June 01, (THEWILL) – The Nigerian Army has dismissed allegations that its troops were accomplices in the recent kidnapping of the Prelate of the Methodist Church of Nigeria, Samuel Kanu-Uche.
Kanu-Uche was kidnapped on Sunday, along the Enugu-Port Harcourt Expressway in the Umunneochi Local Government Area of Abia State while on his way to the airport.
He was kidnapped alongside the Bishop of Owerri, Rt. Rev. Dennis Mark and the Prelate’s Chaplain and were released on Monday.
The Prelate had in an interview after his release by the abductors, narrated his ordeals and part played by his church to secure his freedom. He said the church paid N100m ransom, while accusing security personnel of being complicit in the kidnap.
The Bishop had alleged that the Nigerian Army base in Lomara was working in cohorts with the “Fulani kidnappers” that abducted him in Umunneochi, Abia State.
But in a response to the allegation, a statement issued on Wednesday by the Director, Army Public Relations, Brig.-Gen. Onyema Nwachukwu, said the insinuation that troops were complicit in the kidnap incident was not premised on any findings of investigations.
He said the allegation had raised some pertinent questions which were still unanswered.
According to him, given the spate of insecurity in the region, the question would be, was the issue reported to the unit covering the area?
“Did the Methodist Church take the Nigerian Army into confidence while negotiating the ransom with the kidnappers? No formal complaint has been received by the unit.
“More worrisome is the fact that it was alleged that the ransom was paid in less than 24 hours. Was the ransom paid to troops? These are questions that beg for answers”, he said.
Nwachukwu said the Nigerian army unit had not received any debrief from the Prelate or the Methodist Church.
He said that troops were deployed at the Forward Operating Base (FOB) Okigwe and in front of the Abia State University, Uturu.
The Army spokesperson also said no information was made available to them or to 14 Brigades or any other formation, except the information making the rounds on the social media.
He reiterated that troops’ deployment in the army was not done with considerations for ethnic affiliation.
Nwachukwu explained that deployment of troops of Fulani ethnic extraction, who, as alleged by the Prelate, carried out the dastardly act was not our practice or modus operandi in the army.
The statement read in part: “While the Nigerian Army expressed concern and sympathy for the victim of the heinous crime and shares in his pains, the insinuation that troops are complicit in the kidnap incident is not entirely premised on any findings of investigations and therefore, cannot be swallowed hook line and sinker.
“This allegation, therefore, raises some pertinent questions which are still unanswered.
“Given our professional disposition and zero tolerance for any misconduct in the Nigerian Army, we will take this weighty allegation seriously and approach the Prelate and the Methodist church to unravel the basis for the allegation.
“Given the spate of insecurity in the region, the right question would be, “was the issue reported to the unit covering the area? Did the Methodist Church take the NA into confidence, while negotiating the ransom with the kidnappers?
“No formal complaint has been received by the unit.
“More worrisome is the fact that it was alleged that the ransom was paid in less than 24 hours. Was the ransom paid to troops? These are questions that beg for answers.
“Moreso, the NA unit, has not received any debrief from the Prelate or the Methodist Church.
“It is, therefore, important to state that troops are deployed at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Okigwe and in front of the Abia State University Uturu and no information was made available to them or to 14 Brigade or any other formation, except the information making the rounds in the social media.
“It must be clarified that troops’ deployment in the Nigerian Army is not done with considerations for ethnic affiliation, hence a deployment of troops of Fulani ethnic extraction who as alleged by the Prelate, carried out the dastardly act is not our practice or modus operandi in the NA.”
