MILITARY AND POLITICAL OBLIGATION IN NIGERIA

BY

OGBEIDE CLIFFORD
MATRIC NUMBER 23278

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE,

AMBROSE ALLI UNIVERSITY, EKPOMA

AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH PROJECT PRESENTED TO

THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (B.SC
HONS) DEGREE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE

DECEMBER 1999

1
 CERTIFICATION

We certify this work carried out by OGBEIDE CLIFFORD in the

Department of Political Science, Ambrose Alli University, and

Ekpoma.

_________________ _____________________
MR. U.B. CHIZEA MR. P.E. AGBEBAKU
Project Supervisor Head of Department

_____________________________
EXTERNAL EXAMINER

2
 DEDICATION

This project work is dedicated to God Almighty for his ending

mercies, guidance and protection in my life.

And also to my later parents Mr. & Mrs. M.E. OGBIEDE whom

brought me into this world, set the pace and standard on which

I trend on. Adieu Dad & Mum.

Finally, to my indefatigable brother Mr. Gabriel A. Ogbeide, who

acted as a father and mum to me, denied himself of pleasure

for my sake and also provided the resources needed during the

course of my studies.

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to acknowledge my immediate family members who one

way or the order assisted me financially and morally during the

course of my studies. They are Mr. Gabriel A. Ogbeide who did

all he could to make sure I fulfill my educational aspiration in

spite of all odds. Also not left out are Mr. James Ogbeide, Mr. &

Mrs. Sunny Ogbeide, ASP Solomon Igbinakhase, Madam

Ogbeifun, Madam Hannah Amusa who took care of me right

from the cradle, Rosemary Ogbeide, Madam Faluyi, Gloria

Ovenseri, Madam Vero Idahosa, Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Ogbeide,

Edward Oyameda, Ms. Betty Ogbeide, Anthony Ogbeide, Jude

Igbinakhase, Osaheni Faluyi, Esohe Igbinakhase, Tony

Igbinakhase & Imuetinya Igbinakhase. Also included are Dr.

S.O.J. Ojo who despite his busy schedule still created time to

discuss with me in the area that was relevant to this project

work especially military analysis. And also Dr. F.E. Iyoha who

assisted me during my admission process into the university,

my supervisor Bonaventure Chizea for going through my

scripts.

Also not left are my family friends and bosom friends who gave

my life a turn around and made my stay at A.A.U, Ekpoma

4
memorable and pleasurable. They are Chief Steve Okolo

Alogaga the Usama of Weppa Wanno & family, Dr. Charles

Osula, medical Director Osula Royal Hospital Benin City &

family, Mr. & Mrs. Vincent Okhemesimi & family, Linda Edema-

Silo, Ms. Stella Amadedon & family, Toju Amadedon, Mr. & Mrs.

Billy Omokuakele & family, Johnson Okunsebor, Kingsley

Iriogbe, Joshua Okokoro, Harrison Omokuakele, Desmond Edafe

Ofomola, Ese London, Mr. & Mrs. Friday Enadeghe & family,

Emmanuel Onyemuna “Ajas”, Sunny Odion, Stellamarris

Omogbai, Uhunoma Usoh, Iredia Ogiata Igbineweka, Sunny

Imasekha, Ayotunde, Friday Ogofure, Dennis Imalele, Amen

“Scaler” Fredrick Boyetie, Joseph Ozenwya Ahmakhu, Kingsley

Omondiaghe, Sunny Idiaghe, Christian Iyoha, Mazi Stanley,

Dolly Aimufua, Victor Aimufua, Alex, Jide, Godwin, Humphrey

Izedomwen, Osahon Ederaro, Efe, Carol Idiaghe and Mrs.

IDIAGHE & family. Finally, Efosa Osaro and Mr. & Mrs. Sunny

Osaro Osazuwa for being accommodating during the period of

writing this project work.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page I

Certification ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgement iv

Table of contents vi

Abstract viii

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Statement of problems

1.2 Objective of the study

1.3 Scope of study

1.4 Hypothesis

1.5 Theoretical framework

1.6 Methodology

1.7 Classification of basic concepts

1.8 End note

6
CHAPTER TWO

2.1 Literature review

2.2 End note

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 Evolution of Nigeria military

3.1 Constitutional role of the Nigeria Army

3.2 Military and political obligation in Nigeria

3.3 End note

CHAPTER FOUR

Summary

Conclusion

Recommendation

Bibliography

7
 ABSTRACT

This research work is on military and political obligation in

Nigeria. The researcher intends to look at political obligation

under military regimes in Nigeria. Also examine the possibility

and the existence of political obligation from Nigeria military

requires to its citizenry in Nigeria civil society.

This research work is divided into four chapters. Chapter one is

the introduction of the research work, and some definitions of

terms.

Chapter two is mainly on the review of literature, that is, books

written by some scholars in the field.

Chapter three shall dwell on the in dept analysis on military

and political obligation from the evolution of the Nigeria

military and constitutional functions of the military to the civil

society.

Chapter four shall be on recommendation and conclusion. It is

hope that the findings of the research and suggestions made

would be of great help to both government and Nigeria

students who are interested in knowing about political

obligation under military in Nigeria previously.

8
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Since 1960 when Nigeria got her independence from British

colonial rule, Nigeria people had not witness an enduring

democratic rule.

In January 1966 when the first military government came into

being, which we later headed by late General Aguiyi Ironsi, it

has been one military change to another.

For about 38 years of political Independence, Nigeria had only

witness a brief tenure of civil rule and these were the

administration of late prime minister Tafawa Balewa and Alhaji

Shehu Shagari as prime minister and president respectively, as

elected government. The rest had been dictatorship regimes

ranging from Aguiyi Ironsi, Yakubu Gowon, Muhammedu Buhari,

Ibrahim Babangida, Sani Abacha and Abdul salami Abubakar.

All these military administrator were never the will and

aspiration of the Nigeria people and their rulership were by

decree and edicts which enable the military cabal to make laws

for the vast majority and by so doing the military is not

9
responsible to anybody and disobeyed the lay down procedure

and rules of civil administration and no opposition was allowed.

In military regime, law existed for the strong and might is right.

Under the various military regimes, the Nigeria people never

had a say in the affairs that concerned them and as such, they

cannot sue those in authority as the case may be in civilian

administration were political leaders are responsible to the

people that elected them into various political offices.

Military regimes comes into power through coup ‘d’état and as

such, owe no obligation and responsibility to the people as the

people did not elect them into the office they occupy and no

same minded person dare the man with the gun.

In military regimes civil and political obligation is totally absent

as human right violation, militarization of the society, low

political culture, and interference of judiciary process are the

order of the day but people seems to reluctantly support the

administration because they have no alternative.

The enthronement of democracy will lead to an increased

human right status, de-militarized the society, lead to a high

degree of political participation and also lead to the

independence of the judiciary.

10
The objective of this study is to examine the effect of military

political obligation if it does exist in Nigeria.

1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS

Human right violation: - Military as a regime of force is a non

accountable system of government which as the Nigeria

experience has shown, perpetrate arbitrary arrest, repression,

authoritarianism in governance. As constitutionalism, the rule

of law, respect for human right and other principles essentials

for democratic rule give way to arbitrary, authoritarian and

repressive rule under military, civil society is virtually laid

hostage2.

Militarization of the society: - When the military came to power

as in case of Nigeria, the society became militarized through

the establishment of military task forces, military governors or

administrators, military tribunal, supreme military council,

armed forces ruling council, not as representative organs of

government but mere super structures for the conduct

government business with little or no regard to the ideas of

popular will and public opinion3.

11
Low political culture:- With the overthrown of a legitimate

government by military, there exist a low political culture,

absence of institutionalized political norms with respect to

process of political participation.

