At last, President Buhari bowed to sustained pressure to sack his service chiefs. For a long time, he stubbornly rejected calls by the National Assembly and concerned Nigerians to dismiss them for their appalling performance. But, suddenly, on January 26, the president tweeted: “I have accepted the immediate resignation of the service chiefs.” He immediately appointed new service chiefs to replace them.
Well, before we come to the new heads of the armed forces, we must first talk about their immediate predecessors. President Buhari’s dithering over their dismissal followed a pattern. Like every Buhari’s U-turn, whether on exchange rates or closed borders, the sacking of the service chiefs came after overwhelming public pressure and after the policy environment and the situation on the ground had gone terribly bad, in this case, a swiftly deteriorating security situation.
Yet, the ex-service chiefs were treated as if they had gone voluntarily, rather than being sacked for poor performance. Indeed, they were given a “golden handshake” as President Buhari promptly nominated them as “non-career ambassadors.”Ambassadors? What for? Were they so exceptional, so outstanding, in their roles, to deserve such a revolving-door treatment?
Well, the Presidency thinks so. In his tweet, President Buhari thanked the former service chiefs for “their overwhelming achievements in our efforts at bringing enduring peace to Nigeria.” And, in a statement justifying their ambassadorial nominations, the Presidency said: “The President is rewarding hard work and exceptional sacrifice by a set of military leaders who gave their best to the nation and will be remembered for their contribution to the security and survival of Nigeria as one nation.”
Where are the so-called “overwhelming achievements” of the former service chiefs or their “hard work and exceptional sacrifice.” The truth is, the security situation in the country has worsened under their watch
The former service chiefs were themselves not too shy to blow their own trumpet and sing their own praises. For instance, Lt-General (rtd) Abayomi Olonisakin, former chief of defence staff, said: “Under my leadership, the military reclaimed all territories controlled by Boko Haram.” And Lt-General (rtd) Tukur Buratai, former chief of army staff, said: “The Nigerian Army under my leadership was able to achieve a great feat in the fight against insurgency in the country.”
Read Also: How we will win war against terrorism – service chiefs
These claims are so outlandish and so removed from reality that they amount to insults to Nigerians, to their pains and sensitivities. Which country were President Buhari and the former service chiefs talking about? Is it Nigeria where, despite multiple declarations of victory by the government, Boko Haram continues to act with impunity, seizing army bases and slaughtering soldiers and civilians? Were they describing a country where armed bandits have ravaged villages and killed thousands of innocent Nigerians?
According to the Global Terrorism Index, Nigeria was the third least peaceful country in the world in 2020, with Boko Haram listed as the fourth deadliest terrorist group in the world, while Fulani herdsmen were responsible for 26 percent of terror-related deaths in Nigeria in 2019!
The Gombe State governor, Muhammad Yahaya, recently said, “Nigeria is facing the worst security challenges in its history.” President Buhari himself told the new service chiefs: “We are in a state of emergency”! Despite being declared “technically defeated”, Boko Haram’s daringness scares the living daylights out of Nigeria’s soldiers. They often run away when confronted by the audacious insurgents. As the Financial Times recently noted: “Large parts of the country, particularly in the North-East and North-West, are outside of government control.”
So, given the above reality and the lived experience of many Nigerians, where are the so-called “overwhelming achievements” of the former service chiefs or their “hard work and exceptional sacrifice.” The truth is, the security situation in the country has worsened under their watch, since their appointments nearly six years ago, in 2015. Surely, with three National Assembly resolutions calling for their dismissal and with demands by the public, including several prominent Nigerians, that they should be sacked, it is obvious to most Nigerians that the former service chiefs did not perform their tasks well.
Which brings us to the new service chiefs. They are Major-General Leo Irabor, Chief of Defence Staff; Major-General Ibrahim Attahiru, Chief of Army Staff; Rear Admiral Awwal Gambo, Chief of Naval Staff; and Air-Vice Marshal Isiaka Amao, Chief of Air Staff. First of all, congratulations are in order. So, congratulations to all of them. But it’s safe to say there is no honeymoon; they have their work cut out! President Buhari told them: “We are in a state of emergency” and charged them to “crush the insurgency”. But can they? Can they succeed where their predecessors failed?
Well, the first point is that, sadly, some of the new service chiefs come with baggage. For instance, the new chief of army staff, Major-General Ibrahim Attahiru, was, in 2017, removed as Theatre Commander for the Boko Haram anti-insurgency operation for alleged incompetence after failing to deliver the Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau “dead or alive”, as commanded by the then chief of army staff, Lt-Gen Tukur Buratai. A headline in The Cable, the online newspaper, reads: “Attahiru, sacked as commander for ‘flopping’ against Boko Haram, is now army chief.” That’s not good for the optics, and the challenge for Attahiru is to overcome the perception of incompetence, to show that while he failed operationally as a commander, he could succeed strategically as chief of army staff.
But that takes us to the second challenge: military capability. The Australian military defines “military capability” as “the ability to achieve the desired effect in a specific operating environment.” The US Army defines it as “the ability to achieve specified wartime objective.” What does it mean in Nigeria? Well, Nigeria doesn’t face serious external threats to its security, but faces significant internal threats, particularly from insurgents and armed bandits. So, military capability in Nigeria should be measured by the ability to achieve the specified objective of defeating insurgency and other forms of organised non-state violence. But, as we know, the Nigerian military has, so far, failed woefully to achieve this objective.
Yet, the military’s weakness is not due to poor funding or equipment. According to Global Firepower Index 2021, Nigeria has the fourth most powerful armed forces in Africa after Egypt, Algeria and South Africa, in terms of budget, manpower and equipment, and ranks 35th in the world. Of course, any military can be better funded and equipped, but having sufficient material resources is not a guarantee of success. There are non-material factors that can affect military capability.
In a recent well-researched study, Dr Temitope Abiodun, a scholar at the Institute for Peace and Strategic Studies (IPSS), University of Ibadan, found stark evidence of a mismatch between funding for Nigeria’s military, which is about $2bn annually, and its performance. But why? Well, according to the findings, corruption tops the list, with military personnel enriching themselves “by diverting public funds meant to fight terror and insecurity.” Then, there are politics, bad leadership and poor governance in the military hierarchy. While the top brass enrich themselves, the soldiers in the battlefield are neglected, engendering low morale among the rank and file.
In an article in The Conversation, an online journal, Dr Abiodun concluded: “Corrupt and incompetent security chiefs who have turned the nation’s security into a ‘business venture’ should be shown the way out”, adding: “So should those who are more interested in politics than in the security interests of the country.”
As I said, having material resources is not enough to guarantee military capability. A military can have huge resources –generous budgets, large manpower and sophisticated equipment – but if it lacks the right ethos, training, leadership, organisation and governance, its capability will suffer.
The main problem with the Nigerian military is of a non-material nature, as the IPSS study shows, and until those human weaknesses are tackled, the new service chiefs will not fare better than their predecessors. That said, I wish them well!
