Tayo Oke
drtayooke@gmail.com
Take a note of this statement: “I want to humbly express my profound gratitude to Mr. President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, for his continued and invaluable support to the Nigerian Army in the discharge of its constitutional roles. Therefore, I wish to pledge the commitment and unalloyed loyalty of officers and soldiers of the Nigerian Army to the President and the defence of our democracy”. Compared to this: “We are unique among militaries. We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual. No, we do not take an oath to a country, a tribe or religion. We take an oath to the Constitution. And every soldier that is represented in this museum, every sailor, airman, Marine, Coastguardsman, each of us will protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price”. No prize for guessing; the first statement was issued by the Nigerian Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant General Tukur Buratai, to the armed forces on November 3, 2020. The second was issued by General Mark Miley, Chairman, US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on November 12, 2020. It does not take a genius to work out which of the statements reflects core democratic values. It is also interesting to note that the former was issued by a Chief of Army Staff, (not Chief of Defence Staff) who, de jure, speaks for the uniformed personnel in Nigeria, and the latter, by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff who does the same in America.
As stated, in the US, the top military adviser to the President is the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, known in Nigeria as Chief of Defence Staff, (modelled after the British). The position is currently held by General Abayomi Olonisakin. To the best of my knowledge, he is an obscure figure most Nigerians have never heard of. In normal events, that would be quite rightly so, but in the scheme of things in Nigeria, his reticence is capable of more than one interpretations. Any warnings of ‘unrest’ ‘panic’, or ‘anxiety’ in the rank and file ought to come from the very top. Olonisakin appears to be the ‘boss’ in name only. Buratai has never shied away from taking the centre stage since his appointment. He sees himself as the man with the last word on military affairs; the de facto number one. He is a man who would serve and expect all uniformed personnel in Nigeria to sacrifice their lives in a stern defence of his Commander-in-Chief, President Muhammadu Buhari, based on the bespoke motto: my Commander-in-Chief to the last drop of blood. That gives the word sycophancy a whole new meaning.
The immediate question then is, does he feel personally (and uniquely) obliged to President Buhari, or would he hold the same stance regardless of who the Commander-in-Chief is? This is not the first time Buratai has come out for President Buhari with guns blazing. This column has found cause to chastise him on that before. (See, “Armed forces loyalty is to the constitution, not Mr. President”, The PUNCH, August 6, 2019).
In a properly functioning democracy, it is rare and unusual for the top military brass to wade into a politically-charged situation. Outgoing US President Donald Trump, however, has been as erratic as he has ever been since his loss to Joe Biden at the November 3, 2020 presidential election. Not surprisingly, therefore, he has been firing and hiring top personnel at random, especially ousting anyone adjudged to hold a view contrary to his, regardless of truth. For Trump, truth is what he says it is at any point in time. His aides often create a set of “alternative facts” for him to dwell on. There is evidence of his intention to rush through a military overhaul in America’s theatres of war, especially in Afghanistan, Iraq and others. The top civilian personnel at the Pentagon (US Ministry of Defence) are said to be against what they see as a ‘rash’ move by the president. Trump has therefore been firing those he considers to be against his authoritarian instincts within the military. Given that he has also refused to concede defeat in the election, all of that combined was enough to force the US top military brass to issue what was effectively a rebuke and a clear warning to the president.
Although there was the #EndSARS protests in the Nigerian situation, Buhari’s unexpectedly measured response is a credit to his regime. He towers above the US President in that regard. Who could have imagined? Trump once referred to Buhari as “lifeless”, quite uncharitable.
That said, on the one side in Nigeria are those protesting police brutality and calling for fundamental change in the overall structure of governance, and on the other are those desirous of preserving the status quo. Buratai has sought to place the military firmly on the side of the latter, drawing the institution close to the realm of partisan politics. Western military training and doctrine (TRADOC) has its origins both in the United States’ “West Point”, and the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, England. Roughly 10% of the recruits at “Sandhurst” are foreigners (many of them Nigerians and people from the Commonwealth countries). There is much emphasis on the importance of the military to subordinate itself to civilian authorities. Political power must emanate from the ballot box; not from the barrel of the gun. In America, the constitution guarantees liberty and freedom of the individual, which the military swears an oath to defend regardless of “personal price”. That is firm and unequivocal enough. That of the British is a little more complicated. The British army is not the people’s army, since the military belongs to the Monarchy. The clue is in the name, “Royal Military” Academy. This has been so for 800 years of parliamentary government. Military personnel swear allegiance to the Monarch; the very notion for which Americans went to war against them between 1775 and 1783. It is precisely what General Miley was referencing in his statement. A kind of timely reminder to Donald Trump and people of his ilk.
By insisting on the military’s personal pledge of loyalty to Buhari, Buratai was borrowing a leaf from the British. But, the last time I checked, Buhari is not a monarch. Or, is he? The Nigerian military has been walking the tightrope of the British and American models almost from inception. The top echelons admire the personal loyalty angle of the British, while at the same time, aspiring to the Republican ideals of the US military. Nigeria sends officers to both training grounds on a continual, regular basis, who then return to occupy the top tiers of the military having acquired the best of both worlds, but within a schizophrenic mindset. This is what lies at the heart of the conflict of loyalties. The lack of solid doctrinal footing gives the top brass the kind of latitude that is not even open to officers either at West Point, or Sandhurst. It is a dangerous latitude for, it gives Nigerian military leaders a discretion on core democratic principles.
Let us also remember that even in Britain, military loyalty to the “Queen and country” is anchored on the genius of ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’. The Nigerian military, at the moment, is too detached from the reality (and indeed, imperatives) of democratic accountability. Having only relinquished power in 1999, it still suffers the withdrawal symptoms. It sees itself as the landlord of Aso Rock, who reserves the right of re-entry, and repossession. It is an institution operating like an island entire unto itself. This cannot go on; it must change.
