President Tinubu: Your Ignominious Treatment of Retired Generals and Its Implications
MS Abubakar, HND,B.Ed,M.Ed,M.A,DProf, PhD,CAS
As countries undergo change and development, the contributions of retired generals in Africa become increasingly vital. It is essential to approach these experienced leaders with the respect they warrant, ensuring that their insights are both honored and effectively leveraged. This article highlights the significance of treating our retired military personnel with the dignity they deserve and the strategic benefits this approach can yield. This article is relevant not only to Africa but to countries worldwide; however, I will focus specifically on Africa, with particular emphasis on Nigeria. I feel compelled to address this matter due to the manner in which President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration has treated retired military generals. Many of these individuals supported him by leveraging their networks, resources, and intelligence. Their significant involvement in the APC’s Presidential Campaign Council is widely recognized. Unfortunately, their contributions appear to have been exploited for his personal interests, leading to outcomes favorable to him. It is evident that President Tinubu is aware of the significant role that retired military generals played in securing his electoral victory. To begin with, it is widely recognized that former President Muhammad Buhari, GCFR, along with Generals Ibrahim Babangida, TY Danjuma, Abdussalami Abubakar, Abdurahman Danbazzau, Azubuike Ihejerika, Gabriel Olanishakin, and TY Buratai alongside numerous retired senior military officers, worked diligently to ensure his emergence as president. Many individuals I have engaged with have expressed that they cast their votes for President Tinubu based on the recommendation of a retired military generals.
While the approval of a generous retirement package for Nigerian military generals by the president is a commendable move that recognizes the service and sacrifices of these high-ranking officials, it is essential to acknowledge that this gesture may not fully address the broader concerns and expectations of the military bloc. The complexities of military morale, operational readiness, and the ongoing challenges faced by the armed forces extend beyond financial compensation. To foster a more robust and effective military establishment, it is imperative that the government engages in a comprehensive dialogue with military leadership, addressing issues such as personnel welfare, modernization of equipment, and strategic planning. Only through such multifaceted efforts can the government hope to satisfy the needs and aspirations of the military community adequately.
Nigeria stands to gain significantly from examining the military management strategies employed by Egypt and Pakistan, particularly concerning post-retirement integration, political engagement, and economic sustainability. Both Egypt and Pakistan have developed robust frameworks that facilitate the transition of military personnel into civilian roles, ensuring that their expertise is leveraged for national development. By promoting policies that encourage retired military officials to participate in governance and public policy, these countries have not only enhanced political stability but have also fostered a culture of accountability and service. Moreover, their focus on economic survival through the establishment of veteran support programs and entrepreneurial initiatives provides a model for Nigeria to emulate. Such strategies could effectively address the challenges faced by retired military personnel in Nigeria, ultimately contributing to a more resilient and engaged society. By learning from these examples, Nigeria can create a comprehensive approach that supports its military personnel and strengthens national cohesion.
It is troubling to observe that a significant majority of the Nigerian populace—seven out of ten individuals—express a willingness to support a military coup d’état as a response to the prevailing hardships in the country. This sentiment reflects a profound discontent with the current socio-economic conditions and a growing disillusionment with democratic governance. The fact that citizens are contemplating such drastic measures underscores the urgency for effective governance and sustainable solutions to the escalating challenges they face. It highlights the need for political leaders to address the underlying issues of poverty, unemployment, and insecurity that have led to this pervasive sense of frustration. Ultimately, the desire for military intervention is indicative of a desperate search for stability and relief, signaling a critical juncture for Nigeria’s political landscape.
It is imperative that we uphold transparency and honesty in our communications with President Tinubu, particularly regarding the realities faced by the average Nigerian. Presenting a facade of stability and well-being on the streets undermines the gravity of the challenges that many citizens are experiencing. Economic hardships, rising inflation, and limited access to essential services have created a landscape where survival is increasingly difficult for a significant portion of the population. To effectively address these pressing issues, it is crucial that we convey the true state of affairs, ensuring that the president is informed by accurate data and genuine feedback from the community. Only with this understanding can we collaboratively develop effective strategies to alleviate the struggles faced by the Nigerian people.
