This week, apparently in view of the declining security situation in the country, President Muhammadu Buhari has fired chiefs of the country’s armed forces.
The president appointed the service chiefs in 2015 when he took over the mantle of leadership as elected leader of the country.
The outgone service chiefs, who ought to have retired from service some years ago, had their stay in office extended by the president till this week.
They include the Chief of Defence Staff, General Abayomi Olonisakin; Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Gen. Tukur Buratai; Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Ibok Ekwe Ibas; and Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Sadique Abubakar.
According to a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, Mr Femi Adesina, the service chiefs were replaced by Major-General Leo Irabor, Chief of Defence Staff; Major-General I. Attahiru, Chief of Army Staff; Rear Admiral A.Z Gambo, Chief of Naval Staff; and Air-Vice Marshal I.O Amao, Chief of Air Staff.
“President Buhari thanks the outgoing service chiefs for what he calls their overwhelming achievements in our efforts at bringing enduring peace to our dear country,” the statement said.
No reason was given for the resignations of the defence, army, navy and air force heads.
However, their disengagement came as the country continues to grapple with widespread insecurity, including the long-running Boko Haram insurgency, banditry, armed robbery and rampant kidnappings.
There have been calls, notably from the country’s powerful governors and the National Assembly for the president to replace the service chiefs as many felt they were underperforming.
The bandits, kidnappers and Boko Haram elements continue to stage attacks despite the government saying, on several occasions, that the country was winning the war against insecurity.
Tellingly, other militant groups, other than the Boko Haram, operating in Nigeria have also become bolder, clashes between farmers and cattle herders in the North-central and South-west zones have also worsened and banditry and kidnapping gangs in the North-west operate with almost a free hand.
The outgoing military chiefs have served for about five years – making their tenure the longest since in the history of the country’s military formation.
The service chiefs were initially praised for how they dealt the militant group Boko Haram and its splinter faction Iswap.
In 2015, the militants controlled vast swathes of territory and there were frequent suicide bombings. This is no longer the case. However, the insurgents continue to carry out attacks on both military and civilian targets – mostly ambushes.
The security chiefs have also faced a lot of criticism for the dramatic rise of criminal gangs who kidnap for ransom. In December, more than 300 boys were taken from a school in Katsina before they were later released following reported negotiations with the abductors.
Nigerians, who see the removal of the service chiefs as long overdue, hope the new security chiefs will work to make the country safer, but analysts say more needs to be done to provide the military with the right equipment and funding, as well as looking after the welfare of troops, before any tangible changes will be seen.
In his first meeting with the new military heads, the president said: “We’re in a state of emergency. Be patriotic, serve the country well, as your loyalty is to the country.”
The president congratulated them on their new roles and pledged his support to the armed forces, saying: “There’s nothing I can tell you about the service, because you are in it. I was also in it, and I will pray for you. I also assure you that whatever I can do as Commander-in-Chief will be done, so that the people will appreciate your efforts.”
Of course, the president could not have said anything better to them for it is on record that his administration has tried to equip and motivate the armed forces even if its efforts have not been reciprocated by the military with improvement in the state/level of national security.
Agreed, since the assumption of office of the president, the issue of security has taken centre stage with states and all stakeholders battling directly and indirectly to improve security.
Undoubtedly, security is important and needed to maintain peace and engender development. Security, unavoidably, stands as a major policy challenge to governments, communities and groups in the country, and this situation, unless change is introduced in how security is viewed, could remain so.
This is so because the concept of security remains a complex phenomenon that unarguably requires not just counter-measures to deal with but concrete preventive and resilient decisions to manage in order to avoid loss of lives and property.
It, therefore, follows that security requires not only the physical protection from existing harm, but also the establishment of resilient socio-political and economic structures to deal with its complexity.
In this era of globalisation, growing interdependence because of uncertainties in security has given it a new meaning, scope, perspective and dimension.
Consequently, policy makers in different countries have gradually come to recognise that the protection of states and their citizens require a fully integrated multidimensional and comprehensive approach to security issues, which directly influences civil, social, cultural, political, environmental and economic sectors of the society.
Such recognition has precipitated a number of measures and counter measures to deal with security. However, the underlying truth is that security is the state of being free from danger or threat. It is the degree of protection to safeguard a nation against danger, damage, crime and loss and save people against criminal activities, all of which the outgone service chiefs have failed to provide, leaving the country now with the need to not only sack them but also change its approach in the way it handles its monumental security challenges.
Though the military, which is saddled with the sensitive responsibility of protecting the nation from both internal and external attacks and danger, is expected to be at its best at all times, the opposite appears to be the case in Nigeria.
The professional values that characterise the armed forces have been nearly eroded. Corruption, indiscipline, lack of necessary security equipment and lack of proper training of officers, among other issues, are destroying our hard earned military status in Africa and around the globe and, to make matters worse, the Nigerian police are rated among the most corrupt in the world today.
Therefore, there is need for professional restructuring of the country’s armed forces in order to purge them of the ills, and reposition them for improved performances.
Although some people call for thorough probe and investigation of the armed forces with a view to identifying, trying and sacking of corrupt officers, such call, though meritorious, if heeded by the President Muhammadu Buhari-led administration, could distract the attention of the military at this crucial time from discharging its duty of providing security.
Instead, the administration should realise that good governance, a thing that is largely absent in Nigeria, is the foundation upon which a formidable economy and sustainable security is built.
The political, economic and social well-being of Nigerians is often largely compromised by the politicians who serve only their pockets and family members.
Essentially, our current crop of leaders should appreciate the fact that good governance has the tendency to promote equitable distribution of resources and power, promote peace and prevent conflict. It can also lead to reduction of poverty and introduction of transparency and accountability in all spheres of governance, promotion of social, political and economic inclusion and gender equality.
In the end, in order to guarantee security across the country, governance process must be erected on the pillars of justice, and the Nigerian people must be led by leaders who support them to realise their individual and collective dreams.