In a situation of low political culture, governmental legitimacy is

likely to be at low ebb while law and order are most likely to be

threatened4.

Interference of Judiciary Process

During military regime, the judiciary usually suffers reduced

capacity, independence and credibility needed to serve as the

last hope of the common man.

The most common forms of assault on rule of law by military

regime in Nigeria is the ouster of the jurisdiction of court. By

this, the military precludes the judiciary from inquiry into the

validity or legality of any legislation be it decree or edicts, any

action or decision of the government5.

1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The objective of this study is to examine the effect of military

and political obligation.

12
 If it does exist in Nigeria, it is the objective of this study

also to X-ray how military has manifested to the extent in which

the state has been economically incapacitated and rendered

unable to fulfill tits responsibility to the people, mobilize society

toward development, effect economic recovery, rehabilitation

and self-sustenance. The objective of this study will also look at

how the military has distorted political obligations and

disarticulation in the relationship between state power,

authority and responsibility on the one hand and citizen’s

rights, duties and obligation on the other.

1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY

The study is limited to Nigeria. Nigeria, serves as a good place

of study in research of this type. Moreover, Nigeria has

experienced military incursion in her polity on several

occasions, and therefore, can serve as a foundation for the

exposition of military incursion in other nations.

1.4 HYPOTHESIS

These are tentative statement which shows the imaginary and

independence variables. Their roles in scientific research are to

13
suggest explanations for certain phenomenon and guild in the

investigation. In this research the underlisted hypothesis would

be tested to know how valid they are.

1. Enthronement of democracy will lead to the de-

militarization of the society.

2. Enthronement of democracy will enhance human right

status.

3. Enthronement of democracy will lead to high degree of

political participation.

4. Enthronement of democracy will lead to the

independence of the judiciary.

1.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this research work, the elite theory approach would be used

as the theoretical framework. According to this theory, no

mechanism for ensuring the accountability of the leaders to the

public, no ideology which enshrines the principle of majority will

can prevent the elite from imposing the supremacy over the

rest society6.

14
Because of their power, their organization, their political skill or

their personal qualities, the members of the elite are always

potentially capable of exploiting their positions so as to

preserve the elite’s domination7.

These qualities of self-consciousness, coherence and unity are

held to reinforce the advantageous position of the elite in

relations with other group in the society. The elite regard power

as cumulative power gives access to more power. The elitists

conception of power, or at least of the use the elite will make of

power, comes very close to Hobbes’s definition of power as a

“present means to some future apparent good”8. Power is a

means to obtain other social goods-wealth, economic influence,

social status, education advantages for their children. In turn

these, as Hobbes also pointed out, become themselves power-

wealth makes for greater wealth and for access to political

power; a group’s social prestige adds weight to its political

activities. Both wealth and educational opportunities will tend

to maintain the elite domination in subsequent generation,

converting it into hereditary caste9.

Dye summarized elite theory thus:

15
 a. Society is divided into the powerless majority and

powerful few (elites). These powerful few decide public

policy, after deciding societal objectives or values.

b. The ruling elites are not representative of the masses

since they come making public policy mirror the demands

and values of the elites and not the masses.

c. Active elite’s one subject to relatively little direct

influence from apathetic masses. Elite influence masses

more than masses influence elite10.

The basic contention of elitism is that every human

organization is controlled by small, cohesive minority. Power is

not only distributed unevenly but very unevenly. Theorist of

elitism agree that the development of elite is inevitable-

pluralism is a myth. Power can never be widely distributed11. By

this, the researcher means that the military over the years had

constituted themselves into an elite class. During the last three

decade or so, the military class have been seen to be involved

in the possession of political power.

16
1.6 METHODOLOGY

Methodology to be employed here involves the use of data

collection technique, analysis of existing literature on the

subject and research design. The data collection technique

includes content analysis.

Content analysis of existing literatures involves examining what

has already been written on the subject and this providing fresh

insight into the subject if necessary. It is largely base on a large

extent on secondary sources that includes materials from

textbooks, journal and newspapers.

1.7 CLARIFICATION OF BASIC CONCEPT

Military are established as first duty of any sovereign, “that of

protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other

independent societies12.

Politics concerns the matter of group and individual in matters

that are likely to affect the course of government13.

Obligation is the recipient right of state to be obeyed by

citizens and the obligation of the citizens to obey are simply

17
two different ways of expressing one things. The metaphorical

tie or bond between two parties14.

Military and political obligation for the purpose of this research

work, it the duty military-politicians owe the state or citizenry in

Nigeria.

18
1.8 END NOTE

1. Prof. Ola R.O.F; Local government in Nigeria; Jodah

Nig. (Publishers) Ltd, 1985, P. 7.
2. Ojo, S.O.J; Military and Politics; Pub 402 1999 P.
36 – 37 unpublished material.
3. Ibid P. 36
4. Ibid P. 9
5. Ibid P. 12
6. Gerant Pany; Political Elites; Geore Allen & Unwin
(Publisher) Ltd, 1969, P. 31.
7. Ibid P. 33
8. Ibid P. 34

9. Ibid P. 32
10. Iyoha, F.E; Public Policy Analysis; Pub. 303 1998
P. 5 – 6 unpublished material.
11. Alan Isaak C.; Scope and method of political science;
The Dorsey Press 1985, P. 272
12. Kennedy Galvin; The military in third world; The
Macmillan Press Ltd, 1980 P. 8
13. Rapheal D.D; Problems of Political Philosophy; The
Macmillan Press Ltd, 1970, P. 27.
14. Ibid P. 78

19
 CHAPTER TWO

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

According to Adam Smith, the first duty of the sovereign is that

of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other

independent societies can be performed by means of standby

military force1. All countries in the world today implicitly accept

this proposition and have prepared themselves with varying

degree of effectiveness to carry out this first duty if

circumstance makes it necessary.

For all practical purposes and intent, military rule of any type,

mark from its inception, the overthrow of constitutionality.

Military rule once established usually claims by decree and

proclamation, supremacy over existing constitutional order. A

country’s constitution being a charter of government and the

fundamental law of the land, its overthrow in a manner implied

by a military coup and the establishment of an autocratic

military rule which holds itself above the existing constitutional

order marks a break in governmental legitimacy2.

20
Another review sees the military as the only institution that

evade the civil authority, is “for ultimately the really coercive

power which the authority of civil regime is the military”3.

Tostoy see the evil of the military as in Nigeria experience as

epidemic that need a cure because of the erosion of legitimacy,

erosion of the constitution and other political institution and in

fact a kind of oppressive regime that places every body in

jeopardy, the decadence in the present military set up has due

largely to what he called bootlicking, cheating and backbitting4.

With the above assertions, and the violent and unconstitutional

means through which the military comes into power, political

obligation is not obtainable and not practicable between

citizens and military regime because of the undemocratic way

they assume power.

The military comes into power to maintain law and order, and

also maintain the (status-quo) already existing state structures

through coercion and not providing social welfare scheme and

other package that are geared toward alleviating the plight and

economic predicament of citizens that is obtainable in an

elected government.

21
Military as a suppressive regime, monopolized violence in the

state and it is trained on how to use violence and not providing

welfare packages. It was under military regime in Nigeria that

Nigerians were told to be self reliance through the introduction

of various skills acquisition policies geared toward actualizing

the aims of self-sustaining, and self reliance and abandoning

policies of providing welfare programmes for it citizenry as the

case maybe in a democratic and representative government.

In rational terms, men obey the state because they stand to

gain by doing so. They are conscious that the state has a

rational purpose; that purpose is the promotion of social good

on the largest possible scale, the achievement of that purpose

demand their willing co-operation and obedience to laws. They

obey the state because, by doing so, they hope to be provided

with those conditions of social life which are necessary for the

realization of their own personalities; it is the duty of the state

to recognize their rights and give them increasing substance.

