A few days ago, some unruly soldiers reportedly attacked a policeman on barrier duties, disarmed him after which they beat up an Inspector into pulps at Asutsuare Junction.
This is the umpteenth time that bad soldiers have undertaken a criminal activity of this nature. The Tamale incident comes to memory, among others.
Military training does not introduce recruits to hooliganism but discipline and obedience to authority. It is such bad nuts in the Ghana Armed Forces who give the military a bad name and leave the top hierarchy with the task of cleaning up the image mess.
From the drill square, where their training regimen starts, to the bush exercises and other regimental activities, recruits are inducted into the rudiments of discipline by which they are expected to abide come what may. The firing of firearms itself is done under the strict orders of commanders. This is an ample proof that the military is a disciplined organization made up of officers, men and women imbued with respect for authority.
The previous acts of hooliganism saw the establishment of enquiry committees – the outcomes, of which it would appear, were not adequately implemented, if at all. It could be responsible for such misconduct by persons who by their training should be the last to be associated with such unruliness.
Soldiers who go on such illegal operations are those who can easily organize mutinies. It is for a good reason that soldiers in uniform must conduct themselves orderly and avoid drunkenness as they don the khaki or Olive Green fatigue or even their Number One Service drill.
How many times have we heard about British soldiers or their American counterparts or even Australian go about beating police officers or civilians? It is not done because it is unmilitary to do that.
How can soldiers and police personnel engage in joint Internal Security Duties in the face of civil unrest or other operation beyond the police when such bad blood is allowed to fester?
Soldiers are taught to work together with the police in rare internal security operations and so the importance of an acceptable esprit de corps between them cannot be marginalized. Those whose unruliness stands in the way of this camaraderie spirit must be showed the exit.
What if the police too had mobilized their personnel to call the bluff of the soldiers at Asutsuare Junction? The outcome of such situation would have been a security eyesore threatening national security.
Let those who regard that, because of the foolish conduct of a few soldiers like the ones under review, disabuse their minds that the military is made up of unruly persons.
The defaulters, knowing full well the repercussions of their undisciplined action, must be charged in line with military and civil laws because, after all, they have breached both.
Both institutions, the military and police are critical security agencies and whereas the former is responsible for the protection of the country’s territorial integrity, the latter mans internal security.
Soldiers, by convention, are subject to a dual set of laws – military and civil, the latter however superseding the former. A soldier can be handed over to civil authorities when he breaks a law of the nation.
It might be necessary to educate recruits in their last days at the training centre about the dangers in engaging in such unruly conduct. Until then however, those who misconducted themselves at Asutsuare Junction must be sanctioned by both set of laws. The military authorities should be interested in finding out what accounted for the ease with which the lone soldier was able to organize his colleagues to come and undertake the illegal operation.