Premature Retirement of Generals in Military: At What Cost?

Kingsley Nwezeh writes that the emergence of Major General Farouk Yahaya as new Chief of Army Staff and the likely retirement of 30 army generals reignite the debate on the national cost of premature retirement of generals in the military, sometimes on considerations not patriotic and nationalistic, as the military profession demands

In military circles, it is said that it takes five years to train a soldier. Five years to undergo all the required courses, arms handling, combat training, among others.
If that is the case, then it is left to the imagination what it costs to produce a general in the military. The years at the Nigerian Defence Academy (NDA), the yearly promotion courses, the very costly and numerous foreign trainings in China, United States, United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, among others, that run all year round.

Critics have argued that these huge national investments, suddenly truncated by way of premature retirements on the altar of ethnicity and politics, have, more than anything else, retarded the growth of the military institution.
The military establishment prides itself on hierarchy and seniority, which, when eroded or distorted, attacks and weakens the foundation of the institution itself.

Yahaya’s Emergence and Implications for 30 Generals
The emergence of Major General Farouk Yahaya as the new army chief has returned all the arguments against premature retirement of generals in the military. As a member of the NDA 37 Regular Course, the implication of his appointment is that Major Generals on Course 35, 36, and 37 numbering about 30 may leave the service. This is in line with military tradition, which dictates that you cannot salute your junior.

Naturally, if such decisions were looked at from the point of view of the federal character principle, generals from other parts of the country, especially the South, would have been considered. But the present administration of President Muhammadau Buhari has, largely, jettisoned that principal, like many past Nigerian leaders, with the exception of former President Olusegun Obasanjo and, at some point, General Yakubu Gowon, and preferred generals from their respective ethnic stocks to lead the army, which is viewed globally as the most powerful arm of the services.
The ethnic fixation in the appointment of army chiefs, which did not start today, is a template that has been fully developed, as the army chief is seen as the backbone and protector of the president.

The template is, however, unhealthy for the growth of the army and the entire military, as it entrenches mistrust. That an army chief, who is not of the president’s ethnic or geopolitical or geographical area cannot be trusted to protect the president is not good for national cohesion. What it also means by implication is that whenever a president from the South emerges, generals from the North should kiss the position of army chief good-bye until after eight years.

Having had Lt. General Tukur Buratai (North-east), probably one of the longest serving army chiefs, followed by his successor, the late Lt. General Ibrahim Attahiru (North-west), it is widely believed that the government would have considered generals from other parts of the country.

Courses 35, 36, 37 on Shaky Grounds
For instance Major General Benjamin Ahanotu and Major General C. C. Okonkwo, among others, are of Course 35. Ahanotu is the Army Chief of Policy and Plans (COPP) and second in command to the late army chief, Attahiru.

A second-in-command is good enough to step into the shoes of the army chief.
Ahanotu, who is from Anambra State, was the Chief of Staff, 21 Armoured Brigade, Maiduguri, who led the operation that arrested Boko Haram founder, Mohammed Yusuf, and handed him over to the Nigeria Police before he was killed. Ahanotu was also Commander, 3rd Amounted Brigade, Jos, that led the operation that rescued kidnapped Dapchi girls. He was also a General Officer Commanding (GOC).
Beyond Ahanotu, there are others from the South, who have had operational experience as former GOCs and war commanders, who would have comfortably occupied the position.

It is also argued that it is not appropriate to retire military generals with their repertoire of knowledge and experience when the nation is in a state of war. This is without prejudice to the terms and conditions of service of the affected officers. But the president has had cause to extend the tenure of service chiefs on account of the nation being in a state of war.

Generals Who May Leave the Service
From all indications, the following generals may leave the service, pending other factors and considerations by the Minister of Defence, Major General Bashir Magashi (rtd), as Chairman of the Armed Forces Council, Chief of Defence Staff, General Lucky Irabor, and the new Chief of Army Staff, Major General Farouk Yahaya.

They are Major Generals AS Maikobi, DC Onyemulu, HI Bature, A Bande, SA Yaro, LA Adegboye and OI Uzamere. Others include J Sarham, OF Azinta, JB Olawumi, CO Ude, G Oyefesobi, BM Shafa, NA Angbazo, BA Akinroluyo, HR Momoh, KAY Isiyaku, AT Hamman, MO Uzoh, AM Aliyu
CC Okonkwo, and MA Masanawa.

Other Major Generals likely to go include JI Unuigbe, JJ Ogunlade, AN Dauda, AA Jidda, YI Shalangwa, IN Yusuf, JGK Myam, SA Adebayo, GA Umelo, PB Fakrogha, VO Ezugwu, AB Omozoje, and EN Njoku.
Others include SO Olabanji, GB Audu, OA Akintade, OT Akinjobi, BA Isandu, AM Alabi, AA Adesope, OW Ali, MG Ali, SS Araoye, GS Abdullahi, CG Musa, US Mohammed, KI Mukhtar, KN Garba, DH Ali-Keffi, EV Onumajuru, KI Yusuf, BR Sinjen, and TA Lagbaja.
Major Generals who may also leave the service include UU Bassey, S Dahiru, UA Yusuf, KO Aligbe, AK Ibrahim, LA Fejokwu, AB Ibrahim,
JO Ochai, EAP Undiandeye, OR Aiyenigba, GU Chibuisi, SG Mohammed, and IM Jallo.

Factors That May Determine Exit or Retention of Some Generals
Major General Ahanotu, the army’s chief of policy and plans, and Major General Abubakar Maikobi, Commander, Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Minna, C.C Okonkwo, and a few others who were course mates (35) of the late army chief are believed to be certain to go.

A military insider said there was also the possibility that some members of Course 36, who are also senior to the new army chief, might be posted, depending on the decision of the defence minister, who is chairman of the armed forces council, and the army chief, to tri-service departments or defence headquarters, under the chief of defence staff, who is Course 34.
They may also be posted to the Armed Forces Resettlement Centre, Oshodi, or Command and Staff College, Jaji, and other such military formations.

A senior military officer said, “There are three ways to look at it. The officers at the same level with the current army chief that can be posted to tri-service institutions with those that are ahead of him.
“The Chief of Defence Staff is in 34th Course. You can get members of the 36 Course to go and work there. It does not affect anything. There are a few members of the 35 Course in the army. They can go home.

“The ones that you should be worried about are members of the 36 Course, but you can take them to head military formations in Jaji, Oshodi. You can bring them to defence headquarters or defence research and development bureau.

“He (army chief) can also decide to retire them. He can retire them; they have spent about 35 years in service. No big deal about that. He can work with his course mates (37). The late army chief worked with his course mates. He was the one that insisted that they should not retire.”
THISDAY also learnt that the expected retirement of the senior officers in the army might affect their colleagues in the Navy and Air Force.

A military source said, “When the present service chiefs were appointed, their course mates in the three services were advised to leave the service and they all left, except those who were moved to the defence headquarters.
“If you ask the opinion of other younger officers, those who are due for retirement should go.”

Calculating the Numbers
On the number of generals that are expected to proceed on retirement, a senior military source said, “Only the military secretary can say that, because it depends on many factors. When Attahiru came on board, the Minister of Defence insisted that all 35 Course members must go, but he pleaded that two of them remain to help him – Ahanotu and the TRADOC commander, Maikobi. From all indications, two of them and about three others may go first.

“The same thing with the 36 Course members that are his (new army chief) senior may not even remain. The same Minister of Defence may say that all Course 37 should go. He did that in the Navy when the present naval chief was appointed, he said that all Course 36 must go so that he could have command and control.”

According to the source, “The defence minister can say all 37 Course should go, it depends on the decision at the strategic level. The decision will come from the Chairman, Armed Forces Council, who is the Minister of Defence, who will also decide on how to streamline the army.

“It is not easy to say who will go or not. It’s only when you check the seniority roll that you can say so. If you check from the first 30, less CDS.
The new army chief is in 37 Course. Even in the 37, he is number 27. If he is no 27 on seniority roll, let’s say 23 are going from 36. But if you add his course mates, more will go. If you also add the two or five from 35, you would arrive at 30.”