When there is a clear evidence that, over a reasonable period,

the state is not doing its duty – in order words, when its actions

are not in accordance with its purpose, the individual has a

duty to ask himself why he should continue to render

22
obedience5. As Laski suggests, the state as it was and is has

found the roots of allegiance in all the complex facts of human

nature. This nature is a mixture of impulses and reason. The

satisfaction of man’s primary wants like food, drink, sex,

clothing and shelter involves associated life; and associate life

implies the necessity of government6.

Military with apparatus of repression have the power to make

things nasty for citizens of the state if they refuse to oblige to

their (military) instructions the political obligation in this

situation becomes compelling and not willing as it is suppose to

be applying the social contract theory in a representative

government. But what has been obtained under military

regimes as in Nigeria experience has been paradoxical.

The military is neither democratic in this composition, nor its

operation. Indeed, it is the least democratic of all state

institutions. It is an autocratic set up where orders flow from

top to the bottom and obedience from bottom upward. It is

therefore a hierarchical institution where subordinate are

required to obey orders without questions7.

Power may be said to oblige but not to confer a right. The

‘obligation’ imposed by coercive power is not an obligation to

23
the rulers, corresponding to right against the citizens to receive

obedience. Citizens ‘is obliged’ to obey, but not natural to say

that he ‘has an obligation’ or ‘is under an obligation’ and it

would be clearly inappropriate to say that the citizens are

under obligation to rulers or have they have right against them

because might is not right8.

Political obligation has never been functional during military

regimes. In Africa, Latin America, Asia and other parts of the

world where military has over thrown legitimate government

what has been obtainable were political presentation,

elimination of opposition, lack of compassion and apparatus of

repression were wide-spread at different level since

independence by various dictators9.

Military as a regime in Nigeria, Latin America and Asia has been

a resort of elite incohesion and in Latin America which has been

prone to military rule for many decades, the legitimacy crisis is

almost institutionalized. “The military or armed forces are well

place to take advantage of their government”10. And according

to Billy Duddly, based on how political culture, the military look

at themselves as the monitor and custodian of society, they are

24
discipline in way of operation, their belief is obedience before

complain11.

Naturally, the successful take over by the military meant the

demise of the erstwhile civilian political class. The amazing

frequency and number of intervention by the military in state

politics has been a major political trend in the content since

independence.

A claim frequently made at the time of independence was that

our armies were to be tools of modernization and national

integration. There is nothing new to suggest that they have

fully achieved these objectives. They are still limitation of the

former colonial forces from which they sprang their current role

can at best be described as confined to internal operations.

These interventions are spectacular, but they should not be

seen as isolation from wider processes at work12.

Almost everywhere in Africa, the armed forces are being called

upon to assume the external operational function and the

international operational roles. The strategic, deterrent, peace

keeping, intelligence and diplomatic functions may required the

deployment of forces outside the state in defence of national

interest and international obligation. Law and order, protracted

25
civil war, sudden onslaughts on presidential places, and

ceremonial role require the use of the armed forces internally13.

As the incidence dispute has been growing in our society lately,

the use of military internal operations may be complicated by

the stresses, that such disputes are introduced into the armed

forces themselves. During this period, the contemporary

prominence of the military as a political factor in Africa might

have appeared an unlikely prediction, especially in any one

acquainted with the general back group and historical

formation of the African armed forces owing to the general

pacific historical character of the transfer of sovereignty, rather

small and undistinguished armed forces had been inherited

from colonial regimes14.

The military estate lacked an active tradition, and had acquired

no distinction of privileges through its contribution to natural

independence movement. This lack of historical connection

with the liberation struggle clearly and initially distinguished

the military establishment of the post-colonial African state

from their counterparts in Latin American and Burma15.

Simon observed with barely disguised regrets that African state

lack what other new states of the former colonial world had,

26
namely, an army which could be a modernizing and stabilizing

source of organizational strength in the society, at least

standby reserve which could be called or could take over to

prevent subversion on a total collapse of the political order.

However, the co-operates of the situation have since then

dramatically change in large number of African countries16.

With the visible break-down in military discipline “coup with

coup have not only become a secondary growth industry in

themselves”, they have also accentuated the premise of

systemic violence17. The depreciating image of the armed

forces as a redemptive corporation caused mainly by low

performance in political office, raise fundamental questions

about its motivation for inter in the first place18. No longer saint

are humane to temptation of power, prestige or money not any

more different to the pull of greed, power, hate and the quest

for revenge, armies are now no longer referred as epitomizing

the best in society19. In this circumstance of mass cynicism, the

armed forces, depriving the legitimacy from the barrel of gun,

epitomize the worse in misbehaving society, and it occasionally

hastens to show the mass support is not a pre-condition for

practorianism by unleashing a reign of terror through the

27
instigation of fear. But the absolute reliance on violence, which

is increasingly perceive as a prop for vested interest, inflicts

severe dislocation on the stability of society in many ways20.

The military’s deployment of unrestrained violence into the

political process breeds a polarization between military men in

the barrack and those on the soap box. It also creates changes

in civilian military relation. The coup proves in both situation is

enormous21.

The most current consequence of indiscipline in neo-colonial

society is the “decentralized” of corporate violence whose

pellets penetrate every strata of social existence.

According to Nwankwo, the armed forces constitutes a defence

wall from which most of them commit the most extra-ordinary

tricks against public interest, emptying the national treasury to

the drain while pretending to be replenishing it and when they

sponged on the nation wealth to their hearts content, they then

declare their intention to return to their apolitical cocoons in

the barracks, hand over to their favorite appointees and

announce their civilizing mission is over22.

In distorted crisis ridden and backward peripheral capitalist

society where it has been the tradition of the dominant class to

28
localize the unequal and exploitation relation of production and

exchange, the state can hardly meet the basic needs of the

people and intense intra-bourgeous class struggle to win access

to the state and this preside over the allocation of public funds

prompt the manipulation of means of coercion. Politicization of

bureaucracy and armed forces, and use of ethnic, state and

religious chauvinism23. As the military wing of the country’s

ruling class, the military as in Nigeria experience has so far

“been nothing but an extension of the bourgeoisie in

uniform”24. The military has to that extent served as a powerful

vehicle of bourgeois class and predatory rule as it remains

entrenched both in the economy and the state.

The military shoots its way to power and to that extent,

disregards the democratic principles of popular sovereignty.

This mean that not only do military rulers and regimes fail to

recognize the people as the ultimate sovereign and source of

state power and authority, they generally tend to hold

themselves over and above the people and society25.

Consequently, political accountability, an essential requirement

of representative government has continued to be disregard by

military dictator. Also, since military regimes are characterized

29
by centralization of power and absence of accountability,

political office has been quite often, exploited by military rulers

in total disregard for the rule of law and fundamental human

rights of the citizens26.

The military is often the most successfully westernized of all

the institution in the developing countries. Its hierarchical

organization is carbon copy of the western army. Its weapons

are comparable, if slightly dated and the organization pre-

requisites of a western army, which they invariable copied,

know from the western technology common to both. The

military require trained and skilled men, organized and

discipline: the nation, the flag, destiny etc. becomes a

centralizing ethos that divide civilian society27.

The army can become a lucrative force for nationhood where it

succumbs to factionalism the result is a threatened

disintegration of the nation (e.g. Nigeria). It is not necessary

that this role for military be mirrored in every countries at all

times, but it is a national role for the army and in the absence

of other integrative forces, it will tend to develop to a greater or

lesser extent28. The foundation may be tenuous, and it

articulation may be mythical29.

30
More than a decade ago, prominent scholars accepted the

military’s ability to modernize society while providing “order”,

some scholar later respected this thesis and argued that

military not only could not modernize society but also created

social disorder, and lack commitment to fundamental rights30.