Politics fundamentally revolves around the challenges and strategies employed by individuals to acquire and distribute power for governance and decision-making. In Africa, particularly in Nigeria, politics often serves as a major driver of insecurity when it fails to uphold the principles of the rule of law, equity, fairness, and justice. The roots of insecurity in Nigeria are frequently planted during political contests, largely attributed to the prevailing “winner takes all” mentality that characterizes the political environment. The role of politics is vital to the security of any society, and it is widely acknowledged that development cannot occur in the absence of security. Nwanegbo and Odigbo (2013) assert that security is essential for a state’s progress; without it, development is nearly impossible, a view with which I wholeheartedly agree. Deutsch (1970) articulated that “politics is the making of decisions by public means,” while Ranney (1975) referred to it as “the process of making government policies.” Various political scientists have offered different definitions of politics; for example, Max Weber broadly defined it as “independent leadership in action,” suggesting that politics is present in any context involving power dynamics. Thus, politics extends beyond governmental corridors, manifesting in trade unions, educational institutions, family interactions, and numerous other scenarios. This paper adopts a comprehensive perspective, following the insights of political scientist Harold Lasswell, who defined politics as “who gets what, when, how.” Politics emerges wherever individuals engage with one another to make decisions that impact them collectively. It exists within families—when parents determine the family’s place of residence; it is present when educational institutions decide on tuition fees; and it is evident when governments impose taxes or allocate funding for education. In its broadest sense, politics encompasses any interactions among individuals, groups, or institutions aimed at reaching decisions regarding collective choices or addressing shared challenges.
At its core, politics is fundamentally about power—its acquisition, application, and preservation. The dynamics of power not only shape societal structures but also significantly influence individual behavior within those societies. Although numerous theorists have sought to articulate the concept of politics, a recurring theme emerges: the interaction of power. The methods by which power is obtained and exercised are intrinsically connected to the security of any society. This principle underpins my theoretical framework. The processes associated with acquiring, distributing, and sustaining power encapsulate the essence of politics, making this interplay of power a vital element in the maintenance of security.
Individuals who contributed to your electoral victory merit compensation, whether through patronage, appointments, contracts, or other means, a fact that is well understood by Tinubu. It has come to my attention that certain political operatives and stakeholders received as much as $2 million from the Tinubu campaign to secure votes. However, I believe no retired generals accepted financial incentives for their support; instead, they engaged in the effort based on their assessment—whether accurate or not—that he was the most suitable candidate for Nigeria. They were also motivated by the prospect of securing positions within his administration to contribute to national development, as many of them are newly retired yet remain eager to serve. Regrettably, the President overlooked and sidelined them immediately after his inauguration. As a result, they now pose a potential threat to national security and to the democracy they have helped cultivate and protect since 1999, despite numerous opportunities since then where the military could have seized power if they had chosen to do so. As someone with a Ph.D. in military studies, I can confidently assert that the Nigerian military has evolved into a civilized and fully professional force that recognizes and embraces subordination to civilian authority. They believe that democracy is the optimal form of governance for Nigeria and acknowledge that it is in their best interest to support and uphold democratic principles. This belief stems from the understanding that following their military careers, they may engage in party politics and potentially be elected as leaders or appointed to serve in government roles under those they assisted in winning elections. This dynamic is evident in countries like the United States, Israel, and Rwanda, among others.
A significant realization regarding the current National Security Advisor (NSA) and his suitability for the role came from the recent coup d’état in Niger, which resulted in the ousting of President Mohammed Bazzoum by General Abdourahmane Tchiani. The NSA either misled the president or passively observed as the president was misinformed, leading him to threaten General Tchiani with military action to restore the previous order. Utilizing his position as Chair of ECOWAS, the president severed electricity supplies to Niger and ordered the mobilization of Nigerian Armed Forces in preparation for an attack. This aggressive stance effectively pushed Niger closer to Russia, a move that General Tchiani had no prior intention of making, as confirmed by a senior aide within the Nigerien military junta to me. Had a retired military general been serving as the NSA, it is unlikely that he would have permitted the president to pursue such a course of action. Instead, he would have advised the president to engage with respected figures like General Muhammadu Buhari or Ambassador Babagana Kingibe to negotiate with the Nigerien junta, given their high regard for these individuals. Military intervention should have been considered only as a last resort. However, what transpired was a display of overconfidence and a profound disregard for the sentiments of the Nigerien populace, who demonstrated their support for the coup leaders.
While I may not be entirely accurate, I feel compelled to express the following: numerous retired generals who played a role in Tinubu’s ascension to the presidency are experiencing disappointment; some are even expressing anger, as they perceive themselves to have been used and then discarded. My primary concern is that a select few among them may have felt betrayed by the President. Throughout the 2023 campaign, he repeatedly assured them, stating, “I will not forget about you, I will remember you.” During the 2023 campaign, he consistently reassured them, declaring, “I will not forget about you; I will remember you.” However, these same retired generals now face significant difficulty in securing a meeting with the individual they aided in becoming president, who garnered 8,794,726 votes from a total of 87.2 million record number of voters who were issued their Permanent Voters Cards (PVCs) after vetting and removing invalid registrants, according to INEC. I remain perplexed as to why a president, who secured the election with only 10% of the registered voters, would marginalize a vital segment of the Nigerian elite and stakeholders.
