As insecurity which has turned the entire nation into a huge killing field, holds sway in the face of ineffective government response, the decision by President Muhammadu Buhari to sack the service chiefs signaled a move in the right direction, even if belated. Though coming after persistent pressure from Nigerians, President Buhari’s removal of the service chiefs, under whom Nigeria has become completely insecure, cannot be construed as a victory for the Nigerian people. For, besides the relentless destruction that the Boko Haram sect continues to visit on the north-eastern geopolitical zone, marauding bands going by various names including Fulani herdsmen together with armed robbers and kidnappers have extended their killings and sacking of villages to the entire country. Not only have these brazen attacks on the Nigerian state question the operational preparedness of the troops on the frontlines, it is embarrassing that the military appeared unable to deal with the situation. In sum, the sacked service chiefs aka “Disservice Chiefs” underscored the need for new leadership to combat terrorism and insecurity, including a unified command answerable to appropriate superior authorities.
On Tuesday, President Buhari in a statement by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Femi Adesina announced he has accepted the immediate resignation of the service chiefs and their retirement from service. The Chief of Defence Staff, General Abayomi Olonisakin was replaced by Major-Gen. Leo Irabor; the Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Gen. Tukur Buratai was replaced by Major-Gen. I. Attahiru; the Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Ibok Ekwe Ibas was replaced by Rear Admiral A.Z Gambo and the Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Sadique Abubakar was replaced by Air-Vice Marshal I.O Amao. Understandably, while some applauded the replacement of the nation’s defence chiefs, others faulted Buhari’s action as too little, too late.
The rising crescendo for the sacking of Nigeria’s top military leaders resonated in various quarters and peaked in the National Assembly when the Senate passed a resolution on July 21, 2020, calling on Buhari to fire the service chiefs. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives had in previous resolutions called on the President to fire the service chiefs for their failure to protect the nation against insurgents and criminals. With no evidence in sight of progress being made to quell the insurgency in the Northeast and combat the rising insecurity, the military came under severe criticism for its failings. The sacked service chiefs were appointed on July 13, 2015, and confirmed by the Senate on August 4, 2015. What has been puzzling to most Nigerians is why Buhari took so long to heed the calls to sack the defence bosses; whose retirement were long overdue; having stayed beyond the legally permitted time limits.
However, it is obvious that the service chiefs cannot be totally blamed for the brazenness of Boko Haram in the ongoing war. There are several contributory factors. First, there seems to be a leadership problem not only within the military operation, but also nationally. When the President of the country and Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces appears so absent in the face of unprecedented domestic inadequacies, including excruciating security breaches, it will be hard, if not impossible, to expect total loyalty and commitment from the troops, who are being traumatized by the exploits of the insurgents. Moreover, the military itself appears to have failed to provide adequate leadership structure in its war against the insurgents. The leadership problem is not just about the appalling absence of a single, unified command structure to lead the operations, but also the lack of effective coordination, which manifests in the issuance of different, and at times contradictory reports on the military operation by various security agencies. Consequently, no one knows who is leading the war.
This troubling development also compels some critical questions regarding the new service chiefs, whose appointment have been greeted with high expectations in some quarters as probably the final solution to the insurgency. However, as recent events have indicated, changing personnel at the top may not solve the problem. In fact, some have argued that the crisis of insecurity bedeviling the nation is a toxic mix of Boko Haram insurgents, armed Fulani herdsmen and kidnapping and armed banditry. Unfortunately, President Buhari has, up till now, refused to take any decisive action on the Fulani herdsmen menace, which people construe as his tacit support for the crimes perpetrated by his Fulani kith and kin. How the new service chiefs will alter the president’s calculations on this vexing issue remains to be seen. But suffice to say, the new appointees could only achieve any goal in accordance with the mindset of the President.
While popular indifference, or better still, discontent with the prosecution of the anti-insurgency war may not be unconnected with associated complications, particularly the rising insecurity and destruction of the local economy, a greater undercurrent relates to the absence of the government in such local communities in terms of the so-called dividends of democracy. One consequence of the absentee state manifests in the willingness of the local population to allow the criminals free passage in a manner injurious to the success of the counter-insurgency efforts. Obviously, troops operating under these conditions are far from being highly motivated. And when morale is low, the operational performance of the troops must diminish. There is, therefore, an urgent need for a serious reorganization of the war against the insurgents. Apart from issues such as adequate funding and motivation of the troops, the sophisticated methods of Boko Haram terrorists, the brazenness with which they have, at will and unchallenged, moved large numbers of men and equipment over wide geographical areas and for many hours to achieve their objective to plunder, destroy and spread fear among the populace are sufficient reasons for Nigerians to perceive a palpable inadequacy in the effectiveness of military response.
In a continued orgy of indiscriminate bestiality, thousands of Nigerians have been killed in extremely brutal manner by the terrorists. Scores of homes and places of worship have been razed and many villages have been sacked. Even far more innocent civilians are falling victims. Indeed, there has been a significant rise in insecurity across the states on Nigeria’s northern borders – Sokoto, Zamfara, Kaduna, Katsina, Borno, among others. That part of Nigeria where nobody is safe now looks like it is cut off from the rest of the country. Too many security personnel are being killed by a presumably less trained terrorist group. Nigeria is hemorrhaging too much and the killing of rice farmers in Kantakari is the poster how badly the nation is bleeding. And it is most strange that all these happen in spite of the heavy presence of military task forces made up of just about every component of the security forces. Nigeria is in a state of war and the management of the situation appears awful. It would appear the command structure and the reporting line between the men in the trenches and the army headquarters in Abuja are too long and bureaucratic.
But the fight against Boko Haram is for the country and not for self or group glory; so, it requires trust, collaboration, and coordinated strategy among the forces. And, unless there is more to it than they can see, with new service chiefs in charge now, Nigerians would want to see more robust military and government response to the Boko Haram threat. This of course includes that the forces are given all needed support – material and non-material resources – to overpower the sect and combat the rising insecurity that has taken the nation hostage. Nothing else will reassure the Nigerian people that they are not and will never be marooned at the mercy of Boko Haram terrorists and criminals.
