New Telegraph

Makama: Removal of service chiefs won’t end insurgency

The Olowu of Owu Kuta in Osun State, Oba Adekunle Oyelude Makama, in this interview, speaks on the need for Nigerians to support the Army in the fight against insurgency. WALE ELEGBEDE reports

A major problem said to be working against the Nigerian Army from operating at its full potential is inadequate funding. What is your take on improved welfare of officers and men as well as increased budget?

Like the media normally analyse, the defence budget is perhaps the biggest budget for quite some time in Nigeria. But let us consider it intellectually, the cash backing, do the military get the entire budget that is being voted? The truth is that they don’t get all the monies that are being voted. Like some of the Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) agreed that if they budgeted like N1bn, the budget would only perform like 40 to 45 per cent, what happened to the rest? If you look at our situation now, a defence budget of the Nigerian Army should be more than the defence budget of the South African Army that is not at war. Yes, we are seeing billions of naira as budget allocation but convert them to dollars and you will see that these funds are nowhere.

Take an instance of the Tucano jet; look at the amount it costs. One single drone costs millions of dollars. If the Nigerian Army procures drones for each of its seven divisions, all the budget is gone, what of the recurrent, infrastructure, and other requirements, so they need more funding. Countries that are even at peace fund their military sufficiently in preparation for war time.

Unfortunately, we are even at war now, we want them to be adequately funded. I was reading through some international news a few days ago, I saw that budget of a university in America is more than Nigeria’s budget, talk less of our armed forces that are into war now. Warfare equipment is very expensive coupled with the politics surrounding it that we have to go round to get them. So, we need additional funding for our army as a matter of urgency. Also, we must take cognisance of the fact that the army is now very accountable under President Muhammadu Buratai unlike what was applicable in the past.

There are people who said the current service chiefs have outlived their usefulness and that they should be replaced. What is your take on that?

If you look at the tenure of the service chiefs; I don’t know the terms of service that is in the Armed Forces Act, I don’t know what the act says about their tenure if it is enshrined in the constitution or the Army Forces Act. But I know that power is vested on the Armed Forces Council and the President who is the Commander-in-Chief. The truth is that General Tukur Buratai is not the longest-serving Chief of Army Staff. General Sani Abacha was the longest-serving, go and check it out. I I think we have to change our perception and attitude because nobody asks in America, how many terms their service chiefs serve, they have a system in place which knows the term the proper time they will be going. Until we have a system that will evolve naturally like that, nobody needs to tell the service chiefs that your time is up except they are being recalled for a purpose.

We should allow the president to exercise his constitutional right and change them when he deems fit. Most of the CSOs believe the service chiefs have done their best and they should leave when the ovation is loud, no doubt about that. But again, the poignant question is, will changing the service chiefs really translate to the end of Boko Haram and insurgency? The answer is no.

I think changing the service chiefs would not necessarily end insurgency. Changing the service chiefs will only enhance the career of the junior officers and there is no doubt about that. Our armed forces are in an unusual situation for now. In as much as I believe that changing the service chiefs for now does not necessarily translate into ending the insurgency, we should still find a way to support the focusdriven present service chiefs as we currently have them.

It has been alleged in some quarters that the Nigerian Army has been engaging in human rights abuses and violation. What is your response to that?

The present leadership of the Nigerian Army is abreast of the situation all over the world and they are mindful of the agitation of civil society organisations both at home and internationally. That is why the army established Human Rights Departments, which is first of its kind in this country. Don’t forget that the army in those days never believed in human rights or accountability because they always sweep everything under security. But things have changed under this present army leadership.

Don’t forget that Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) recently requested budgetary and accounts of the Nigerian Army and General Buratai packaged everything and handed it over to them. SERAP wrote an appreciation letter to the army and said this is a clear departure from the past. In every formation of the military now, there is a human rights desk, manned by a legal officer of the Nigerian Army. The Nigerian Army is well established and focus-driven institution.

In Africa, we cannot be shoved aside and that is why we excel all over the world. In most of the international operations, nobody has indicted us of violating rules of engagement and others unlike some other countries that violate rules of engagement, and even when the CSOs and people shout, they would say the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Hague cannot try them.

You have been at the forefront of galvanizing support for the army; what do you seek to achieve with this?

We are in unusual situations now, so the Nigerian Army needs our support. We must see the army as our own army. If you see the army as your army it will be easier for them, I cannot have a problem in my community where I domicile as a traditional ruler and I will resolve to call Boko Haram for help. Most of the issues that make us look at the army as army of occupation are because they are being overstretched. If not, nothing should bring them to internal security. Their major role should be defending of territorial integrity of the country.

During George Floyd’s crisis, the U.S.President, Donald Trump, threatened to bring out the army, he was even demonstrating how they would look like. But the lowest cadre to the highest echelon of American patriots rose against him that the crisis was still civil in nature and no need to involve the army. If the Nigerian Police and other security agencies are well funded and structured, the army has no business in internal security. The Nigerian Army should be properly equipped and allowed to face their mandate of defending our territorial integrity.

One of the cardinal points you have always highlighted is the rebranding of the army. How can this be done?

When we talk about rebranding the army, it is about changing the perception we have about the army. We don’t see the efforts of Buratai-led army because we are coming from the long-term military regimes. Even some people who were in primary school during the military rule can still remember the brutality of the army on people and the army that censored your speech. So, an average Nigerian doesn’t see the army as his own irrespective that some of us have our relatives among the army. The army should rebrand its image, so that we can see them as our own. If you travel abroad, when you want to buy your ticket, they will put in the check if you are a serviceman, army or veteran, they give you preferential treatment, they also give discounts. In some places people will wave the flag, some children even prefer them, they believe these are the people that lay down their lives for the country because they see them as their own. If one American soldier dies, they would bring their jet, just to carry the corpse from Nigeria to America, the president will be waiting at the tarmac.

They see it as their own; no amount is too much to spend. That is type of rebranding I am talking about. Let the civil societies and populace see the army as their own. Let the army know the era of military regime is far gone, is out fashioned. An army officer today is working under civil authority and they must be the people’s army. When Trump eventually asked U.S. Army to come out, people were throwing water to some of them, and they didn’t kick anybody. I was shocked, with all the equipment and gadgets at their disposal, people were tempting them but they never lifted a finger, which I’m sure it may not happen here. In the course of rebranding, the Nigerian army needs to rebrand, so that the civil populace needs to see them as their own army.

Read Previous

Anambra: Echoes of politics at police zonal command launch

Read Next

Ondo impeachment saga: Who holds the ace?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *