Terhemba Wuam
Book Title: Democratic Institutions and Nigerian Military Regimes,1966-1999 Author: Margaret Aladi Shaibu Publisher: Nigeria Defence Academy, Kaduna Year: 2018 Pages: 439
The military have been a dominant feature in the post-colonial history of Nigeria. Dr. Margaret Aladi Shaibu’s work Democratic Institutions and Nigerian Military Regimes, 1966-1999 published by the Nigerian Defence Academy in 2018 offers a broad sweep in treating all the eight military regimes that collectively governed Nigeria for 28 years from 1966 to 1999, with what she refers to as a “civilian interregnum” (5) occurring for four years between 1979 and 1983 as the Second Republic. In between the succeeding period of 1983 to the birth of the Fourth Republic in 1999 was the still-born Third Republic. This unborn republic flirted with reality in the course of the General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida transition programme after the June 12 elections of 1993 up to November of that year when General Sani Abacha toppled the Interim National Government headed by Chief Ernest Shonekan with the earlier stepping aside of General Babangida in August.
Dr. Shaibu’s study is an exercise that is derived from painstaking research that was dedicated to shedding light on the relationship that existed between military regimes and democratic institutions in Nigeria. Democratic Institutions and Nigerian Military Regimes, 1966-1999 contains 467 pages with seven chapters and ten appendices, maps and numerous pictures. It is a book about the military in power and the nation’s political institutions. The book has several strengths. The few weaknesses relate to editorial issues, formatting, and cases of repetition, which should be corrected whenever a second edition is to be published.
In her accounting, Dr. Shaibu posits that the military was structured as an apolitical institution and the officers of the Nigerian Armed Forces before independence in 1960 were under the British Parliament. This situation continued till 1960 when Nigeria gained independence and “the indigenous civil authority inherited a highly motivated and subordinated Nigerian Military. Military officers within this period respected and took orders from the political leaders. The military was apolitical and had acquired some level of professionalism…” (1).
The coup of 1966, however, marked the forceful takeover of power in Nigeria by the military. The 1966 takeover was nuanced and bears some resemblance to that of 1993 by General Sani Abacha on the surface; in 1966 it appeared as if the political class were in control and could determine outcomes after the thunder of the guns of the night of 14 January through to the morning of 15 January 1966 had quietened down. I had always taken this line of thought, that after 15 January 1966, the surviving political class should have invited General JTU Ironsi and Lt. Col. CO Ojukwu to Lagos and handed them medals for aborting the Major CK Nzeogwu-led coup – this perspective is the one which Dr. Shaibu also gives a nod to, by her quoting of Uwadia and Azikiwe who both felt the military after 15 January would have stayed out of the political space had they not been invited (2). Uwadia blamed the politicians for ignoring “the constitutional option of appointing an acting Prime Minister” (2). To Azikiwe, federal ministers “invited the Nigerian Army to take over the government which the Nigerian electorate had placed in their trust” (2).
The reality, however, was that by the military invasion of the political space, power had actually left the hands of the political class and the military rather than being handed power, actively took it, as they would repeated do in the course of the next four decades.
Dr. Shaibu’s book is an important text to read. Although her narrative is justifiably focused on the military due to her specialization as a military historian, Democratic Institutions and Nigerian Military Regimes is equally rich in its treatment of Nigeria’s political history right from the period of the 1914 amalgamation and the series of political and constitutional developments that led to the adoption of federalism in Nigeria.
A detailed background of the origins of the Nigerian military is also recounted. The reader learns of the first formation by Lt. J. Glover in 1863 to the Royal Niger Company Constabulary in the 1880s through the West African Frontier Force (WAFF) to the Royal West African Frontier Force (RWAFF) and to 1956 when the RWAFF was renamed the Nigerian Military Force. To be followed shortly by the Nigerianisation of the officers corps. A detailed listing of battles and wars that the Nigerian military had participated in from 1863 to World Wars I and II as well as their prior engagement in the subjugation of various Nigerian polities are commented upon. In terms of their histories, equal attention is also given to the emergence of the Nigerian Army, the Nigerian Navy and the Nigerian Air Force, which was the last to be established in 1964.
