DIEGO FERNANDEZ CEVALLOS, FREED AFTER 7 MONTHS AND A KING'S RANSOM.

It would appear that kidnappers in Nigeria are afterall, still very amateurish, dirt-cheap and not daring enough compared with the kidnappers in Mexico. There a wealthy and powerful high profile lawyer and politician, an influential member of the president's party, a senator as well as a former presidential candidate was nabbed and held for seven long months until a king's ransom of $20 million was finally negotiated and paid for his release in what was described as the highest of the high profiles and most brazen kidnapping in Mexico's recent history. The fact that the negotiation lasted that long is a testament to the Mexicans trouncing their Nigerian counterpart in the mastery of the game and it safely ended without the shedding of blood. There was no shaking on their part; but a steady and surely footed bandits turning into ransom negotiators?

Diego Fernandez de Cevallos who was freed Monday, December 20, 2010 said that as far as the kidnappers are concerned, he being a man of faith, he has forgiven them; but as a citizen, he thinks the authorities in Mexico have some work to do to stem the tide. Icheoku says if it takes such a high profile case to awaken the Mexican authorities, may be those Nigerian kidnappers should target those high profile politicians in Abuja and elsewhere instead; and leave poor innocent and hardworking Nigerian women and children alone. A statement by Cevallos' kidnappers said that he is "corrupt and arrogant" and that his kidnapping was "a blow against the plutocracy and an act of reparation." Icheoku can understand the frustration of many hungry people in a highly corrupt country but does not in anyway support or approval of such criminality of kidnapping for ransom or any other untoward means to achieve a means or make a statement.

It would be recalled that the family of Cevallos during the negotiations for his released urged the Mexican authorities to "stay out of this process in order to help the negotiation." Icheoku says they probably understood the game better than the government, and what it takes to play to win and did not want any government meddling with the negotiations. Icheoku congratulates Cevallos for making it through the seven months his ordeal lasted and hopes he will write a book about his experience to assist other would-be kidnap victims live through it and survive to write or tell their own stories.

27 NIGERIAN UNITED NATIONS PEACE KEEPING FORCE SOLDIERS, SENTENCED TO LIFE?

Mutiny as defined, is a conspiracy among members of a group of similarly-situated individuals, typically members of the military or the crew of any ship to openly oppose, change or overthrow an existing superior authority! Or to disobey an order which they are legally bound to obey? Or cause a revolt or rebellion against a constituted authority?

Icheoku asks, does demanding for ones' duly entitled payment rise to the level of a mutiny? The dictionary says NO! However, the authorities in Nigeria think otherwise and have sent away for life, 27 patriotic Nigerian soldiers, for an offence which they did not commit? The protesting soldiers did not oppose or change or overthrow any existing authority? They did not disobey any lawful orders but were merely demanding to be paid their earned income? Also the soldiers did not revolt or cause a rebellion against anybody, so where is the beef for which they have been severely punished? A coup de tat would qualify? A violent uprising would? A wilful unruly disobedience to a legal order would? A mayhem would? But a protest-demand for payment of earned entitlement does not, will not and should not qualify as a mutiny; if any, the authorities that precipitated the protest, by not paying or withholding earned emoluments, are the culpable party here. The underlying question should be, why were these soldiers not paid their earned entitlements? Eight hundred (800) soldiers worldwide participated in the United Nation's Peace Keeping Mission, NIBAT 15, in Liberia between August 2007 and April 2008; 773 of them were paid for the job done leaving 27 of them, who happened to be Nigerians, unpaid; and now their attempt to draw attention to their plight have led to their being pilloried?

If the soldiers protest was deemed unacceptable, may be the authorities should have done the right thing by paying them and hence muted the protest. But no, they withheld or refused to pay them, and these soldiers, family men and women who like any other Nigeria have needs and responsibilities, protested and their reward is a life sentence? What a damper and downer on a group of young men and women who want to do right by and for their country? Icheoku says, such a travesty should not be allowed to stand as a dismissal from service would have been a more appropriate punishment, if it is established that protesting for ones' earned income is now against Nigerian military code of ethics? But why should a disciplined body like the military fail and/or refuse to pay salaries of her staff or was it another case akin to the former Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun; who used to put money meant for the salary of policemen and women into a high yielding interest account, to scheme off profit before "remembering" that everyone have needs and responsibilities? A judicial investigation is needed to unravel why these 27 Nigerian soldiers were not paid their entitlements when their counterparts from other parts of the world were duly and timely paid! This is the right and correct thing to do instead of merely addressing its symptoms with this harsh sentences!

The Brigadier- General Ishaya Bauka's military court martial's life sentences on these soldiers is rather too excessive and should not be allowed to stand. It lacks rational and once again puts Nigeria in the bull-eye of world mockery as a land where real culprits loom free while innocent patriotic soldiers are penalised for merely asking to be paid their lawfully earned income. If any person is liable in this case, it is the authorities who withheld money which belonged to someone else, the protesting soldiers. Icheoku calls on the appellate authorities to overrule this judgment and not allow it to stand as it lacks merit. We are emphatic that a peaceful protest, no matter how unsavory it may be to the authorities, does not rise up to a mutiny; for which these soldiers have been unlawfully sentenced to life imprisonment. These soldiers "merely blocked a road" for some hours and did not damage any property or injured or killed anyone, so why the harsh punishment?

Icheoku says their life sentence is an excessive, outrageous, cruel and unusual punishment; at worst these soldiers could have simply been dismissed for insubordination but certainly not sent to prison for life based on the adduced evidence. A protest-demand to be paid an earned income is not mutinous and should have not attracted such a stiff punishment as life imprisonment; there are so many other deterrents for the action of these "convicts" which at best constituted gross indiscipline but definitely not mutiny.