I can empathize with these retired generals, as I too have encountered a similar experience of being utilized and then abandoned by a politician who adopts a façade of vulnerability and helplessness, soliciting assistance from various individuals to secure election victories. I made a modest contribution to a gubernatorial candidate in the southern region, traveling to his state with a team of ten to engage with the Hausa community in support of his campaign. I served as a patron for one of his influential support groups and personally transferred my entire savings of N2, 000,000 to this individual, who is now referred to as His Excellency.
I facilitated introductions between him and my principal, along with others who also extended goodwill and financial support. The efforts we undertook to secure his victory as governor are extensive and cannot be fully articulated here; we did what was necessary for him to succeed. Elections in Nigeria resemble warfare, which is unfortunate. Now that he has assumed office, he seems to have forgotten my contributions. What particularly frustrated me was his invitation for me to visit him in his state; however, upon my arrival, he failed to answer his phone. After spending two nights in a hotel without communication, I opted for the next available flight back to Abuja. Thus, I truly understand the sentiments of the retired generals.
I feel it is imperative to make it abundantly clear that one of the significant advantages of integrating military generals into the framework of a democratic government is that it provides those brave individuals who are currently serving in the Armed Forces with a renewed sense of hope and purpose. They can envision a future where they have the opportunity to serve their fatherland diligently, retire with honor, and subsequently be elected as leaders or appointed to various influential positions due to the principles of democracy. This inclusion not only bolsters their belief in democracy as a preferable alternative to other more authoritarian forms of governance but also fosters a sense of camaraderie and mutual respect between military personnel and civilian leaders. In a candid conversation, one general expressed to me his frustration, saying, “The politicians think we are fools; we are the ones firmly holding the cow for them to milk, but when the time comes to share the milk, they will sideline us and only offer a meager portion. We are acutely aware that they are utilizing us for regime protection, but we can accept that reality. What we absolutely will not tolerate is the disdain and abandonment that often accompany such arrangements.” This perspective highlights a critical need for respect and recognition of the sacrifices made by military personnel in the name of national security and democracy.
This government is playing with fire, yet it appears as if they are blissfully unaware of the overwhelming magnitude of the perilous situation they have created for themselves. First and foremost, the government has become increasingly unpopular among the citizenry, losing the support of the masses on a daily basis; people are turning away in droves and no longer wish to be associated with an administration that seems disconnected from their needs and concerns. This alarming trend serves as the underlying reason why the government is making a concerted effort to win the hearts and minds of serving military officers, as well as strategically positioned individuals they can trust in sensitive roles that could influence the future of the nation. I can confidently assert that the soldiers are acutely aware that the politicians currently find themselves at their mercy, a precarious position exacerbated by the fact that the general populace is no longer aligned with the government’s agenda. There is no force more intimidating to military personnel than the palpable support of the masses behind a political leader; such backing instills a deep-seated respect that cannot easily be undermined. Conversely, soldiers are unlikely to make the grave mistake of attempting to overthrow or sabotage a democratic government that enjoys widespread popularity and support from its citizens. History has shown that military insurrections typically occur when the level of frustration among the populace reaches new heights and the citizens have unequivocally withdrawn their allegiance from the government, leaving the political landscape ripe for upheaval. Furthermore, we are in proximity to nations whose ineffective democratic governments have been overthrown by military forces, potentially encouraging some ambitious officers within the Nigerian military to pursue a similar course of action. It is evident that certain military personnel in Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, and Togo hold a degree of admiration for figures such as Captain Ibrahim Traore, Colonel Assimi Goita, and General Abdourahmane Tchiani. Additionally, the involvement of Russian entities in West Africa presents another significant concern. The transformation of political leaders like Nasir el-Rufai, who previously supported Tinubu with more faith in his capabilities than he had in himself, into adversaries of the current administration, signals a troubling sign for the government. We are witnessing parallels to the presidency of Shehu Aliyu Shagari, Nigeria’s democratic leader from 1979 to 1983. These issues collectively necessitate that the government reevaluates its approach; the current self-destructive strategies and trajectory it has adopted require urgent reconsideration.
A disclaimer here: It is important to clarify that I am not advocating for the retired generals. They are all well-settled in their residences. I recall an incident when a group approached one of the retired generals, expressing their intention to meet with the president to advocate for his appointment as the National Security Advisor or Minister of Defense. His response was both poignant and humbling; he encouraged them to seek divine guidance for what would be best for their country. This piece is written from the perspective of someone who is committed to the preservation and continuity of our democracy. My intention is merely to offer a straightforward reminder to the President and nothing beyond that. I have actively supported and campaigned for the APC, and therefore, I hold no ill will towards this government. However, it is imperative to speak out at this moment. It is essential to possess the courage to convey the truth to those in authority, particularly in times like these.