The richness of this book also draws from its faithful detail in recounting the politics of the First Republic. However, in a few instances her description of the character of politics in the First Republic is too utopian, as for example:
There was decency in the First Republic, the leaders, irrespective of their political difference, or religious differences or cultural differences were always ready to cooperate with one another. … Nigeria, in those days, was a decent country, morally sound, there was little corruption. Nigerians saw themselves as their brother’s keeper.
Such an assertion conflicts with her documentation of the controversies and conflicts of the First Republic, for example, the census crises, collapse of alliances, ethnicity, political crises in the West and Tivland and boycott of elections by major political parties.
We glean from her narration the constitutional arrangements leading to independence. One of which, the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954, had extensive Nigerian participation through the London Constitutional Conference of 1953 and the Lagos Constitutional Conference of 1954; it created a federal arrangement that we would all have recognized today if not for the overwhelming powers of the centre in national life that the military in governance bequeathed to Nigeria.
Though she doesn’t argue this point too closely, what we may have to interrogate is the question of the rationale behind the military centralization of power. Casual and not so casual observers are quick to point to the military command structure, which favours centralization. However, beyond that, the military thrusting themselves into the role of nation-builders may have realized that the all-powerful First Republic regions equipped even with missions abroad made the reality of a unified nation a bit opaque.
It is in consideration of issues such as this that Dr. Margaret Aladi Shaibu’s work makes important contributions and opens up the minds of readers to the nature of the transformations that the military were able to enact in the national polity, especially with regard to the political and democratic institutions. Looking at the scale of the objective, she cannot be accused of lacking in intellectual and scholarly ambition and profound academic acumen.
Since the book is about democratic institutions and the military, the concept of democracy is defined to mean “a system of government, in which all people of a state or polity are involved in making decisions about its affairs typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly” (18), and that it is a primary responsibility of democracies to protect “basic human rights as freedom of speech, expression, the right to equal protection under the law and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic and cultural life of the society.” (18).
How then did military regimes which are authoritarian fare when they take over democratic institutions. A cue is borrowed from the authoritarian Communist dictatorships in the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba and North Korea, who call themselves democratic, because they act in the interest of the people, even though certain democratic institutions are not allowed to thrive. These regimes because they are political dictatorships controlled by single political parties and not the military as was the case with Nigeria do not see themselves as transient, but as the permanent representatives of the people.
The military in Nigeria, shared these ethos, but saw themselves only as holding forth as corrective regimes, to check the excesses of the political class, before returning power to the people. Thus, to the military, checking excesses would often mean abrogating basic freedoms and numerous forms of the people’s participation in the government and life of their country. Such action was only being true to character. The military in politics in Nigeria were not in the business of democracy. Though many of the regimes hoped that their transition programmes would prove lasting, even as one or two worked to subvert such a reality occurring.
At best, the military when they struck, aside the personal ambition of officers that cannot be ruled out, did so out of what they called patriotic love for the country. Judging the mood and reception accorded military interventions in the country, most were celebrated as averting a drift towards decline by the political class, or subsisting military regimes, that by themselves needed to be toppled.
The military as a class of men trained and purposed for war and defence of the state when they seize power, by stepping out of the prescribed norms of civil-military relations which prescribed the military to be professionally subservient to civil authority, however, had to work with and interact with the rest of the polity, including the political class, the citizenry and most importantly, institutions of state, that by their nature should be inherently democratic in outlook.
In power, as was usually the case, the military assumed executive, legislative and judicial roles. They abrogated the legislature or downgraded it, like General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida did during the aborted Third Republic with decrees enumerating no-go areas. The media is muzzled, political parties are proscribed, and elections are held only when a transition programme is on course. And of the three arms of government, only the judiciary is often left relatively untouched in terms of personnel. Decrees are enacted that affect labour unions and the civil and human rights of citizens to which recourse to the judiciary offers no remedy.
Each of these state institutions and their democratic character will now be appraised in the context of what new knowledge and understanding Dr. Shaibu’s research have unearthed and laid bare before the reader in this book.
