By Martins O. Itua
According to Reuters, “since at least 2013, the Nigerian military has conducted a secret, systematic and illegal abortion programme in the country’s northeast, ending at least 10,000 pregnancies among women and girls many of whom had been kidnapped and raped by Islamist militants, according to dozens of witness accounts and documentation”. Reuters proceeded to confirm that “this investigation is based on interviews with 33 women and girls who say they underwent abortions while in the custody of the Nigerian Army”. They went further to state that “Reuters was unable to establish who created the abortion programme or determine who in the military or government ran it”.
These issues that have been raised by Reuters are so weighty in nature that they cannot be dismissed by a simple wave of the hand. But in order to understand the issues, we need to examine a few things that can potentially shed light on the purported investigation and report by Reuters. The reason I started by quoting Reuters’ report is so that readers and all interested parties can try to understand Reuters’ motivation and process in arriving at their conclusions. First, Reuters made a categorical statement painting the entire Nigeria’s Military as an abortion clinic who carried out over 10,000 abortions on girls and women who were raped and impregnated by terrorists in the North East of Nigeria. Second, Reuters acknowledged and accepted the fact that their entire investigation was based on the testimony and interviews of 33 women who confirmed that they had undergone abortion procedures and lost their unborn babies. Third, Reuters then placed a caveat that they were unable to establish who created the abortion programme or determine who in the military or government ran it.
I find it absolutely shocking that an organisation like Reuters will make a definitive conclusion and paint the entire Military of Nigeria as an abortion centre based on the testimony of 33 women. Was it because Reuters didn’t have enough time to conduct their investigation that they made such a conclusion based on a sample size of only 0.003%? Or was it because they didn’t have the resources to carry out the survey? Is it also possible that they didn’t have more people to interview and they desperately needed to make their conclusions? Whatever their reasons are, it is utterly disingenuous of Reuters to make such baseless extrapolation from a sample size of 33 women out the purported 10,000. Reuters must explain to Nigeria and Nigerians why they were in such a hurry to publish such an unfounded and unsubstantiated report that can tarnish the image of the highly revered Nigeria Military. It is clear that Reuters needed to be educated on the professionalism and efficiency that Nigeria’s armed forces have displayed in all their operations at home and abroad.
It appears that Reuters didn’t understand the fact that the training of soldiers does not involve gynecology. It will take a lot of man power and man hours to be able to administer abortion to 10,000 women. Reuters’ report didn’t explain that the so-called abortion centre had testing centres or laboratories where it was determined that these women were indeed pregnant. Or do people randomly and indiscriminately inject people with abortion medicines? Does Reuters even appreciate the amount of resources, both financial and human, that is required to train people to carry out that number of abortions?
How can they explain that soldiers who are struggling to get their allowances and payments while at the same time fighting to keep Nigerians safe, will be preoccupied with terminating the pregnancies of over 10,000 women? To be clear, let me remind Reuters that the primary duty of our armed forces, which they have carried out professionally, is protecting Nigeria and Nigerians. A major reason why Nigerians can sleep at night with both eyes closed is because these soldiers daily and continuously risk their lives and even pay the supreme price.
It is totally dishonest of Reuters to make such a wild allegation against Nigeria’s military, while also claiming that they were “unable to establish who created the abortion programme or determine who in the military or Government ran it”. It would seem that Reuters had a predetermined goal in mind to rubbish the Nigerian military and needed to make conjectures and wild allegations. I find the following statement by Reuters even more worrisome “aspects of the Nigerian Army’s abortion programme remain murky. Because of the secrecy involved, it is impossible to know precisely how many abortions were done. Interviews and documents suggest the count could be significantly higher than the tally of at least 10,000 cases that Reuters was able to establish. Patients at times were asked if they wanted an abortion, according to some sources, but Reuters could not determine how many were given a choice”. It would be appear that Reuters needed to be told that they should have substantiated their findings before going to publish what clearly looks like a guess-work and conjecture.
What are the options available to Nigeria and Nigeria’s armed forces? First, Reuters must be compelled to rescind this crooked and dubious report using every available legal means. The point must be made that it is completely unacceptable to make our revered and respected armed forces the subject of garbage journalism. It is clear that Reuters didn’t do their home-work and intended for their report to cause distraction and maximum reputational damage to the armed forces. Second, Nigeria should report Reuters to the International Press Institute for further investigation. Lastly, the federal government of Nigeria should issue a strongly worded statement to Reuters to desist from making any such baseless and wild reports against our institutions. This should also serve as deterrence to other international agencies who seek to unjustly discredit our systems and institutions.
Itua is a public affairs commentator
