Is Nigeria truly a democratic state?

By Matthew Ma

“If we affirm that it is, it becomes imperative for all security officers to uphold the established laws and conduct themselves by these regulations. We must cultivate a culture of accountability beyond political status. Supporting misconduct cannot be justified simply because of an individual’s influence. In an actual democratic society, the rule of law must serve as the cornerstone of governance, guiding the state’s actions and its citizens’ behavior.”
A few days ago, the Nigerian Army came under renewed scrutiny due to troubling reports of misconduct by two officers. These individuals operate under the erroneous assumption that their positions grant them immunity from established legal protocols. Such behavior not only raises significant concerns but also fosters a perception of impunity within the military ranks. What was the issue? A video surfaced depicting two military officers assaulting a couple in Gwarimpa. The footage captured a man being brutally beaten by army personnel in front of his wife. The situation escalated from what seemed to be a minor confrontation into a heated argument, quickly spiraling out of control. Despite the woman’s heartfelt and desperate pleas for her husband’s safety, along with her urgent calls for the officers to exercise restraint, the aggressor showed no signs of halting his violent actions. The implications of such behavior by the military raise critical questions: How do these couples find themselves in situations where the military—an institution designed to protect them—ends up beating them instead? At what stage did Nigerian security agencies attain such power to operate with impunity? What factors have fueled this concerning shift, and how do societal, political, and historical contexts contribute to this erosion of trust? Let us begin by addressing the first question. A few days ago, a troubling incident involving an army general came to light, raising serious concerns regarding the abuse of power and violent conduct. Reports from Sahara Reporters reveal how Mr. Vershima Mker and his wife were targeted following what appeared to be a minor driving infraction. While on the road, Mr. Mker overtook the vehicle of Major General G.S. Mohammed, an action that reportedly angered the military officer. In a concerning display of authority, General Mohammed ordered the couple to pull over. Eyewitness accounts suggest that he, along with his aide, Corporal A. Abubakar, forcibly removed them from their car. The situation escalated quickly, indicating that the couple was beaten, threatened, and abused.
Following this brutal encounter, General Mohammed and Corporal Abubakar handcuffed the couple, placed them in the trunk of their own vehicle, and transported them to the Gwarinpa Police Station. Upon arrival, it was reported that General Mohammed used his influence to instruct the police to detain the couple indefinitely. He ordered that they remain in custody until he issued specific directives concerning their release, leaving them in a state of uncertainty and fear for an indeterminate period. This incident raised the following question: At what stage did Nigerian security agencies attain such power to operate with impunity? What factors have fueled this concerning shift, and how do societal, political, and historical contexts contribute to this erosion of trust? The strained relationship between Nigerian security agencies and the general population is not just a contemporary issue, but a legacy of a complex tapestry of historical, structural, and sociopolitical factors. The colonial police force was primarily established to serve the interests of the colonial government, which often prioritized its own authority over the welfare of the local population. This force focused on suppressing dissent among colonized people, employing tactics that included intimidation and violence against those who opposed colonial rule. Rather than acting as community protectors, police actions frequently centered on enforcing unpopular laws that benefited the colonial administration, such as restrictions on free speech and assembly, rather than ensuring justice or safety for the citizens they were supposed to serve.
As a result of these practices, the colonial police earned a reputation as an oppressive arm of the government. Their operations were marked by a lack of accountability and an emphasis on control, resulting in widespread distrust and fear among the populace. This approach fostered a legacy in which the police were perceived not as defenders of public safety and order but rather as instruments of oppression aimed at quelling any signs of resistance. Consequently, the relationship between the police force and the communities they served became profoundly adversarial, with many viewing them as enforcers of colonial domination rather than as public servants committed to the welfare of all. The situation deteriorated significantly during the post-independence period, particularly under various military regimes that favored authoritarian governance over democratic principles. During these times, security forces often used heavy-handed tactics, which included widespread human rights abuses, arbitrary detentions, and brutal crackdowns on dissent. This oppressive approach entrenched a culture of fear and skepticism towards law enforcement among citizens. Regardless of any political dispensation, this distrust, deeply rooted in the colonial era continues to shape the present. Each successive government has inherited these deeply rooted issues and perpetuated them through policies prioritizing state security over community safety.
Nigeria endured an extended military rule from the 1960s until the late 1990s, significantly influencing its political landscape. During this time, the military seized control through coups, establishing regimes prioritizing power consolidation over democratic governance. The security forces, especially the police and the army, were systematically deployed to quash any political dissent, often employing violent measures to maintain order and control. Human rights violations became widespread as these regimes implemented policies aimed at silencing opposition. Protests against government actions were met with brutal crackdowns, instilling widespread fear among the populace. A lack of accountability reinforced a pervasive culture of authoritarianism, enabling security agencies to operate with impunity and frequently abuse their power without consequences. This environment not only stifled civil liberties but also eroded public trust in the institutions meant to protect citizens, further complicating Nigeria’s pursuit of actual democratic governance and societal stability.
Corruption within the ranks of the security forces has significantly eroded public trust and perception. Once viewed as a beacon of national pride and a symbol of strength, the Nigerian army has sadly become the subject of ridicule and disillusionment. The respect it once commanded has diminished, leaving many citizens questioning its effectiveness and integrity. In previous decades, the Nigerian army demonstrated remarkable capability and courage, particularly during its interventions in the Liberian and Sierra Leonean civil wars, where it played a crucial role in restoring peace and security. However, the current landscape is starkly different. The army now grapples with numerous pressing security challenges within Nigeria itself, such as rampant terrorism, kidnappings, and communal conflicts. This shift raises severe concerns about whether the military retains the formidable prowess it once possessed. Many Nigerians find themselves pondering the underlying reasons for this decline. What has transpired to transform such an esteemed institution into one that struggles to safeguard the nation’s security? This pervasive uncertainty and disappointment points to a deeper issue within the military’s leadership and operational efficacy, compounding the need for urgent and immediate reforms and accountability.
Following our return to democracy in 1999, a shared understanding emerged among the populace that the military, having substantially influenced the prior authoritarian regime, needed to withdraw from the political arena. The expectation was for them to resume their traditional role, which entails defending the nation and maintaining peace from within the confines of their barracks. However, as the years have progressed, I have increasingly observed a troubling trend: the military’s conduct and demeanor suggest that they have not entirely relinquished their previous political influence. Rather than serving solely as protectors of the nation and champions of the democratic ideals we fought to restore, their presence has increasingly assumed a more oppressive and intimidating character. This has resulted in a palpable sense of distress among the citizenry—those they are ostensibly sworn to protect. Such behaviors raise significant questions about their genuine commitment to their duty as military personnel. Furthermore, it compels us to reflect on the fundamental principles of democracy, which thrive on respect for civil rights and the autonomy of political institutions free from military interference. The dissonance between their mandate and actions breeds unease and casts doubt on the health of our democratic system. This situation necessitates weighty introspection and open dialogue regarding the military’s role in our society and the safeguards required to ensure that democracy can thrive, unencumbered by undue military influence. It is crucial that we protect our democratic principles from such encroachment.

Rev. Ma, S.J., is a Jesuit Catholic priest of the North West Africa Province of the Society of Jesus. He currently writes from the Kukah Center in Abuja, Nigeria.