The army’s participation in cattle farming in every part of the country is being guaranteed to be free of the tension fomented by nomadic herdsmen.
The Federation shall, subject to an Act of the National Assembly made in that behalf, equip and maintain the armed forces as may be considered adequate and effective for the purpose of defending Nigeria from external aggression; maintaining its territorial integrity and securing its borders from violation on land, sea or air; suppressing insurrection and acting in aid of civil authorities to restore order when 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 performing such other functions as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.—1999 Constitution Sec217.(2). [Emphasis added]
The first part of this piece describes details of the new mission of the military to become a major player in the country’s economy through direct and robust investment in agriculture. More specifically, the announcement by General Buratai includes playing a major role in the economy by moving nomadic cattle roving to the next level; raising fishing ponds, vegetable gardens, fruits, chicken and eggs, and establishing cattle ranch in every part of the country where there is a military base. The thrust of today’s column is to discuss concerns about decision of the military to amend its constitutional role, without reference to the legislature.
First concern is that the role of the armed forces in the development of the country is clearly stated in the constitution, as captured in the epigraph overleaf. The role assigned to the armed forces in the constitution is similar to the role allocated to the armed forces in most successful countries in the world: to protect and defend the country’s sovereignty, its people and its borders. This is the function of armies in the world, except a few countries, like Egypt and Pakistan, where the military is empowered to compete with civilians in every aspect of the economy. Defence and protection provide guarantee of peace and a peaceful environment in which all other human activities, economic and social, thrive. And this is what enables prosperity and provides conducive environment for citizens, owners of the country’s sovereignty, to engage in building the economy for all.
For the armed forces to be able to deliver the function of defence ably and successfully, the military engages in physical, psychological, and intellectual training. Making members of the armed forces combat-ready and effective requires concentration on their part. The funds to give the military undivided attention to protect citizens are provided by citizens. In short, professionalisation of the military is considered crucial to peace and stability that can allow nations to prosper and develop sufficiently to create a good life for civilians and military alike. Any attempt by the military to divert the attention of its members from its statutory role and take on the task of growing the economy is fraught with danger for the country’s territorial integrity and security of life within the country.
More specifically, intellectual training for the military is quite demanding. It aims to build in every soldier and officer the knowledge necessary to function in the modern world – from the knowledge of history, geography, basic/applied sciences, diplomacy to the knowledge of engineering that can improve capacity of the military not only to use sophisticated weaponry but also to add value to weapons manufacturing. Nurturing a capable military is a lifelong engagement. It is therefore illogical for the country’s military to get attracted to the experiment of countries like Egypt and Pakistan, which use their armed forces to combine defence of the nation and economic production that ranges from poultry business to dairy production and selling insurance premiums. Any attempt to constitutionally allow the Nigerian military add new layers of civilian economic activities: raising cattle, goats, and chickens is bound to create distractions for the armed forces, thus putting security of the nation-state and its citizens at risk.
Although the duty of a soldier to protect and defend is universally at a great cost to the citizen; nevertheless, it is a price worth paying because the benefit is as priceless as it is unquantifiable, just as the recent routing of Boko Haram terrorists from Sambisa Forest has demonstrated. Most citizens have not paid adequate attention to General Buratai’s new policy of turning military men and women to cattle farmers. When citizens wake up to realise the danger in the military’s radical departure from its constitutional duty, they are bound to ask: How does cattle ranching by the military meet the purpose of defending and protecting citizens?
Citizens are also likely to wonder why the legislature would prefer to ignore attempts to institutionalise private profiteering for military officers by adding cattle and dairy production to their job description. True lovers of democracy and free enterprise in the country are bound to urge General Buratai’s civilian bosses, from the minister of defence to the president, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and the legislature to concentrate on soldiering and leave issues of politics and economic management to those who are trained to handle them. The involvement of the military in Nigeria’s politics for decades delivered instability with which the country is still struggling. Why would anyone think that army’s institutional involvement in the economy of the country will deliver anything different? Effects of militarisation of the polity for decades, particularly redesigning the polity as a command system that turn states into subordinates of the central government from its status as coordinates are still being interrogated by citizens from various regions.
There are other dangers in giving the military powers to determine its role without reference to the legislature. General Buratai’s policy announcement about the intention of the military to get involved in growing the nation’s economy threatens the principle of separation of powers. In particular, it poohpoohs the principle that in a democracy, the military are bound to operate in accordance with laws of the land with respect to constitutional and administrative law for every aspect of the nation’s life. It is in fact wrong for a policy that has not been approved by the legislature to be announced to the nation by a chief of the army, where there is a civilian minister of defence. The fact that the current president and minister of defence are retired soldiers does not give any officer the right to act as if the country is under military rule.
The proposal by the military to engage in economic activity has capacity to distort the nation’s economy. For example, how can competition be fair if a branch of the executive (the military) funded by taxpayers arrogates to itself the power to become a player in an economy in which civilians who, unlike the military, have no access to public funds be assured of a level playing field? Without mincing words, the attempt by the military to grow the country’s economy instead of focusing on defending and protecting the country is a wrong-headed one. It is capable of scaring citizens with rich traditions of cattle farming, like the Fulani, from effective participation in this activity, if constitutionally armed men in the military are given license to compete for land and other resources with civilians. How fair is it for the military to acquire land on the terms of allocation for public use to be allowed to turn such land into profit making capital for military officers and their spouses?
The argument that both Egyptian and Pakistani armies are as involved in their respective economies as the Nigerian military would want to be does not make the Pakistani or Egyptian model right for a multi-ethnic democratic federation. The question Mr. Buratai needs to ask himself is what advantage has the involvement of the Pakistani and Egyptian militaries in the running of their respective economies delivered for the people of those countries? Without any disrespect to these countries, the story is one of poverty and chronic instability. Neither Pakistan nor Egypt is mentioned among the world’s economic best practices. On the contrary, they figure prominently in the list of high receivers of aid from other countries.
Finally, what the country needs as it moves into a regime of productive economy that requires creativity and innovation is not to turn its military into farmers. It is to invest more on the military to make it more reliable in terms of protecting the country from both internal and external attacks. The country has over 170 million civilians who can raise cows, goats, chickens, etc. It is politically unwise for an elected government, especially the legislature to support or look away from a proposal that may distract less than 500,000 members of its armed forces from giving the 170 million people the security cover they need to grow the economy.
