‘FUNDAMENTAL RESTRUCTURING’

is

THE ANSWER TO ‘MILITARY IN POLITICS’ IN NIGERIA.

By

Professor Omo Omoruyi

At the time I came up with the recent itemization of issues that should be raised, discussed and resolved in a National Conference, See the www.Nigerdeltacongress.com and some Nigerian newspapers between April 24 and 27, 2001. I have always argued and am still arguing and convinced that the issue of ‘military in politics’ should be the NUMBER ONE on the list of subjects that should be resolved in the interest of the democratic health of Nigeria and for the promotion of national unity. I knew it was a serious issue, which Nigerians are running away from, but which unless it is properly handled, might spell the beginning of the end of the new experiment.

I raised the issue in March 1999 before the current dispensation was inaugurated, which appeared in the TELL of March 1999. I also criticized the President later, for adopting a simplistic assessment of the nature of the armed forces especially its lack of ethnic representation in and the prevailing anti-democratic orientation of the armed forces. I felt then that the President retirement of some political generals and colonels was not enough. At another occasion after the appearance of the ‘weeping generals’ at the Oputa Commission, which was capped with the appearance of General Victor Malu, I called the President’s attention to the nature of the armed forces that required wholesale and fundamental restructuring. I questioned the competence of the professional and political leadership of the Defense organization. See the www.Nigerdeltacongress.com and the Freight Monitor and Africans Abroad.

As soon as the US decided to embark on the secret pact with the Nigeria, I also raised the alarm and called on the National Assembly to inquire into the ‘fine prints’ in the US-Nigeria Pact or the Clinton-Obasanjo Military Pact. My essay on the matter was published by the News of October 2, 2000. I received many notes from Nigerians abroad but not from the Nigerian politicians. The issues I raised in the essay are still valid today, the National Assembly should investigate, if it wants to perform its constitutional duty instead of keeping quiet until matters deteriorate. I do not therefore want to repeat what I said then.

It was clear that the National Assembly, especially the Senate failed in its responsibility for refusing to call on the President to tell the Nigerian people, who they represent, the truth about the pact he entered into with the US. I was not surprised that General Victor Malu came to the reality of the secret pact and discovered some of the ‘fine prints’ and raised alarm. That would have been the second time the National Assembly would have called the Minister of Defense to testify to what the Chief of Army Staff alluded to in his various press statements. The National Assembly failed again.

Was it the function of the professional head of the army to raise an alarm? Why did the political head, the Minister of Defense, not pronounce on it by publishing the pact for all to read? It would have been the function of the political head in a normal democratic setting to tell the public the truth and to publicly reprimand the professional head for ‘misleading’ the public in a matter, which was in the national interest. Of course, the professional head was right and the political head had something to hide hence he did not come forward to tell Nigerians the truth. It is a fact that Nigeria is not, a normal democratic setting. One should therefore be surprised that the Chief of Army Staff could by-pass his political boss, the Minister of Defense to make an obviously political statement about the treaty entered into by the President, Commander in Chief with a foreign power even though it is illegal and unconstitutional.

Of course, General Malu, as a seasoned political General, ought to have known or should have known the import of the military pact for his political boss, the President. What the General was saying was that the military pact with the US was one sided as it was meant to deal with what the US considers as part of her national security interest in Nigeria and in the sub-region and not in Nigerian national interest. General Malu was right for his patriotic gesture and the record would show that he was saying the right thing. This is not the place to discuss his anti-democratic past, which is no different from those of other members of the armed forces including the current President and the current Minister of Defense who had obvious anti-democratic past.

For the interest of readers in general and Nigerians in particular there are three aspects of the US concern in the military pact with Nigeria.

To safeguard the US investment in the oil sector hence the US decided to ‘sell’ naval patrol boats with ‘training mission’ to the oil producing areas. Is this in the national interest or in the US interest?

