We certify this work carried out by OGBEIDE CLIFFORD in the Department of Political Science, Ambrose Alli University, and Ekpoma.

_________________ MR. U.B. CHIZEA Project Supervisor

_____________________ MR. P.E. AGBEBAKU Head of Department

_____________________________ EXTERNAL EXAMINER


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.


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 assisted me during who

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


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 EdemaSilo, 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.


TABLE OF CONTENTS Title page Certification Dedication Acknowledgement Table of contents Abstract ii iii iv vi viii I

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


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


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.



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


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.


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.


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.


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 in has the distorted relationship political obligations state and




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


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 demilitarization 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







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.


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 powerwealth 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:


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.










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 inevitablepluralism 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.


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


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.


1.8 END NOTE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prof. Ola R.O.F; Ojo, S.O.J; Ibid P. 36 Ibid P. 9 Ibid P. 12 Gerant Pany; 7. Ibid P. 33 8. Ibid P. 34 9. Ibid P. 32 10. Iyoha, F.E; 11. Alan Isaak C.; 12. Kennedy Galvin; 13. Rapheal D.D; 14. Ibid P. 78 Public Policy Analysis; Pub. 303 1998 P. 5 – 6 unpublished material. Scope and method of political science; The Dorsey Press 1985, P. 272 The military in third world; Macmillan Press Ltd, 1980 P. 8 The Political Elites; Geore Allen & Unwin (Publisher) Ltd, 1969, P. 31. Local government in Nigeria; Jodah Nig. (Publishers) Ltd, 1985, P. 7. Military and Politics; Pub 402 1999 P. 36 – 37 unpublished material.

Problems of Political Philosophy; The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1970, P. 27.





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.


Another review sees the military as the only institution


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.


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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


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


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 prerequisites 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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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,


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.


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


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.



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


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


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 extensively thing on this and score. therefore It has has been been argued criticized 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


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.


2.2 END NOTE 1. 2. Kennedy Galvin; Ojo, S.O.J; Op. Cit P. 9 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. Op. Cit P. 15 War and peace War and peace; The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1975, P. 36 The Substance of Politics: Mactras: Oxford University Pres 1975, P. 19.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Kennedy Galvin; Tostoy Leo; Appadoral; Ibid P. 20 Okhaide P.O; Raphael D.D; Kennedy Galvin;

Nigeria Government and Politics; Oshike Yakubu (Nig) Ent. 1996, P. 122 Op. Cit. P. 80 Op. Cit P. 11

10. Ibid . 10 11. Duddly, Billy; Introduction to Nigeria Government and Politics; The Macmillan Press Ltd; 1982, P Op. Cit P. 12

12. Kennedy Galvin; 13. Ibid P. 13 14. Ibid P. 8 15. Ibid P. 10


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; 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 25. Ibid P. 56 26. Ibid P. 57 27. Kennedy Galvin; 28. Ibid P. 94 29. Ibid P. 15 30. Simeon Sheldon W.; Op. Cit. P. 66 31. Appadorai; 32. Ibid P. 21 33. Popkin, R.H.; Philosophy make simple; Heinemann Ltd, 1981, P. 64. Op. Cit. P. 20 Op. Cit. P. 13 Op. Cit P. 55 Military option to Democracy; The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1985, P. 65.


34. Watkins, J.W.N;

Hobbes systems of ideas; Great Britain Redwood Press Ltd, 1963, P.116 – 119 Op. Cit P. 64 – 65 Op. Cit. P. 39 History of western philosophy; George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1979, P. 602.

35. Popkin, R.H; 36. Appadorai; 37. Russell Betrand; 38. Appadorai


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


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


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


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) (b)

Defending Nigeria from external aggression; 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








prescribed by an Act of National Assembly12.


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, clashes. Ijaw/Itsekiri, OPC?Ijaw, OPC/Hausa ethnic


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.


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







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


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 agricultural steps to increase and food bring production prosperity through 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 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 of economic development, recovery and self-


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.


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 to discovery they that result public to opinion arbitrary is not




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


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


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.


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.

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,


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









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


such order. This goes a long way to demonstrate the nonindependence of the judiciary under military regime.


3.3 END NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. African concord 17th July 1989 P. 12. Ibid P. 12 Ibid P. 13 Miners, N.J.; Ibid P. 17 Ibid P. 18 African Concord; Miner, N.J; African Concord; Op. Cit. P. 12 Op. Cit. P. 22 Op. Cit. P. 12 The Nigerian Army; The Macmillan press Ltd, 1975, P. 16.

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; 17. Ibid P. 28 Op. Cit. Material) P. 28 (Unpublished


18. Ibid P. 30 19. Ojo, S.O.J; 20. Op. Cit Section 14 (2b) 21. Ojo, S.O.J; 22. Okhaide, P.O; 23. Ojo, S.O.J; Op. Cit. (Oral Interview) Op. Cit. P. 80 Op. Cit. P. 35 – 36 Op. Cit. P.28 (Oral Interview)


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


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.


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.


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


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.


BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS 1. 2. 3. Alan Isaak C.; Appadorai; Duddly, Billy; Scope and method of political science; The Dorsey Press 1985 The substance of politics; Oxford University Press 1975 Madra;

Introduction to Nigeria Government and Politics; Macmillan Press Ltd, 1982 Political Elites; Georae Allen and unwin (Publisher) ltd, 1969 The Military in third world; Macmillan Press Ltd, 1975 The Nigerian Army; Macmillan Press Ltd, 1985 Military option to Democracy; Accady (Publisher) Ltd, 1985 Nigeria Government and Politics; Oshike Yakubu (Nig.) Ent. 1996 Local Government in Nigeria; Jodah Nig. Publisher Ltd., 1985 Problems of Political Philosophy; The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1970 The Military and Security in Third World; George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., 1962

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Geraint Parry; Kennedy Galvin; Miner, N.J; Nwankwo Arthur; Okhaide, P.O; Ola, R.O.F;

10. Raphael D.D; 11. Simeo Sheldon W;


12. Tosto Leo;

War and Peace; Macmillan press Ltd, 1970

MAGAZINE 13. African Concord 1989

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS 14. Iyoha, F.E.; 15. Ojo, S.O.J.; Public Policy Analysis; Pos 303 1998 Military and Politics; Pos 402 1999


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful