By Bala Ibrahim
Like in every language, certain words come with phonetic flexibility, such that there is room for the chances of changes in their pronunciations and meaning, without much ado or brouhaha. But thankfully, the word security does not have the independence, or quality of being bent without breaking. And the reason is simple: it stands for the state of feeling safe, stable, and free from fear or anxiety. Any attempt to tamper with its meaning, would result in the reverse of what it stands for. Yes, the simplest reversed meaning of security is called, disquiet.
In the last two days or so, Nigeria and Nigerians have played host to a disquiet situation, pursuant to the changes announced by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the Commander in chief of the Armed forces of Nigeria. For what the Presidency described as part of efforts to strengthen the national security architecture, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu approved major changes in Nigeria’s military leadership, by appointing new Service Chiefs in the country. Few days before then, the media space was filled with speculations, about an uncovered attempt to overthrow the government forcefully. The term on the tongue of the naysayers was coup. The government was quick to deny it, with General Christopher Musa, the then Chief of Defence Staff, vehemently repudiating the possibility of such a crime.
However, according to a State House press release issued on Friday and signed by Sunday Dare, Special Adviser to the President on Media & Public Communication, the President named General Olufemi Oluyede as the new Chief of Defence Staff, replacing General Christopher Musa. The Army, Air force and the Navy were all visited by some changes. Since then, the lexicon of the country also changed, with the cynics, whose predominant belief is that, the action of the President was motivated purely by selfish interest, citing egotistical and arrogant attitude as the driving forces behind the decision. Cynical allusions were made, to the extent that the hidden intention of the President is to retire hundreds of senior military officers from a particular ethnic block. That is Nigeria, where the actions of leaders are always viewed with suspicion, instead of honour, honesty or national uprightness. Many were not interested in the fact that the word security, has limited latitude, such that it does not permit any laxity in its phonetic lexicon. A simple change, even in its understanding, can result in apprehension, that could unleash unease.
As President of a country and Commander-in-chief, one has a responsibility to arrest situations that could bring undue anxiety or unease to the people. Also, the last time I checked on the duties of the Commander-in-chief of a country, any country, with no exception to Nigeria, it says, his duties include overseeing the nation’s armed forces, making decisions on military strategy, and deploying troops for defence. This role involves authorizing major military operations, managing the military’s personnel and resources, making changes where necessary, and upholding civilian control over the military. The critics were alluding that, in changing the service chiefs, the President acted with such speed because he is only interested in the throne, which seems threatened, and not the welfare of the citizenry, whose lives they alleged, are constantly threatened by terrorism. But that is Nigeria, where the actions of leaders are always viewed with suspicion, instead of honour, honesty or national uprightness.
In the past, late President Muhammadu Buhari had been accused of being lackadaisical, by allowing his service chiefs to remain in office unchanged, even when there were outcries of incompetence and underperformance. And now, for acting fast, in compliance with the instinct of providing security, the President is being accused of insincerity. The word security is a locution with an intrinsic value that goes beyond physical fear. It also touches on the psychological. The emotional state of the President’s mind matters. Because he is saddled with the responsibility to hire, he must be excused, if he choses to exercise the prerogative to fire. National security involves the protection of citizens from internal and external threats, by ensuring stability and the government’s authority.
Yes, the previous service chiefs have done their best. But that does not mean they are necessarily the best. Gen. Musa is being cheered and celebrated as one of the best the military had. But we wouldn’t have known of his capacity if we have not tried him. If we don’t try others, we may never tap from the competence of hidden capacity. That is the beauty of change, and the hidden mission of reform. Hence, the need to see security from an expanded perspective, and not as a locution with limited laxity in lexicon.