Insecurity vs service chiefs: Will Buhari bow to pressure?

DURING the week, the grumble about the continuation of service chiefs in office finally took the political centre stage. Both chambers of the National Assembly reconvened to give damning verdicts on the security situation in the country and, in the process, some members of the legislative arm came down heavily on the nation’s service chiefs.

The military top brass are the Chief of Defence Staff, General Abayomi Gabriel Olonisakin; Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant General Tukur Yusufu Buratai; the Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas; and the Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Sadique Baba Abubakar.

While the House of Representatives called for the removal of the leaders of security architecture, the Senate summoned the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Mr Muhammed Adamu, to appear before it this week. Whether or not the police chief will appear before the lawmakers is what Nigerians await.

Public complaints prior to NASS complaints

Well before President Muhammadu Buhari contested for and secured his second term in office, there had been complaints among sections of the citizens who viewed the performance of the security chiefs as below expectations. The thumping of chest that the war against Boko Haram in the North-East appeared not to have convince the people, especially those poor people who were directly in the line of fire in the embattled areas. The resurgence of bandits killing and rustlings of livestock in the North-East also appear not to have helped the efforts of the security leaders.

In January 2019, President Buhari, who extended the tenure of some of the military chiefs, despite having surpassed the statutorily permitted time in service, had to apologise on their behalf over complaints about their performance since their appointment in 2015.

“My understanding of security is that when you have a case of emergency, you have to be careful with tampering with the heads of services. This is, again, one of my personal experiences. I have been a governor; I have been a minister; I have been head of state. I tried to come back to this office three times, but got lucky on the fourth time.

“I am measuring the options critically. When you have a case of emergency, if you don’t wait for an appropriate time to do it, then, you create competition within the service.

“There are so many ambitious people waiting, only one man can be Chief of Army Staff in the Army. Only one man can be the Inspector-General of Police. Don’t forget that it was this administration that appointed all the three (service chiefs).

“I didn’t know them on a personal basis. I followed records and thought I picked the best then. Of course, their performance may be disappointing, but I accept responsibility for not changing them. My reason is based on my own experience,” the president had told a local television station in an interview.

Other indices point at security failure

But beyond the verdict by the average Nigerians, who actually know where the shoes of inept security pinch, statistics available indicate that not much progress has been made in the last five years, contrary to the claim by the Buhari-led administration and officials that the country is safer than it was when they took over in 2015.

For example, the Global Peace Index (GPI) ranked Nigeria 148, out of 163 countries in the World Peace ranking in 2018.

The GPI further categorised the nation 40 out of 44 countries in sub-Sahara Africa, a development analysts said made Nigeria one of the least peaceful on the continent in 2018.

Same year, GPI ranks Nigeria as the third most terrorised country in the world. It came next to Iran and Afghanistan.

“The two other major policies of the present administration are economic development and fight against corruption. On these, too, available statistics show there has not been a significant improvement from 2015,” said the International Centre for Investigative Reporting (ICIR) last year.

Many analysts have argued that the refusal of the president to remove the service chief and inject new blood into the system would erode the belief in the government to find solution to the security challenges, if any.

Some have also said it would result in delayed promotion and untimely retirement of promising young officers.

Section 8 of the public service rules stipulates that the compulsory retirement age for all grades in the service shall be 60 years or 35 years of pensionable service, whichever is earlier.

“No officer shall be allowed to remain in service after attaining the retirement age of 60 years or 35 years of pensionable service, whichever is earlier,” the law states.

Also, Ssection 4 of the Harmonised Terms and Conditions of Service Officers (2017) states that military service of an officer is a period of unbroken service in the armed forces of Nigeria from the date of commission to the date of retirement from service.

This period of unbroken service covers date of enlistment into service as soldiers/ratings/airmen for regular commission, short service commission, direct short service commission, direct regular commission, executive commission officers, including other commissions.

The security chiefs have all surpassed, at least, one of these criteria.

Also, the IGP, who was supposed to have left office early in January of 2019 as he had completed his mandatory 30 years in the service, had been retained in office, in spite of the contrary opinion of many Nigerians.

However, Sunday Tribune also learnt that replacing the service chiefs is solely the prerogative of the president.

Despite that he was one of the members at the forefront of the passage of vote of no confidence in the security chiefs, chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Defence, Honourable Jimi Benson, owned up that the extant laws allowed the president to keep the service chiefs for as long as he wished.

“The National Security Adviser is from the North-East and cannot get to his village; the Chief of Air Staff too. That speaks volumes of their ability.

“But the solution lies in the hands of the president. I don’t know why he has kept them since 2015 when they were first appointed. He should decide whether to continue to keep them or not. I believe the resolution here will prick his conscience,” he said.

Nigerians should keep fingers crossed over service chiefs

A former chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Defence, Honourable Oluwole Oke, also told Sunday Tribune that Nigerians would have to keep their fingers crossed while the crisis lasted, hoping that the president would be touched to take the right decision.

“The president is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. He has the prerogative to retain the service chiefs for as long as he wants. There is no law stating when he should drop anyone of them. It is not written anywhere,” Oke said, adding that it is incumbent on the service chiefs themselves to determine whether or not they have performed their assigned duties creditably.

According to him, regardless of the president’s decision, these service chiefs would still have to render accounts to Nigerians.

“However, whether the service chiefs are leaving or staying, they will render accounts of their stewardship. Otherwise, they will paint this government badly. Many people know the president as a gentleman. But every one of them that worked with him will render the account of their stewardship so as not to taint the man.”

As suggested by Oke, President Buhari later met with the security chiefs during the week at the quarterly National Security Council meeting without the issue of call for their sack featuring on the agenda.

The meeting was reported to have merely called for continued collaboration from states and local governments in the area of security of lives and properties.

How the Federal Government intends to douse the tension pervading the land over the perceived ineptitude of the security handlers and, more importantly, stop the spate of killings and destruction of properties across the country is what Nigerians would await in the coming days.