One of the best statements in recent time regarding the

purposes of the state is made by H.J. Laski in a grammar of

politics: He said the state is an organization to enable the mass

of men to realize social good on the large possible scale. It

exists to enable men, at least potentially, to realize the best

that is in themselves. men can be enabled to realize the ‘best

that are in themselves’ only if the state provides ‘right’. Rights

are those conditions of social life without which no man can

seek in general to be himself at his best31. Right is, therefore,

the groundwork of the state.

To illustrate, the citizens has a right to work. Society owes the

citizen the occasion to perform his function, for to leave him

without access to the means of existence is to deprive him of

that which makes possible the realization of personality. The

right to work involves the right to maintenance in the absence

of work. The right to be concerned in the government of

31
industry are other economic rights which are necessary to

provide decent conditions of life and work. The citizen has a

right to education as this will fit him for the tasks of

citizenship32. The right to vote, periodical elections, the right to

stand as a candidate for election, equal eligibility to

government offices, freedom of speech, press and association,

opportunity to citizen to contribute their instructed judgment

for the public good to elect his rulers and call them to account

for their conduct in office and all these enable the citizens too,

to work with like-minded men for the promotion of these

purpose in life which they deems necessary for realizing their

own personalities.

With the view of Laski, military regime as in Nigeria experience,

has never owed or carry out any form of political obligation

since it inception. The military has never made any provision

that could have enhanced the condition of social welfare of it

citizenry. The right to freedom of speech has been hijacked

through the introduction of obnoxious decrees by the military,

the press the mouthpiece of the masses, has also been

manipulated by military which had led to the arbitrary arrest

and detention of journalist during the reign of military

32
dictatorship around the world and Nigeria in particular. The

right to elect and be elected through periodical election were

not visible during military as they came through the barrel of

gun and use their machineries to perpetuate themselves in

power and unleash terror upon its citizenry that they are

suppose to be responsible to in a democratic arrangement of

government.

THE THEORIES OF POLITICAL OBLIGATION

THOMAS HOBBES: 1588 – 1677

Hobbes social contract theory as contained in the leviathan is

based almost entirely upon a psychological theory about the

nature of man. According to his theory, man is by nature selfish

and egoistic. He is motivated by selfish deeds which require

satisfaction if he is to be happy. For instance, all human action

can be explained in terms of his attempt to satisfy some

desires such as, the desires for sex, food, shelter, fame, riches

and so on. As a result, life was then so competitive in the state

of nature and because of this competition people go after one

another. Thus, Hobbes tells us the horrors of such an existence

in the state of nature as been “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and

33
short”33. Since the state of nature was not conducive to their

self-preservation which is the uppermost aim, they sought to

overcome such a situation by advocating a social community.

Society is thus, an enterprise which men enter into in order to

achieve peace and to this end, they must give the egoistic

impulses, and to use kankantian terminology this looks like

“Hypothetical imperative”. According to Hobbes, the state of

nature became chaotic and state of anarchy in which every

man becomes the enemy of every other. He further

characterizes it as being devoid of culture, industry, art, and all

forms of social activity, hence a state of war. To this end, the

solution proposed by Hobbes was for citizens to enter into a

contract of commonwealth with one another. The condition of

the contract was that each citizen agrees to surrender all his

power to a sovereign power, on the condition that the leviathan

would protect the citizens of the commonwealth and would

provide a system of law and order. In return the citizens owe

the leviathan the absolute obedience. And an attempt to break

this contract will return men back to the chaotic state of nature.

The only reason for disobeying the leviathan, therefore, was if

he failed in his first duty, which is that of protecting the life and

34
limbs of the citizens. As we can see in the state of nature,

rights of nature are predicated on self preservation and since

everyone is entitled to this right, life become a matter of

survival of the fittest. Then it becomes quite obvious that a kind

of government body as proposed by Hobbes to arbitrate in time

of conflict is inevitable. Thus, he says:

“The only way to erect such a common power… is, to confer all

their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly

of men”34.

Hobbes’s in his work, uses his theory of social contract to

explain society and the basis of a man’s obligation with society.

The laws of nature are embodied in a certain set of rules or

conventions and they constitute the law of the society. In order

to avoid conflict and the consequent harms which could rage in

the absence of existing laws men have to abide by these rules.

Hobbes believes that these laws are only effective, if they are

enforced, and he points out that the enforcing agency can

enforce them only, if it is granted absolute power. If not, he

cannot prevent conflict. On this ground, he advocates an

absolute sovereign authority for every nation, the sovereignty

35
being in the hand of a king because it has greater consistency

and freedom from fluctuation in policy.

Also, there are relatively fewer favourites in a monarchy, and

above all, there is the maximum identity of public interest in

that form of government. Hobbes believes that, though the king

has absolute power the subjects should not be relegated to the

background they should be granted certain liberties which he

defines as “those things the subject may justly refuse to do

even though recommended by the king”35 these liberties of the

subject consist in:-

i. Those rights which the sovereign has permitted.

ii. Those rights which by the law of nature, of self

preservation, cannot be surrendered. The subject cannot

therefore be compelled to kill himself or to abstain from

food or medicine. He is also not bound to accuse himself.

iii. In general the obligation of the subject to the sovereign

last no longer than his power to protect them.

iv.As for other liberties, they depend on the silence of the

law, the subject being free to do what the sovereign has

not prohibited.

36
The subjects are therefore obliged to obey as long as the

sovereign can protect them since “the aim” of obedience is

protection. It is therefore, to their advantage to obey these

laws in order to achieve their set objective which is primarily

the desire for life preservation.

Hobbes simply means that, it is rational for men to live in peace

with their neighbours but where such it impossible it is also

rational to fight with the most effective means available, and

that both alternative are rational since they have a their

primary motive effective promotion of peace and security which

all men desire, and acting contrary will bring man back to the

state of anarchy. In Hobbes works he supported revolt, to him,

revolt against the government is inevitable if the government

fails to protect the lives of her citizens and a better government

be reinstated to satisfy the people’s desire. According to

Aristotle, the state originated for “the sake of life, and countries

for the sake of the best life”36. Hobbes perceives man as

rational beings but unlike Locke and Rousseau, he has no faith

in the abilities to live in harmony with one another without a

government. Thus, his idea of a social contract was promised

on absolute sovereign and his idea is that people come into

37
contract between themselves to relinquish the power and

freedom to an absolute body, be it a king or a few group of

people. Thus his famous work The Leviathan published in 1657

was a reaction to the disorder caused by the English Civil War,

which had culminated with the death of King Charles I.

His work could then offer the solution by protecting the citizens

of the commonwealth and would provide a system of harmony.

However, Hobbes work is not free from criticisms. His political

theory was only a solution to the political situation that was

prevailing during his time. That is why, he thought of absolute

monarch, this was because of the fears of British authority.

Events have overtaken most of his political theory, is that in

modern life the idea of monarchy is no more there. And his idea

of absolutism can be criticized in that absolute power corrupt

absolutely as Jefferson put it. His idea of absolutism is

anachronistic term in modern government. In modern term we

talk of democracy, ideology and so on.

Furthermore, Hobbes’ notion of political obligation also seems

to many people as not properly formulated. He has two

conception of political obligation namely, natural political

obligation and artificial conception of political obligation.

38
He terms the natural political obligation as a natural necessity

because of his materialistic point of view. He believes that

human being cannot be obliged to obey an absolute sovereign

because they want self preservation. But in a state of nature,

this would not be possible because there is anarchy. Hence,

they would wish to have a ruler who would be able to provide

security. On this basis, he believes that there is natural

necessity. On the other hand, he believes that the artificial

obligation is a logical necessity because it would be in the

interest of any rational man who has made a promise not to go

against that promise. If such a situation arise, it means that

person contradicts himself, hence the logical necessity involved

in artificial obligation. But one could argue against Hobbes that

he has confused two issues which are very different promising

is totally different from logical issues. If one promises, it stand

to reason that if one cannot fulfill that promise he can break it,

though there is little bit of self contradiction involved, taking

contradiction in a wide sense. This does not necessarily follow

that the issue is a matter of logic.

