By Ahmed Balarabe Sa’id
The conversation surrounding the relief of General Christopher Musa as Nigeria’s Chief of Defence Staff has become a theatre of stark contrasts.
Beneath the sober analyses of tenure and his ethnic background as we commonly see among Nigerians, there is the more sensational narrative of unsubstantiated speculation that his exit is somehow linked to the phantom of a coup plot. This theory is circulating with a life of its own, among some commentators.
Surprisingly, less attention has been paid by commentators to a tradition that has governed the office of the Chief of Defence Staff for over three decades and which renders the current speculation premature and profoundly ahistorical.
Since 1990, the average tenure has held remarkably firm for just over two years. General Sani Abacha, set an early precedent with three years and seven months before he became the head of state. His successor, General Oladipo Diya, served the same office for three months. Lt. Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar did four years and nine months. About the same with Admiral Ibrahim Ogohi. Generals Alexander Ogomudia and Martin-Luther Agwai had a pattern of three, and then two years and two months, respectively. The pattern continues with Air Chief Marshals Paul Dike and Oluseyi Petinrin, Admirals Ola Ibrahim and Alex Badeh, each serving between one and two years.
Even the notable exception of Gen. Abayomi Olonisakin, whose five years and six months under President Buhari provided rare extended continuity, ultimately proved the rule. His successor, Gen. Lucky Irabor, served two years and five months, and now, General Christopher Musa concludes his own chapter after two years and four months.
So, I clearly see an alignment to a historical mean.
To suggest that this change, which fits a pattern three decades in the making, is solely or even primarily the result of a specific, alleged conspiracy, is to ignore this overwhelming institutional inertia. The standard principle is unequivocal: the military serves at the pleasure of the democratic authority of the President. The power to appoint and relieve service chiefs is a critical exercise of executive prerogative. In this light, it may not be very accurate to suggest that, President Tinubu’s decision is a reaction to a phantom.
Yet, to overlook the distinct human texture of General Musa’s leadership in this debate would be an injustice. From a Public Relations standpoint, Gen. Musa’s tenure was a chapter marked by a palpable shift in tone. He brought to the fore a leadership style that was both firm and profoundly human, characterized by a visible presence on the front lines and a deep empathy for the troops, earning a rare degree of public trust. I see a man who is accessible, empathetic and very much loyal to the administration.
Maybe sometimes too pronounced in this loyalty.
In all, those who know, tell the story of a very good man whose noble ideals have inspired his community and people. He may even be better positioned to do more, outside public office, at his current age.
As an organized and regimented institution, the military renews itself through disciplined succession. Gen. Musa’s service will linger memorably for its humanity and integrity. But it merely closes one commendable chapter by faithfully following what is clearly a historical script.