The first of the democratic institutions that the military relates with that she appraises is the media. Most of the regimes as she shows often begin with a romance of the media. They take steps that make the media think that they will work together and things will improve for the Fourth Estate of the realm; which should have been taken as wishful thinking, especially in a context where other realms like the legislature suffer a worse faith of ceasing to exist. General Ironsi’s Decree No. 2 of 1966 which lifted the ban on circulation of papers and General Babangida’s abrogation of Decree No. 2 of 1984 under which journalists could be detained without trial were in favour of press freedom. Yet within the lifespan of these regimes additional decrees that circumscribed media freedom were enacted i.e. Decree No. 44 of 1966 on banning defamatory and offensive materials and Babangida’s clamp down on the media such that in 1990 alone five media houses and several journalists were hounded and incarcerated. This trend was pervasive with all the military regimes that ruled Nigeria from 1966 to 1999.
With regards to the legislature, Nigeria’s Westminster model was done away with by Decree No. 1 of 1966 which suspended the Republican Constitution and established the Supreme Military Council that replaced the parliament. The decree noted that “The Federal Military Government shall have power to make laws for peace, order and good government of the country or any part thereof with respect to any matter whatsoever” (182). Succeeding military regimes also adopted this arrangement by whatever name they went by whether Armed Forces Ruling Council or Provincial Ruling Council. From 1966, military regimes proceeded to make laws by fiat, doing so easily, often without debate, but striving to gauge the mood of the nation. Many of the laws are still with us, some were good and some were not so good, most, however, tended towards a centralization of power and authority in the federal government to the detriment of the other tiers of government. Riots occurred with Ironsi’s unification decree – but by 1999 from four regions to 36 states and a Federal Capital Territory – an objective that was similar was achieved without protests.
In terms of the judiciary, the military while not abrogating it, created tribunals that dispensed justice and subverted the courts. There were also ouster clauses which circumscribed the powers of the judiciary. Decree No. 1 of 1966 and General Yakubu Gowon’s Decree No. 28 of 1970 limited judicial authority but left its structure essentially untouched. Dr Shaibu emphasizes this point by citing Okolo that:
The set-up of the military and their training have no democratic element and so the rule of law is incompatible with military administration. The military can therefore not administer the rule of law and cannot ensure the independence of the judiciary. The military always believe that their emergence in administration of the country was brought about by a state of necessity. Necessity knows no law. They can hardly represent the rule of law and allow the independence of the judiciary (202).
Political parties represents the institutions that politicians by being the rightful claimants to power use in winning elections to form governments. Because politicians are perceived as the rightful heir representatives the military often view them as saboteurs or collaborators. Therefore, the military upon taking power proscribe political parties and political activities and limit elections. Allowing such only during military orchestrated transition programmes.
Dr. Shaibu notes that mindful of the ethnic rancours of the past, military regimes tried to create political parties that would be national in spirit, where political parties would draw their membership from all over the nation. Under military regimes, the culminative height of this process was under General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida who brought into existence by fiat two parties – the National Republican Convention and the Social Democratic Party – under which the democratic process could be organized. A love-hate relation exist between the military in power and political parties, because from the first day in power, the military leadership usually knows that it is only a matter of time for the political process to commence. And when they want to cling to power, like General Abacha desired, they also invariably become part of the political process.
General Abdulsalam Abubakar is singled out for praise by the author thus:
The transition politics of General Abubakar was considered short, precise and purposeful…[it] brought about a dramatic turn in the political history of Nigeria. The general populace and international bodies once again regained their confidence in the Nigerian military (300).
Dr. Shaibu in her concluding chapter offers an insightful account of Nigeria’s military regimes and human rights and labour unions. Although, human rights is a constitutional matter, the military usually suspend it, and also enact decrees that limit the rights of citizens and opens them to abuse by military authorities. It is however, ironic that the military under a regime that was considered as the most draconian in Nigeria, established the Human Rights Commission through Decree No. 22 of 1995. Some of the objectives were:
– monitor and investigate all alleged cases of human rights violation in Nigeria and make appropriate recommendations to the Federal Military Government for prosecution and such other action as it may deem expedient in each circumstance;
– Assist victims of human rights violation and seek appropriate redress and remedies on their behalf;
– Undertake studies on all matters pertaining to human rights and assist the Federal Government in the formulation of appropriate policies on the guarantee of human rights (312).