JOHN LOCKE 1634 – 1704

39
 Born in England, he lived in a turbulent time, it was at this

period Charles the 6th was beheaded and William of Orange was

invited to occupy it. Locke’s political theory is diametrically

opposed to the Hobbesian political theory while Hobbes was

mainly concerned with an empirical justification of the state;

Locke theory has a moral thing. How can a state be morally

justified? He wants to construct an idea state which could have

as its background moral ideals which that government should

pursue. John Locke, like Hobbes in the Leviathan begins the

second Treatise with what seems to be a historical account of

the origin of government, using the notion of social contract but

he disagree with Hobbes that the condition men were before

the establishment of government i.e. state of nature was not as

he (Hobbes) thought it to be. Rather he contends that the state

of nature is a peaceful one when he says:

“Men living together according to reason,

without a common superior on earth, with

authority to judge between them is

properly the state of nature”37.

40
Locke uses the state of nature as a premise in arriving at his

social contract theory. To him, the state of nature was one of

bliss and he believes that morality existed before the advent of

civil government. But in spite the blissfulness of state of nature

men could not actualize themselves. As a result of this, they

decided to come together to form a contract while that of

Hobbes was a one way contract that Locke was a two way

contract, that is the citizen themselves formed a contract and

later contracted with the sovereign. Before the leviathan can

pass law, he must take into account the consent of the

contractees, if such consent is not sort they can revolt,

impeach or remove the leader.

Locke was the first to propound the theory of separation of

power, he divided the authority into three parts, the legislative,

the executive, and the judiciary. And one should not mingle

with the affair of the other. He was a through going capitalist,

he did not believe in the divine right if kings but the consent of

the electorate or citizens. He believes that people are naturally

free and moreover, within the bounds of the law of nature they

are equal. This implies that one should recognize as an

obligation the right of others. He goes on to say that because

41
men are created by God and therefore they are his property

and they are obliged to carry out his desired rather than their

own purpose or will. He continues that there is no evidence to

show that God has set some people above the other. We are

therefore obliged to recognize others as free and equal. He

does not give any justification for this assertion other than

saying that this is self-evidently reasonable. Subsequently, he

refers to the law of nature as the ‘will of God’. Lockes approach

to political theory from the start differs fundamentally from that

of Hobbes. Hobbes view man as being activated by desire and

with innate rational faculty capable of showing him how desire

can be realized. While Locke on the contrary, records man as a

being whose reason reveals on independent law prescribing

moral standards to which he ought at all time to conform to.

Locke like Hobbes believe that men agree to establish a

government in order to enforce the law of nature and contends

that since the state of nature is not conducive to proper social

and communal efforts due to the nature of man, he advocated

a form of community governed by rules when he says:

“Civil government is the proper remedy for

the inconveniences of the state of nature,

42
 which must certainly be greater where men

may be judges in their own case”38.

This inconduciveness to proper social and communal efforts in

state of nature exemplified itself in the three difficulties that

arise in the dispensation of justice, or in the application of

punishment to those who disobey the law. The difficulties are:

1. Since each man in the state of nature is his own judge,

one may claim that he was injured; another may deny it,

who is then to decide the merits of the dispute.

2. Even where it is know that someone has committed an

offence, there may not be enough force to punish him or

her.

3. How can one weigh the amount of punishment to be

melted out for an offence. For these difficulties to be

overcome in the state of nature man require:-

a. A judiciary which will interprete the law impartially.

b. An executive which can execute the law when it is

broken.

c. The legislative to make law for the people.

43
Locke says that society originate in an attempt to develop such

institutions for the purpose of remedying the anomalies of life

that would prevail in a disorganized society or state of nature.

He posits that, man create a society by a voluntary agreement

among themselves to erect these institutions. The citizens now

transfer the power of punishment to the executive appointed

by them and therefore responsible to them. To him, he also

believes that in the state of nature the citizens have some

rights and most prominent among these, are rights to property,

right to liberty, and right to life. He contends that the whole

aim of government is to make laws for the regulation and

preservation of property and for the defence of community

against external invader and all these is to actualize the best of

life.

Though Locke criticism is outside the scope of this work, one

also have to look at one or two of the criticism leveled against

him. Some classified his political philosophy as a justification of

a bourgeois state. One of the social critics of John Locke was

McPherson in his book titled, The Political Theory of Possessive

44
Individualism, he postulated that Locke was more interested in

trying to project the individualism attribute of a bourgeois man.

McPherson says that what Locke has described as the state of

nature is nothing more than a market where he believes that

exchange is carried out and this exchange has value in relation

to what one can offer within the market. He is of the opinion

that Locke sees everyone as automatic individual with his own

power and this power could be exercised, if one so wish. He

concluded that Locke’s political theory is nothing but a

bourgeois ramification.

Another criticism is that his idea of consent of the contractees

before any law can be enacted is not tenable. Because of the

fact that human flaws are us we all cannot easily agree on

what laws to be made.

Many people have however, opposed McPherson’s analysis

against Locke which uses Marxist perspective. They have

argued that Locke was only giving a moral justification of any

society.

JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU (1712 – 1778)

45
The social contract of Rousseau is important in two respects.

The inspired French Revolution of 1789 which was a revolt

against the despotic French monarchy and also supplied the

basis of the theory to popular sovereignty. He conceived man

as essentially good and sympathetic. Rousseau like Locke

describes the state of nature as a period of peace and

harmony, man being free and equal, a king of “golden age”.

But with the introduction of private property the society

becomes complex, hatred, jealousness and quarrels arise and

man was compelled to give up his natural freedom as he put

the “man is born free, but everywhere, he is in chain”.

Though he feels that in state of nature people enjoy freedom,

nevertheless, he believes that in coming together under any

kind of social organization this freedom has to be checked. He

postulated a kind of ideal state where there will be government

to curb the excesses of individuals without people necessarily

misusing their nights. To him, he believes that the state is a

moral organization that serve the basic interest of everyone in

the society. Hence he posits that the general will which is a sort

of organic system different from what one could called

46
methodological individualism as we find in both Hobbes to a

large extents and Locke to some extent.

In his essay “Origin of Inequality” he points out that though

civilization has contributed immensely to the advancement of

men’s material well being it has not led to any kind of cultural

upliftment. He however, argues that even though this is the

case it is better to be in a civilized state than a state of nature.

The importance of political theory of Rousseau lies in the fact

that it serves as the basis of democracy and the justification of

revolt against despotic rule. His theory also gave birth to both

the declaration of right of man (1789) and the character of the

French revolution. He says that will rather than force is the

basis of government. His notion of social contract has a mark of

direct democracy, when he says that in a state, the associates

are called collectively a people, severally citizens, as sharing in

the sovereign authority, and subject as submitting to laws of

the state.

He believes that any decision reached should be unanimous

and everybody should be given a fair chance of participating

effectively in any important decision that affect the whole

society. He held strictly that, the general will should be superior

47
to the individual will and the will of all since it implies the

individual will and the will of all, and that it is meant for the

public interest of all hence should be conformed to.

His conception of social contract as indicated has a sort of

metaphysical thing and therefore has been criticized

extensively on this score. It has been argued against

Rousseau’s conception of the general will that it leaves much

to be desired because any authority could determine what the

common good is since he does not specify any criterion of

determining what will be the common good for different

individual as a result of this, totalitarianism might creep in.

However, Rousseau might argue back that, if this occurs, the

majority of the people could know what the general or common

good serves any particular interest, this could be easily

detected.

