IRIN Focus on changes in the armed forces

In March this year, the then chief of staff of the Nigerian army, Lt-Gen Victor Malu, said he still had two years to go before he was due for retirement. His statement was meant to dispel the widespread belief that his days in the army were numbered. Barely two months later, on 11 May, Malu reviewed his last parade, which marked the formal end of his military career. When the announcement came on 22 April that President Olusegun Obasanjo had decided to replace the heads of the army, navy and air force in one fell swoop, not many Nigerians were surprised. There had been signs for quite a while that all was not well. Indeed it was Malu who first pointed to them: he said publicly on a number of occasions that Nigeria’s armed forces were being starved of funds needed for modernisation, and that its sovereignty was being undermined by a military deal Obasanjo had reached with the United States. Close on the heels of the election of Obasanjo (a former military ruler) that ended more than 15 years of military rule, the US government stepped in with an offer to help retrain the armed forces to make them subordinate to civilian authority. US interest in this regard was most likely informed by the fact that the long years of military rule had put the biggest strain ever on Washington’s relations with Nigeria, a major supplier of its crude oil needs. “The Americans were quite keen that Nigeria should never again fall into the hands of unpredictable military rulers in the mould of late General Sani Abacha, over whom they had little or no leverage,” Charles Okere, an international relations analyst, told IRIN. While the details of the military agreement have never been made public, it became clear over time that it was wide-ranging, including training for Nigerian troops involved in regional peacekeeping operations and for coastguards for the country’s oil rich coastal region. But Malu hinted that the pact went further, alleging publicly in January that the Americans were asking for unfettered access to Nigeria’s military facilities and resources. “What the Americans are offering us is not just the training, they are also helping kit and equip some of the units that are being trained. We are willing to accept that,” he told reporters. “But we will also make them understand that our doctrines, our concepts, are not the same. We would not want them to change these doctrines.” Malu also questioned the competence of the US military to teach the soldiers elementary military tactics concerning peacekeeping, especially given Nigeria’s successes as against the US experience in Somalia. Most observers were taken aback at the time by the fact that these comments were made publicly. “The impression one got was that he had tried official channels and was rebuffed, leaving him no choice but to go to the court of public opinion,” Okere said. Malu did not stop there. He chose a very significant occasion - while receiving the newly appointed minister of state for the army, Lawal Batagarawa, at Defence Headquarters in Lagos, on 16 March - to reiterate his position. “Our interplay with any country should not in any way compromise our military strategy, national interest and national objectives upon which our sovereignty as a nation is sustained,” he declared. While the government was bound to be uneasy with Malu’s statements, it remained silent. But the former army chief’s position struck a positive chord among Nigerians with strong nationalist sentiments. The popularity of Malu, who had distinguished himself as commander of the West African ECOMOG peacekeeping force that helped to end the civil war in Liberia in 1997, grew to proportions that may have been considered threatening. To most people it was obvious the battle lines had been drawn and it was only a question of time before something gave. The government finally moved on 22 April by announcing the retirement of Malu; the head of the navy, Vice Admiral Victor Ombu; and the air force chief, Air Vice Marshal Isaac Alfa, all of whom Obasanjo had appointed hours after he took office on 29 May 1999. Ombu and Alfa are perceived to be collateral casualties in a move aimed primarily at getting rid of Malu. The only survivor was the chief of defence staff, Rear Admiral Ibrahim Ogohi, believed to have remained unflinchingly loyal to Obasanjo. Official explanation of the sackings was initially contradictory. The statement announcing them, issued by the office of the secretary to the government, spoke of voluntary retirement. But Minister of Information Jerry Gana later attributed the move to “security reasons”. He has since gone further to say it was because of Malu’s disagreement with the government over the role of the US military team in the country. In appointing their replacements - Maj-Gen Alexander Ogomudia for the army, Air Vice Marshal James Wuyep for the air force and Rear Admiral Samuel Afolayan for the navy, Obasanjo largely retained the ethnic composition of the top leadership of the armed forces that he had introduced since his second coming. He avoided appointments from major groups such as the Igbo of the southeast and the Muslim Hausa-Fulani of the north - which had dominated the military leadership and provided most of Nigeria’s rulers since independence from Britain in 1960. Apart from the navy chief, a Yoruba Christian like Obasanjo, the others are from ethnic minorities. It is a composition seen as intended to check any ambitious bids to seize power by any of the major ethnic groups. Predictably, the sacking of the military chiefs drew criticism from various interest groups in Nigeria. Human rights lawyer and political activist Gani Fawehinmi charged that Obasanjo’s action signalled that “our national interest is subjugated to manipulations of foreign powers”. Obasanjo’s close relations with bodies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have also been cast in the same light. The Senate reacted by inviting Defence Minister Theophilus Danjuma to explain the presence of US soldiers in Nigeria. Northern leaders organised under the Arewa Consultative Forum (including four former Nigerian presidents) characterised the replacements as evidence of “further marginalisation” of the north by Obasanjo. Most analysts think Malu’s departure was inevitable after his differences with Obasanjo became public knowledge. Writing in ‘The Guardian’, a Lagos daily, Kayode Fayemi of the non-governmental Centre for Democracy and Development said Obasanjo would have risked further insubordination in the military had he not acted. But he also thinks that Malu, who is renowned for being outspoken, chose to sacrifice his military career in defence of principles he holds dear. “By this he (Malu) has raised a fundamental issue of accountability of the political leadership to the citizens even as it demands the accountability of the military leadership to its own authority,” Fayemi argues. “This is the silver lining that has come out of this event and the society must not allow this opportunity to be lost.”