To make the Nigerian military an extension of the US police in the sub-region as the peace-keepers since the US would not send her citizens to die in an African war especially after the event of Somalia. This is the effect of the ‘Somali Syndrome’. General Abacha rejected this US plan then called the ‘African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI).

To serve as the training mission in the name of ‘professionalization’. This is a code word for using the US to make the Nigerian army the ultimate guarantor of the nascent democracy under the current President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. What happens should the Nigerian army decide in the nation’s interest to intervene in politics? What would be the role of the US personnel? How would the equipment supplied by the US be used? What is the command structure and operational structure in the Nigerian army?

These three aspects of the pact have not changed. We should not be fooled by what we read in the press as the two aspects of the military assistance. If a generation before me at the then University College Ibadan could fight against the Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact, why should my generation in politics in the name of protecting the nascent democracy be involved in a military pact with the US? Are we saying that the US loves us more than the former colonial power, Britain?

The implications for these issues were dealt with in the essay in the News of October 2, 2000. I specifically directed the National Assembly to areas of inquiry that it should deal with. But the National Assembly failed to do anything even when General Malu cried aloud that the US involvement in the Nigerian armed forces was a threat to our national sovereignty and the security of Nigeria until the axe fell on him on April 24, 2001.

Did General Malu not know that he was crossing the line by raising a sensitive and political matter in the national newspapers? Of course, he knew and dared the President. That should not be the end. But the way the Northern Senators are interjecting themselves into the matter is very disturbing. Their approach savors of narrow regional orientation and can not advance the search for truth.

I was not surprised that eventually he would have to pay a patriotic prize for openly dabbling into a political matter in spite of the political boss of the Ministry of Defense, General TY Danjuma and the Commander-in-Chief, President Obasanjo.

This would have been an opportunity for the National Assembly to act. What do we find? Instead of the National Assembly acting in the national interest, the Northern Senators decided to make an essentially national issue a regional issue. Senator Iya Abubakar, a distinguished scholar has never hidden his disgust with the person of the President even though they are members of the same political party. Maybe, both of them cannot get over the past. May I plead with my good neighbor at Abuja that he should rise above his narrow regional and personal interest and act in the national interest.

It is a matter of record that Senator Iya Abubakar, as the former Vice Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University could not be an admirer of President Obasanjo. He was a victim of one of the highhanded policies of Obasanjo in the past. We were colleagues in the Constituent Assembly in 1977/78 and I knew how he felt with the way he fell on the axe of the President Obasanjo when he was the Military Head of State. This is not all.

It is a matter of record that Professor Iya Abubakar later became the first civilian Minister of Defense under President Shehu Shagari in 1979. One of his first acts as the Minister of Defense was to initiate the undoing of General Obasanjo’s last minute appointment. One was not surprised that he recommended the ousting of General Alani Akinrinade appointed by General Obasanjo few days before he handed over to President Shagari. General Akinrinade, the first Yoruba Chief of Army Staff was in 1980 ‘kicked upstairs’ as the Chairman, Joint Staff and a northerner, General GS Jallo was appointed the Chief of Army Staff.

It is also a matter of record, that since then, the post of the Chief of Army Staff has remained the preserve of the northern army officers. Someone even reminded me that even when the opportunity for the appointment of a non-northerner arose in 1990, an Ndi Igbo for that matter, he was also ‘kicked upstairs’ as Minister of External Affairs. I am referring to General Ike Nwachuku, the former Minister of External Affairs.

There was nothing, which disqualified Ike in 1990 other than that he was an Ndi Igbo. He lost the job despite the fact that he abandoned his kith and kin and stuck it out with Nigeria during the Civil War because he thought it was the right thing to do. The clique was not interested in the fact that he is not only ‘Ike’, but he is also ‘Osman’ and a descendant on his mother side of the royal family of Katsina.