Another point that has been made against Rousseau is that, he

equates general will with common good. But it is very difficult

to ascertain whether the general will equate the common good.

To this two, Rousseau could argue back that since the state

serves as a moral agent one could say that the whole purpose

48
of the state is for the common good. Good defines in this sense

that the interest of everybody is served.

It might however be argue against Rousseau, that there might

not be a common agreement about what constitutes the

common good because in a state there will be divergent views

about what the common good is. Hence, there might not a

consensus.

As already indicated, the social contract theories try to justify

political obligation as being base on an implicit promise, like

the obligation to obey the rules of a voluntary association.

49
2.2 END NOTE

1. Kennedy Galvin; Op. Cit P. 9

2. Ojo, S.O.J; Military rule and the crisis of

democracy in Ekpoma political
review; (IJPA) the Dept. of Political
Science, Edo State University,
Ekpoma. Dec. 1993, P. 50.

3. Kennedy Galvin; Op. Cit P. 15

4. Tostoy Leo; War and peace War and peace; The

Macmillan Press Ltd, 1975, P. 36

5. Appadoral; The Substance of Politics: Mactras:

Oxford University Pres 1975, P. 19.

6. Ibid P. 20

7. Okhaide P.O; Nigeria Government and Politics;

Oshike Yakubu (Nig) Ent. 1996, P. 122

8. Raphael D.D; Op. Cit. P. 80

9. Kennedy Galvin; Op. Cit P. 11

10. Ibid . 10

11. Duddly, Billy; Introduction to Nigeria Government

and Politics; The Macmillan Press Ltd;
1982, P

12. Kennedy Galvin; Op. Cit P. 12

13. Ibid P. 13

14. Ibid P. 8

15. Ibid P. 10

50
16. Simeon Sheldon W; The military and security in third
world, domestic and international
impact; George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd,
1962, P. 6.

17. Nwankwo Arthur; Military option to Democracy; The

Macmillan Press Ltd, 1985, P. 65.

18. Ibid P. 66

19. Ibid P. 67

20. Ibid P. 68

21. Ibid P. 69

22. Ibid P. 70

23. Ibid P. 71

24. Ojo, S.O.J Op. Cit P. 55

25. Ibid P. 56

26. Ibid P. 57

27. Kennedy Galvin; Op. Cit. P. 13

28. Ibid P. 94

29. Ibid P. 15

30. Simeon Sheldon W.; Op. Cit. P. 66

31. Appadorai; Op. Cit. P. 20

32. Ibid P. 21

33. Popkin, R.H.; Philosophy make simple; Heinemann

Ltd, 1981, P. 64.

51
34. Watkins, J.W.N; Hobbes systems of ideas; Great
Britain Redwood Press Ltd, 1963,
P.116 – 119

35. Popkin, R.H; Op. Cit P. 64 – 65

36. Appadorai; Op. Cit. P. 39

37. Russell Betrand; History of western philosophy; George

Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1979, P. 602.

38. Appadorai

52
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 EVOLUTION OF NIGERIAN MILITARY

The Nigeria army emerged out of the ashes of the Royal West

African Frontier Forces (RWAFF) set up by the British to

subjugate the colonial population. The Royal West African

Frontier (RWAFF) itself started in 1862 as “Glover Hausa” from

the then colonial governor of Lagos protectorate lieutenant

Glover1. The soldiers also known as the “Hausa Militias” and

“Lagos Constabulary” consisted at first 40 armed Hausas who

were slaves that fled from their masters and took refuge under

Governor Glover2.

Apart from Lagos constabulary as this Hausa Militias were also

known, whose numbers soon rose to over 100 men, there was

the royal Niger company constabulary in 1886 which formed

the core of the Northern regiment in 1900.

There was the oil river irregulars raised between 1891 and

1892, later named the Niger coast constabulary. This formed

the nucleus of the Southern Nigeria regiment of the West

African frontier force3.

When lieutenant Glover first conceived the ideal of a military

force in Nigeria, it was regarded as an organization for

53
reforming some constabulary duties. But as a result of the

difficulties associated with the colonial administration, there a

deviation from the role for which it was constituted. The force

became instrumental in the subjugation of Nigeria and the

imposition of the so-called treaties of protection on the people.

Throughout, the force was used as a readily available

instrument of British divide and rule policy in Nigeria4.

To this extent, in 1900, Lord Lugard re-organized it into the

Northern Nigeria regiment which took part in the pacification of

the Sultan Attahim Ahmed of Sokoto in 1903. This pacification

completed Lord Lugard’s process of annexation of the entire

Northern region5.

Initially, most Nigeria appeared not to like military force as it

was regarded as a

“Mercenary bunch devoid of national spirit

and potent instrument at the disposal of the

colonial masters for the realization of their

imperialistic ends”6.

The 1914 amalgamation led to the fusion of the Northern and

Southern regiments. This was what was known as the Nigeria

54
regiment under the West African frontier force. It was in

December 1922 that an ordinance creating it was enacted.

In June 7th 1956, the Royal West African Frontier (Nigeria

regiment) was named Nigeria military forces7.

In 1960 at independence, it was called royal Nigeria forces. It

was after the enactment of the republican constitution that it

became Nigeria army 1963. By 1966, it has under its arms

8,600 men9.

According to the analysis of Dudley and Okay Achike, the

forces that graduated into the Nigeria army were essentially

repressive. They were created to manned and suppress local

uprising and ensure the stability and constancy of colonial rule.

In execution of these assignments, they became unfriendly and

cruel to the civilian indigenous population10.

As Achike wrote in his book, in the days of the Niger coastal

constabulary in the 19th century, they were called “forty thieves

because of their inhuman and rough behaviour. Achike referred

to one Eze who said “the army was like a place for the illiterate

and criminal whose duties were to kill and generally bruta11.

The activities of some soldiers in the village and market place

55
during the last was (second world war) only confirmed this

opinion.

1.3 CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF THE NIGERIA ARMY

According to 1979 constitution of the federal republic of

Nigeria, section 197 – (1) states categorically that the

federation shall, subject to an Act of the National Assembly,

equip and maintain an Army, a Navy, and Airforce and such

other branches of the armed forces of the federation as may be

considered adequate and effective for the purpose of:-

(a) Defending Nigeria from external aggression;

(b) Maintaining its territorial integrity and securing its

borders from violation on land, sea, or air;

(c) Suppressing insurrection and acting in aid of civil

authority to resolve order when is called upon to do so by

the president, but subject to such conditions as may be

prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly and

(d) Reforming such other functions as may be

prescribed by an Act of National Assembly12.

56
Defending Nigeria from external aggression:- Constitutionally

the primary role of the military is to defend Nigeria from

external aggressors, whom might want to threatening Nigeria

corporate entity through work force.

Maintaining its territorial integrity and servicing its borders

from violation on land, sea, or air. Also included in its functions,

the military is to protect and maintained Nigeria’s territorial

integrity, borders on land, sea and air from being violated and

attacked by external enemies. In doing this, they are trained

primarily as an institution with the management of organized

means of violence and warfare. They exist for the co-ordination

of activities meant to ensure victory at the battle.

Suppressing Insurrection:- The constitution also provide

that the military should suppress insurrection such as rebellion

against the legitimate government and can also be called upon

to quell civil disobedient and ethnic clashes that is above the

capabilities of the regular police force like in the case of

Ife/Modakeke, Ijaw/Itsekiri, OPC?Ijaw, OPC/Hausa ethnic

clashes.

57
Reforming other functions as prescribed to them: The

military could also be assigned other ancillary functions by and

Act of National assembly which may include building of bridges,

construction of roads, stadium etc. in case of natural disaster,

the military could also be called upon to assist in delivering

relief materials to affected victims.

