murder of Chief Kudirat Abiola and Others. Read full story here: http://exood.com/talk/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=0&start=0

On a serious note, do you think the man is really guilty of the offences - his numerous killings? He being a junior officer in the Nigerian Army, and having to take unquestionable orders from a superior officer?

As nauseating as this may sound I think the man was only doing his duty assigned to him in the military.

coolier:

On a serious note, do you think the man is really guilty of the offences - his numerous killings? He being a junior officer in the Nigerian Army, and having to take unquestionable orders from a superior officer?

As nauseating as this may sound I think the man was only doing his duty assigned to him in the military.

I believe the role of the military is to protect Nigeria from foreign invaders, not extrajudicial killing of Nigerian Citizens. I'm sure the pig is fully aware of that.
Besides I believe there is something called "freewill" we are responsible for our actions, we can't just claim "superior orders" to justify the assassination of Nigerian citizens on Nigerian soil.

I believe the role of the military is to protect Nigeria from foreign invaders, not extrajudicial killing of Nigerian Citizens. I'm sure the pig is fully aware of that.

True that!

How this guy is not in Prison is beyond me.

He would be. In time.

Maybe we need to approach this from this standpoint, what personal benefits accrue to sgt Rogers by virtue of those killings? answer: none. "orders from above". Simple.

JayFK:

Besides I believe there is something called "freewill" we are responsible for our actions, we can't just claim "superior orders" to justify the assassination of Nigerian citizens on Nigerian soil.

Dearie in the military, the first thing u surrender is ur "freewill". ask any officer or anyone even remotely related to one.

lamidebaby:

Maybe we need to approach this from this standpoint, what personal benefits accrue to sgt Rogers by virtue of those killings? answer: none. "orders from above". Simple.
Dearie in the military, the first thing u surrender is your "freewill". ask any officer or anyone even remotely related to one.

Doesn't matter, he is still responsible for his actions. No one held him at gunpoint and forced him to assassinate civilians. Eichmann claimed the same thing at his trial, I'm sure we all know how that worked out for him.

@jayfk

It's evident you dont know how things work in the army, not to talk of when it's in charge of the a country.
The bitter truth is that every country, even the democratic states has the likes of sgt Rogers. US is not an exception.

let me tell u guys something if SGT rogers had refused to carry out those killings the guy wud hav either not seen the light of day, or wud hav ended up with a seriously messed up military career. (TRUE STORY)
Besides if SGT rogers is sentenced, then he is just being a scapegoat of the ABACHA regime, and true justice will not be served.
The piper played his pipe and SGT Rogers simply had to dance. So the piper(s) should be tried first and foremost and not the little rats that danced to his tune.

@Coolier,
am sure if you re familiar with basic state and int'l law, you will no that the man is as quilty as those that sent him to kill fellow citizens. First as "officer and men" he swore allegiance to the constitution and not to a particular officer or a General in the army, when the general is no more the constitution remains, and as such if he was given an order to kill a citizen he swore to defend in the constitution then he has breached that sacred document, even if a citizen will ve to be denied his right to life it must be within acceptable legal procedures.

I agree that it may be difficult for him as a subordinate becos he may be implicated becos of that and sent away from the force, but the essence of it is that you can disobey order if the ranking officer is violating the constitution of the state.

This was the reason why some Hitler officers and agents were convicted of carrying out illegal order against the state. For a General to take the life of a citizen unlawfully is treason against the state.