I am aware of the efforts that would have raised the profile of the Ndi Igbo in the military in the past, in 1977/8 through the action of Dr. Chuba Okadigbo in the Constituent Assembly. I am also aware of the recent action in the Senate. Both would have attempted the ‘dethnicization’ or ‘deregionalization’ of the armed forces. Both were opposed violently by the power that be in the military from the north. The Ndi Igbo leaders should know that National Conference is appropriate forum for dealing with such a matter. Again Okadigbo and the Ndi Igbo leaders in the National Assembly are still thinking that the marginalization of Ndi Igbo in the armed forces could be addressed through an administrative fiat. Not so! It is too fundamental; Ohaneze Ndi Igbo should have put it as No. 1 on the Ndi Igbo’s list of demands since 1970. Is it late? No; support the National Conference.

Since 1966, the northern political leaders have come to view the military as the military wing of the ‘geo-ethno-military-ruling-clique’. The political leadership of Nigeria from 1966 till now shifts between the military and the civilian wings of this clique directly or indirectly through their proxies such as Obasanjo !976/79 and 1999/? and Shonekan 1993. I was not surprised with the way the northern political leaders took the recent retirement in the armed forces between 1999 and today. The recent retirement of the Service Chiefs, which included two ‘northerners’ out of the three, is seen as the greatest threat to a viable wing of the political leadership of the north. The military wing of the clique has been at the root of north’s power exercise and power dominance of Nigeria. They are either leading or they are installing leaders from the south for Nigeria through the use of the military. If this is what President Obasanjo wants to achieve, he should carry Nigeria with him through a national dialogue on the matter because it is too fundamental to be done through piecemeal measures.

The leaders of the north were not happy with the retirement of certain officers who held political post since 1966 as soon as President Obasanjo became the president in 1999. Recently it would appear that maybe General Muhammadu knew what was in the offing for the two northern officers in the military when he a week before the axe fell on Malu openly criticized the President for his highhanded action against the northern Generals, Police and Security officers. See Daily Trust of April 15, 2001. He accused President Obasanjo for singling out for retirement northern officers thereby setting the hands of the northern clock back by over 20 years. This was a very biting criticism and scathing attack of a former military boss by a retired General and former Military Head of State who is now the National President, The Pastoralists of Nigeria.

On April 24, 2001 the axe fell on General Victor Malu (Army) from the north, Air Marshal Alfa (Air Force) also from the north and Admiral Ombu from the ‘south-south. Where are the leaders of the ‘Middle-belt Forum’ and the ‘south-south’ in the fortune of these officers who are technically from the geo-political zones called the ‘middle-belt’ and the ‘south-south’?

On April 25 the Northern Senators Forum under the leadership of Senator Iya Abubakar went on the offensive. He and Senator Idris Kuta in a hurriedly called press conference accused President Obasanjo of (a) ‘regional’ or ethnic’ cleansing, (b) undermining the integrity of the armed forces (c) undermining the stability of the country, and (d) unilaterally and unconstitutionally entering into a military pact with the US. Is this the function of a regional group in the Senate or of the entire Senate as an institution? See the daily papers for the account of the interview.

On April 25, 2001, the Minister of information tried to offer a defense of the President’s action by saying that Nigeria should trust the two people involved in the final decision, the President, Commander in Chief and Minister of Defense, Obasanjo and Danjuma. Both as retired Generals, were the Minister argued were in a position to know why they did what they did and pleaded with the north to accept the statement issued by the Secretary to Government as the true reason for the action of the federal Government. He never addressed the issues raised by the northern Senators even when pushed to offer explanation in the light of the points made by the northern Senators. I thought that was an opportunity for the Government spokesman to address the issue of a secret pact between the US and Nigeria.

On April 27, 2001 it was published in the Nigerian newspapers that the House Committee on Defense would summon the Minister of Defense to appear before the Committee to answer questions about the retirement of the Service Chiefs and on the military pact between the US and Nigeria. This is another problem with the Nigerian politicians. They ought to have known that the issue of war and peace is a joint responsibility of the President and the National Assembly acting through the Senate and not through the House of Representatives. The House Committee has no business with the approval of treaty, which is the issue.