3.2 MILITARY AND POLITICAL OBLIGATION IN NIGERIA

According to the 1999 constitution of the Federal republic of

Nigeria, section 14 (2a, b) states that “sovereignty belong to

the people of Nigeria from whom government through this

constitution derives all its power and authority; the security

and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose

government13.

First and foremost, from the above assertion, military regime

as a system of government is an aberration, and also

unconstitutional, therefore, political obligation cannot be said

to exist or derive from government that does not have

constitutional backing.

In evaluating this military and political obligation, the

researcher will be involved in a comparative analysis.

58
Obligation in its broad sense is a duty an individual owes to the

state he or she want to belong for their own good. That is,

citizen perform these duties because of what they intend to

gain from such belonging or for the fear of being punishes. This

concept of obligation has a dual purpose, first on the citizens,

on one hand, and the state on the other. The state has a duty

to perform as well as the citizens. It is the responsibility of the

authority of a state individual belong to promote justice,

security and welfare of the citizens and in return, this citizens

reciprocate by way of obeying such an institution.

Political obligation therefore according to Appadorai is the

satisfaction of man’s primary wants – food, drink, sex and

shelter involves associated life; and associated life implies the

necessity of government14.

According to S.O.J Ojo, political obligation under military regime

is contradiction because we cannot talk about political

obligation under military whose method of accession to power

is purely by force and unconstitutional. He added that, political

obligation is only relevant in a constitutionally elected

government whose coming to power is through the ballot box

and not through the barrel of gun. He continued by saying that

59
democratically elected government during electioneering

campaign and through party manifestos makes promise and

had to fulfill them or lose the chances of winning next election.

Military regime as usurpation of constitutional provisions,

bulldoze it way to power and as such, does not fulfill any

political obligation as it ought to be in an elected government.

Since military government come to power by force, they

maintain status-quo and as such do not border itself with the

provision of social welfare schemes and other programmes aim

at poverty alleviation that a democratic government does.

Even if the military does, they are mere pronouncement and

declaration of intention in order to gain legitimacy and

acceptability from the people. Because the organs of

government are not on ground especially the judiciary which is

helpless during military regime, the citizen cannot compel the

military to enforce their pronouncement15.

Aguiyi Ironsi on 28th January 1966, in his national broadcast

note that the major challenges facing Nigeria include how to

effect rapid development and overcome problem of

unemployment. He then stated that his regime would pursue

with vigour, the implementation of 6 years, development plan

60
programmes and see to it that such project such as the iron

and steel complex were standard without delay. Various

military regimes have promised their commitment to taking

appropriate steps to increase food production through

agricultural development and bring prosperity to rural

development programmes. The second item on the 9 point

programmes of the Gowon regime was the implementation of

the national development plan programme which was largely a

package of economic development, recovery and self-

reliance16.

The Murtala Muhammed regime was very critical of the

economic power, waste and recklessness under inept, corrupt

and ineffective political leadership has foisted in the country.

He then expressed determination to instill a sense of sanity and

prudent management of national resources.

The Operation Feed the National (OFN) introduced by the

Obasanjo regime was a reflection of the commitment of the

military to the objective of economic recovery, growth and self

reliance17.

When the Buhari military regime took over following the

December 31, 1983 coup, it decry the damage which

61
corruption had done to the country and promised to stamp out

corruption from the society by enunciating a program of war

against indiscipline and promised economy recovery18.

Ibrahim Babagida on his own part promised life Eldorado,

economic recovery the implementation of Structural

Adjustment Programme (SAP) respect for human right, better

life for rural dwellers etc.

Sani Abacha was not left out in this hanky-panky same of the

military regime. Abacha regime also promised economy

recovery, improve human right record, poverty alleviation

programme etc.

Ironically, this regime witness the mass looting of public funds,

plundering of state resource, personalization of public office,

gross abuse and violation of human, government state

managed organized violence and repressive activities against

its citizenry it suppose to protect and own both social and

political obligation to.

Abdusalami Abubakar on his own part, promised wage

increment, freedom of the press and expression at its inception

in order to gain acceptability and legitimacy whereas, the

draconian decrees like decree 2 etc. were not abrogated.

62
Because constitution is usually suspended during military the

citizens and the helpless judiciary could not compel the military

to enforce their promises.

Political obligation under the military is discretionary and as

such, they cannot be compelled to fulfill the basis for which

government exist. Abdusalami Abubakar hand over to a

democratically elected government was based on discretion

and if he had failed to relinquish power noting would have been

done by anybody as opposition would have been crushed with

stiff measure through the use of state military apparatus19.

According to the 1999 Nigeria constitution, section (2b) states

that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the

primary purpose of the government”20. Military as an

unconstitutional government don’t own the citizens any duty

responsibility and political obligation the way it ought to be in

an elected government.

When the regime discovery that public opinion is not

favourable to them, they result to arbitrary arrest,

promulgation of obnoxious decrees, violation of fundamental

human right and disregard for the rule of law. Because they are

not representatives of the people, government is far from the

63
people, their yawning and aspiration are not taken into

consideration like it ought to be in an elected government.

Democratically elected government is evaluative, and as such,

take public opinion very serious in order to be voted for during

the next election. And in doing this, they are not only seen as

rendering political obligation but doing it because it pays

priority to it popularly and acceptability in order to be able to

predict future elections21.

Conclusively, all these military regimes were never the

aspiration of the Nigeria people as they imposed their rules and

rulers upon the totality of the Nigeria people and their rulership

were by decree and edict which enable the military cabal to

make law for the vast majority and so doing, they were neither

responsive nor responsible to anybody and also disobeyed the

lay down procedures and rules of civil administration and no

opposition was allowed.

Under various military regimes in Nigeria, the people never had

a say in the affairs that concerned them as such could not sue

those in authority as the case may be in a civilian

administration where elected leaders are responsible to these

electorates. Military came to power through coup ‘d’ tat and as

64
such are no political obligation and responsibility to anybody as

no same mind citizen dares the man with the gun. Under

military regime, civil and political obligation is totally absent as

plundering of states resources, human right abuse and more

declaration of intention is the order of the day but people seem

to reluctantly support because they have no alternative.

Military as a suppressive regime had always come to maintain

law and order, monopolized violence in the state as it is trained

on how to use and mange violence could not have been said to

providing political obligation and other programmes geared

toward alleviation the might and economic predicament of

citizens as it is obtained in an elected government.

The military is neither democratic in its composition nor its

operations. Indeed it is the least democratic of all state

institution. It is an autocratic set up where orders flow from top

to the bottom and obedience from bottom upwards22.

Military regime with apparatus of repression, have the power to

make things nasty for citizens if they refuse to oblige to their

orders and instructions. Political obligation under this kind of

situation becomes compelling and not willing as it ought to be

reciprocal in civilian administration.

65
Finally, political obligation cannot be gotten from a regime that

is trained in the field of management of violence and

combining these two concepts military and political obligation

is unambiguous because a regime that is so repressive, cruel,

and unfriendly towards its citizens that are suppose to enjoy a

high level of political obligation form their government if only

they were democratically elected.

TO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS

1. The enthronement of democracy will enhance

human right status: During military regime, human

right is highly abuse through illegal detention, arbitrary

arrest and killing. Consequently when democracy is

enthroned, human right is been enhance as the

government follows the true process of law according to

the constitution. And anybody who feel he or she is

arbitrarily arrested, detained, or his right violated can go

to court and seek redress unlike in a military regime

where the judiciary is helpless.

2. The enthronement of democracy will led to the

de-militarization of the polity: Under military regime,

66
the head of state usually appoints military governors or

administrators, task forces, sole administrator, etc. to help

him administer the regime policies, with these, the society

and social forces or institutions becomes militarized. This

implies that military rule transforms a country from a

political community into an administered state23. Unlike

when democracy is enthroned through the election of

civilian president, senators, executive governors, local

government chairmen etc the society and social

institutions is purely civil as civilians manned various

political institutions and positions.