The General will go, even government go another one come but the state remain and the state is above all, it is a social contract. The only reason why anybody can be deprived of his life is when in the exercise of his rights he undermines or threatens our collective security and aspiration, and since state is the basis of order and perpectuation of society it must have a final say over indidvidual and even government

i beg, sufficient understanding of the way the military works is needed before anyone passes judgement.

a soldier is trained to kill himself if that's the order he receives from his superior. stand in the front line, take a bullet, drink pee and whatever else may catch the fancy of his superior. a junior officer can only pray that his senior hasn't sold himself to the devil, cos the juniors will be the ones to pay the price. and if he has distinguished himself as a killing machine, a soulless being dedicated to the advancement of his career (which BTW consists of obeying orders to the letter), he will be favored for such assignments by equally soulless generals.

in essence, i am saying that he cannot receive capital punishment for the murder of a citizen, because he was DOING HIS JOB. and it is sooo true that he would have been shipped off to darfur and his death arranged if he had turned down that order, or tried and shot summarily for mutiny (disobeying orders)

he may be punished, but all these must be taken into consideration.

The truth of the matter is that every soldier is commissioned to kill for the State. All their training is to protect the territorial integrity of the nation by eliminating (killing) all perceived enemies of the State.

The command structure in the Army makes it mandatory that orders from one's commanding officer must be obeyed before any complain.

In the case of Sgt. Rogers, if he carried out the assassination of these men/women on the orders of his superiors who considers those people as "enemies of the State." In my humble opinion, I think he was simply discharging his duties as the formost snipper in the strike force which in the meantime belonged to the Presidency.

Though if the court finally establishes that these men/women were not "enemies" of the State at that particular time, I think they should go after those who gave the order.

well, I disagree with you guys and I believe you ve carried the logic too far. If your assumptions are right then soldiers are laws unto themselves, but i will not blame you people most of us Nigerians have lived better part of our life under military rule, your ignorance of the issue at hand may be pardonable anyway

I considered the two opinions above as an assumptions that have no theoretical premise, first, as a student of military-civil relations and political theory, the military institution is not above the state nor any of its officer no matter how famous, a soldier is a state weapon trained to kill to protect the state and not against the state, he's trained and equiped with tax payers money, must subject to the constitution of the land if not he's not a soldier but a mercinery. Just imagining a soldier that have no respect for the people's charter-constittion, no state will maintain an instrument of corecion it has no control over, but if a soldier must obey every order even the one against the state then the state and its people are in captivity, infact that is while the president (a civilian) always holds the title of commander in chief.

However if anybody is proved to be the enemy of the state, then the state has a legal system to address the culpability of such but not shooting a defenseless citizen.

the line of reason above always make me wonder if democratization process is having any impact, becos if the younger generation believe that a soldier can kill for whatever reason then if such people get to place of power what they will do to their percieved enemy can be best imagined

In civilized states, a soldier cannot fights with a civilian except in self defence, because he's suppose to be a state weapon and should not be unleashed on a defenceless citizen.

Even international laws protect a armless or defenceless enemy soldier in the field of war (the Geneva and Alamo convention). Infact it is a war crime to kill a defenseless enemy soldier if it can be proved in any international war tribunal not to mentioned a defencelss citizen.


Anyway, i did not have enough time to trash this issue but any nation where the general or the army can do and undo is doom, that;s why we re in this mess in Nigeria.

youngies:

The truth of the matter is that every soldier is commissioned to kill for the State. All their training is to protect the territorial integrity of the nation by eliminating (killing) all perceived enemies of the State.

The command structure in the Army makes it mandatory that orders from one's commanding officer must be obeyed before any complain.

In the case of Sgt. Rogers, if he carried out the assassination of these men/women on the orders of his superiors who considers those people as "enemies of the State." In my humble opinion, I think he was simply discharging his duties as the formost snipper in the strike force which in the meantime belonged to the Presidency.

Though if the court finally establishes that these men/women were not "enemies" of the State at that particular time, I think they should go after those who gave the order.

i agree with that,and i also think we shouldnt forget that sergeant rogers didnt undertake those assignment based on them being harmless nigerians or individuals but perceived according to his orders as people who are trying to undermine and destabilise a nation he swore to protect, saying he could question his orders in the nigeria of these days is not being real because we both know he couldnt have, even f we have a short memory vis a vis the abacha time obj gave us a taste of what its like in a dictatorship

this is 90's news, this is 2008