Though the Abacha regime was riddled with human rights and judicial infractions, the creation of the Human Rights Commission was indeed a step in the right direction.
Relations with labour unions and trade unions, especially the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) were often fractious, I will, however, quote a section from Dr. Shaibu’s book when the military in the face of labour union opposition allowed common sense and the judiciary but not necessarily the rule of law to prevail:
On July 22, 1992 the government announced that all striking academics should resume work within 48 hours or consider themselves sacked. The deadline came and passed without intimidating the striking lecturers to relent in their collective resolve. In fact, two days after the first order, the next authoritatian action taken by the military government was the announcement that members of the union should vacate government quarters within 24 hours or be forcibly evicted. The government was, however, disappointed when the union secured a court injunction restraining it from evicting members of ASUU from university quarters and dismissals from their appointments…. The fact that the court restrained the government demonstrated that even in the face of colossal breaches the rule of law could sometimes prevail” (319).
This was however, the exception, the military usually had their ways, and often chose and picked which court judgement to obey or not.
Yet, in spite of all these, if an African accounting were to be carried out about the military in government on the continent, the Nigerian military in power will rank very high up in terms of limits they observed in exercising their powers of coercion. This is to not to discount the role played by civil society in standing up against military abuses. The role of the human and civil rights organisations as well as labour union in standing up and fighting for rights under military regimes, and for ultimately an end to military regimes in Nigeria itself is properly acknowledged by Dr. Shaibu. The organisations she mentioned – the Civil Liberty Organisation (CLO), Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and ASUU among other – all played critical roles under very trying times during military regimes in fighting for human rights and for democracy.
Democratic Institutions and Nigerian Military Regimes is an account of history that is occurring or has occurred within the living memory of most Nigerians. We know the decrees and the constitutions, we know the personalities and the events. Sometimes we may even guess at the motives. Yet, in spite of the readers awareness of these issues, the author’s account of them is not stale, it is refreshing and records for the present and posterity vital aspects of our history beyond the four decades reflected in the title.
The book is educative and highly instructive. It should be a recommended text as noted by Major General A Oyebade, commandant of Nigerian Defence Academy in the Foreword that, “… this book will provide an effective learning experience and reference resource for cadets, military officers, researchers, students of military history and politics as well as policy makers. I therefore, strongly recommend this book to everyone with fascination for seeking knowledge and uncovering the truth” (v).
In summing up this review, I note that this book is essentially a history of the Nigerian military and how they reset the tone of our political and democratic institutions along a more centralized and authoritarian character. Although the military always stood for unity and were patriotic to the motherland and fought the Civil War as a war of national unity to make sure that Nigeria could no longer be termed a mere geographical description, their role in taking much powers from the regions to the centre and later from the states to the federal authority created outcomes whose impact today weakens the federating units. The general debate so far is that stronger states, though not on the scale of the regions, committed to national development may produce the basis for faster development of the polity than the existing structure where the federal authority as designed by military regimes largely vested upon itself the powers and resources to do so; thereby negating the federal principle.
Dr. Shaibu’s conclusion that democratic institutions did not fare well under the military is apt and sums up her argument and main thesis. The lessons of the book are that the military as a force of coercion, designed to be responsive to civil authorities in maintaining law and order and protecting the territorial integrity of Nigeria should abide by these professional ethos; and should not be drawn into political governance. To her, “the armed forces of Nigeria must continue to be a professional force that supports Nigeria’s policy and political objective” (82).
With about twenty years of civil rule in the Fourth Republic, which began at the terminal stage of the book’s scope of 1966-1999, it may appear that the military and the nation have learned what is right for the country politically – that the military should concern itself with soldiering and defense of the country against internal and external security threats; while the political class should be in charge of governance. Consequently, the author’s decision to document and instruct us about this history of the military in power and their impact on democratic institutions is one to be applauded.
Terhemba Wuam is with the Department of History, Kaduna State University, Kaduna, Nigeria. He is co-editor of Challenges and Prospects of Development in Twenty-First Nigeria (Bahiti and Dalila Publishers, 2019).
NIGERIA REVIEW OF BOOKS 