3. The enthronement of democracy will lead to high

degree of political participation: When democracy is

enthroned, there is a high degree of political activities and

participation and people now breath the air of freedom,

avail themselves the opportunity of voting and be voted

for during a political dispensation. Unlike in military

regime where there is a low political activities and

participation as people are not too sure if the military will

quit the political arena. A case in point is during Ibrahim

Babangida regime when he cancelled presidential

67
primaries, and also annulled June 12 Presidential

elections. Also included was during Sani Abacha self

succession bid where presidential aspirants were

harassed, intimidated and forced to relinquish their

presidential ambition.

4. Enthronement of democracy will lead to the

independence of the Judiciary: When democracy is

enthroned, the judiciary is very independent as the

government derives its power from the constitution and

the constitution also guide the actions of the government.

And when the constitution is not adhered to either by the

executive or legislative arm, the judiciary comes out

openly without fear or favour to interpret the constitution

and will be strictly adhered to. While during military

regimes the judiciary is nuzzled and helpless through the

promulgation of decrees and ouster of court jurisdiction. A

case in point was during Sani Abacha regime when a

regular court ordered that certain detained persons

should be brought it, but the court order was flouted by

the military saying that the detained person were held

under decree 2 and that the court has no jurisdiction for

68
such order. This goes a long way to demonstrate the non-

independence of the judiciary under military regime.

69
3.3 END NOTES

1. African concord 17th July 1989 P. 12.

2. Ibid P. 12

3. Ibid P. 13

4. Miners, N.J.; The Nigerian Army; The

Macmillan press Ltd, 1975, P. 16.

5. Ibid P. 17

6. Ibid P. 18

7. African Concord; Op. Cit. P. 12

8. Miner, N.J; Op. Cit. P. 22

9. African Concord; Op. Cit. P. 12

10. Ibid P. 12

11. Ibid P. 13

12. The 1999 Nigerian constitution section 1977 (1a, b, c, d)

federal ministry of information.
Printing Division 1995.

13. Ibid Section 14 (2a, b)

14. Appadorai; Op. Cit. P. 46 – 47

15. An Oral interview with Ojo S.O.J. of Political Sc. Dept.

Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma
on 15 Dec.1999.

16. Ojo, S.O.J; Op. Cit. P. 28 (Unpublished

Material)

17. Ibid P. 28

70
18. Ibid P. 30

19. Ojo, S.O.J; Op. Cit. P.28 (Oral Interview)

20. Op. Cit Section 14 (2b)

21. Ojo, S.O.J; Op. Cit. (Oral Interview)

22. Okhaide, P.O; Op. Cit. P. 80

23. Ojo, S.O.J; Op. Cit. P. 35 – 36

71
 CHAPTER FOUR

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

SUMMARY

Since 1960 when Nigeria got her political independence from

the British, Nigeria people had never witness an enduring

democratic rule. In 1966 when the first military government

came into existence which was later headed by the Gen. Aguiyi

Ironsi, it has been one change of military to another.

For another 38 years of political independence, Nigerians had

only witnessed a brief tenure of democratically elected

government. All the military regimes were never the wishes

and aspiration of the Nigeria people as they imposed their rules

and rulership upon the totality of the Nigeria people and their

rulership were by decrees and edicts which enable the military

cabal to make laws for the vast majority and so doing not

responsible to anybody and disobeyed lay down procedures

and rules of civil administration and no opposition was allowed.

In military regimes law existed for the strong and might is

right. Under military regimes in Nigeria, people had never had

a say in the affairs that concerned them and as such, they

72
could not sue those in authority as the case may be in a

democratically elected government since during electioneering

campaigning and with party manifestoes, make promises and

had to fulfill them or lose the chances of winning the next

election, unlike the military who bulldoze to be in an elected

government.

Since military regime come to power by force, they maintained

status-quo and does not border itself with the provision of

social welfare as democratic government does. Even if the

military does, they are mere pronouncement and declaration of

intention in order to enjoy legitimacy, acceptability from the

people. And because the organs of government are not on

ground like the judiciary which is muzzled and helpless with

outer clause during military rule, the citizen cannot compel the

military to enforce their pronouncement and promises.

Political obligation under military is discretionary and as such,

they cannot be compelled to discharge the basis for which

government exist because of the weakness, interference of

state organ especially the judiciary during military reign of

terror, as civil and political obligation is totally absent.

73
 CONCLUSION

I discovered in the course of my research, that because of the

usurpation of constitutional provision by the military, they are

unable to provide the basis for which government exist and as

such could not be said to discharge political responsibilities and

obligations. Also discovered is that, because they come to

power by force they don’t border themselves with the provision

of social welfare as democratic government does. Even if they

try to do, they are mere pronouncement and declaration of

intention in order to enjoy legitimacy, acceptability from the

people. And because the organs of government are not on

ground like the judiciary which is helpless during military, the

citizens cannot compel the military to enforce their

pronouncement and promises.

In addition to the above mention, military regime with

apparatus of repression, have the power to make things nasty

for citizens if they refuse to oblige to their orders and

instructions. And political obligation under this kind of situation

becomes compelling and not willingly as it ought to be

reciprocal in civilian administration.

74
Finally, political obligation cannot be gotten from a regime that

is trained in the field of the management of violence and

combining these two concepts military and military and

political obligation is unimaginable and contradictory because a

regime that is so repressive, cruel, and unfriendly towards its

citizens that are supposed to enjoy a high level of political

responsibilities and obligation from, if only they were

democratically elected.

RECOMMENDATION

In view of the above analysis, I want to state emphatically and

categorically that the military, taking cognizance of their

fundamental obligations:

1. The military return to their constitutional role

2. The military should be subjected to civil authority.

3. That the military should in imbibe the political culture

within the political system.

4. Career training should be introduced within the military

hierarchies.

75
5. The civil authority should provide incentives, job

satisfier and motivational variables to enable soldiers and

officers to rededicates themselves to their course of

duties.

6. Bourgeosified formations within the military

compositions with an inner agenda should be discouraged.

7. Ethnicism, nepotism, god fatherism, cronyism, political

promotions, political sponsorship among other social

negative fall out which has characterized the military for

so long should be discouraged.

8. Reciprocity and complimentarily in the disposition of

functions among solders should be that of order of

command from the least personnel should be properly

fused together to avoid subversion and administrative

leakage to avoid the army being use to carry out actions

that could be inimical to civil authority.

76
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. Alan Isaak C.; Scope and method of political

science; The Dorsey Press 1985

2. Appadorai; The substance of politics; Madra;

Oxford University Press 1975

3. Duddly, Billy; Introduction to Nigeria Government

and Politics; Macmillan Press Ltd,
1982

4. Geraint Parry; Political Elites; Georae Allen and

unwin (Publisher) ltd, 1969

5. Kennedy Galvin; The Military in third world; Macmillan

Press Ltd, 1975

6. Miner, N.J; The Nigerian Army; Macmillan Press

Ltd, 1985

7. Nwankwo Arthur; Military option to Democracy; Accady

(Publisher) Ltd, 1985

8. Okhaide, P.O; Nigeria Government and Politics;

Oshike Yakubu (Nig.) Ent. 1996

9. Ola, R.O.F; Local Government in Nigeria; Jodah

Nig. Publisher Ltd., 1985

10. Raphael D.D; Problems of Political Philosophy; The

Macmillan Press Ltd., 1970

11. Simeo Sheldon W; The Military and Security in Third

World; George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd.,
1962

77
12. Tosto Leo; War and Peace; Macmillan press Ltd,

1970

MAGAZINE

13. African Concord 1989

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

14. Iyoha, F.E.; Public Policy Analysis; Pos 303 1998

15. Ojo, S.O.J.; Military and Politics; Pos 402 1999

78