This is not the time to answer point by point the issues raised by the northern political leaders or defend President’s action with regards to his power under the 1999 Constitution to hire and fire military Service Chiefs as and when he likes. What the action/reaction demonstrates is that the two Ds advanced by me in my book, The Tale of June 12 as the only empirically feasible solution to the ‘politics of the armed forces’. The President had neglected it or attempted to solve it through a piecemeal measure since May 29, 1999.

By the two Ds, I am talking of Demobilization and Depoliticization of the Armed Forces. This is the only basis of guaranteeing a stable democratic order and of ensuring a representative and an accountable armed forces and military organization.

It is obvious that there is a lack of a political will on the part of the President to handle the ‘Fundamental restructuring’ of the Armed Forces.

It is also obvious that there is a lack of a national orientation on the part of the National Assembly to ask the tough question about the ‘Fundamental Restructuring of the Armed Forces’ and other Defense matters.

It should be obvious by now that the piecemeal solution by the President is a recipe for danger and disaster.

It is obvious that no democracy in Nigeria in a plural society that had been misruled by a clique of the armed forces like in Nigeria can hope to survive unless there is representative and depoliticized armed forces.

 

The solution is that we should throw the matter to the National Conference as the appropriate forum to handle the complex and delicate issues involving the armed forces. The President emerged through the good auspices of the northern military officers and they expect some IOU. Very soon we would be told that Chief Obasanjo is abusing the trust of the military of northern origin, just like the former President, Alhaji Shehu Shagari once said that ‘Obasanjo was abusing the trust of the north’.

I came to this conclusion that only a National Conference could handle the matter from my knowledge of the Nigerian military, as a scholar and from my experience in the public service, in the ‘military in politics’. I am willing to put these experiences at the disposal of my countrymen, if they actually want to resolve the matter amicably and in the national interest.

This is why what to do about the ‘Military’ is number 1.on the list of issues including ‘Resource Control’ and ‘Sharia’ among others for the National Conference in my recent essay. This is an opportunity for the President to allow Nigerians to express them on this question.

A National Conference would be an opportunity for Nigerians to debate what should be the NIGERIAN DEFENSE POLICY and the place of the Armed Forces in that policy. Nigerians want to know who are their enemies or what is called the threat to the nation. Nigerians want to know the relationship between the defense spending within that definition of enemy or threat and not just what the President acting on the advice of the US says it is. The US should not be the one to set our defense policy for us by telling us who are enemies are and how we should deploy our troops and what equipment we should acquire and from where. This is what President Obasanjo is unwittingly achieving for Nigeria through the pact with Clinton. Nigerians should review it for the sake of our national pride.

In the US defense policy is not for the military to decide alone; it is a top patriotic matter in the US. It is openly done with the obvious participation of key actors and experts in the US of which the US Congress is an integral part. This has never been so in Nigeria since the military assumed the dominant height in Nigerian national life. This should change and it is now. It should start with the review of the Nigerian-US Treaty herein called the ‘Obasanjo-Clinton Military Pact’. Nigerians need to discuss among themselves what should be the nation’s defense policy before bringing others like the US into it. Nigeria should not allow the US or any other country to set the agenda for us. No matter how well meaning the US may be, it is her national security interest that drives her policy in Nigeria. This is why the so-called ‘Obasanjo-Clinton Military Pact’ is starting from an answer and begging the question. It should be rejected in its present form and it should be subjected to the review of the Senate in the national interest. The US would love it if the Senate gets involved, as it is capable of out living the Obasanjo regime. This is why the Senate is an integral part with the President in the treaty making in the US.

In doing the review, I hope the Senate would consider the ‘fine prints’ itemized in my long essay, title, NIGERIA-US MILITARY PACT: RECIPE FOR DANGER published in the NEWS of October 2, 2000 pages 61-65.

Boston University.