WHY DID IRONSI NOT CHARGE THE JANUARY COUP PLOTTERS TO COURT?

 WHY DID IRONSI NOT CHARGE THE JANUARY COUP PLOTTERS TO COURT?

I have consistently wondered why the young coup plotters were never properly tried for their crimes. The law was already there in the books. It was called treason. That same law had already been tested earlier when politicians were prosecuted and imprisoned for conspiracy. Now, some officers had gone beyond conspiracy and actually carried out the substantive offense, an armed coup that resulted in bloodshed and the assassination of political leaders and senior military officers.

Why then were they not tried?

Apart from treason under the Criminal Code, military law itself clearly prescribed severe consequences for mutiny and armed insurrection. Yet, the coup plotters were not charged before any court or court-martial.

I have considered the following possible reasons:

1. It Was Nigeria’s First Military Coup

This was the first military coup in Nigeria’s history. There was no established precedent for handling such a situation. The Ironsi government may simply have been uncertain about what to do.

2. The Coup Plotters Were Surprisingly Popular

In the typical absurdity of Nigerian society, many people viewed the young officers as heroes rather than criminals. The politicians they overthrew were deeply unpopular and widely regarded as corrupt. Trying and executing officers who were receiving public sympathy may have appeared politically risky.

Even today, one still sees how supporters of separatist or revolutionary figures insist that such individuals are innocent regardless of the legal implications of their actions.

3. The Killing of Senior Military Officers Changed Everything

Perhaps if only politicians had been killed, the outrage might not have escalated the way it did. But the coup also involved the killing of senior military officers, men who were respected colleagues and superiors within the armed forces. That created deep anger within the military establishment itself and helped lay the foundation for the counter-coup that followed.

4. Ironsi Himself Benefited From the Coup

Ironsi emerged as Head of State from the chaos created by the failed coup. In many ways, he became a beneficiary of the actions of the coup plotters. It may therefore have appeared morally awkward or politically contradictory for him to enjoy the benefits produced by the coup while simultaneously prosecuting and executing those who made it possible.

That contradiction may have created a serious moral and political dilemma for him.

Yet, one cannot help wondering whether history might have been different if Ironsi had immediately court-martialled everyone involved, dismissed them from the army, and either imprisoned or executed them according to law. Perhaps the counter-coup might not have occurred. Perhaps the growing perception of ethnic favoritism might have been reduced.

Ironsi’s indecision ultimately cost him his life and plunged Nigeria into a catastrophe from which the country has never fully recovered.

Indeed, it was probably to avoid repeating what later military regimes saw as Ironsi’s fatal mistake that virtually every failed coup afterward resulted in executions by firing squad. Once it was done after the Dimka coup attempt, it became the established pattern, repeated in the Vatsa case, the Orkar coup attempt, and other alleged conspiracies.

If not for international pressure and the intervention of the South African government, Obasanjo himself might have been executed under Abacha. And if not for Abacha’s sudden death, General Diya and others accused in the alleged 1997 coup plot would almost certainly have faced execution as well.