- Nigeria’s armed forces must be fully equipped to carry out their duties
The commissioning of four Nigerian Navy vessels by President Goodluck Jonathan last week represents a welcome improvement in the new willingness of the Federal Government to transcend rhetoric in the ongoing battle against terrorism, piracy and other security challenges bedevilling the nation.
The Navy’s acquisitions comprise NNS Okpabana, a high-endurance cutter from the United States; NNS Prosperity, a fishery patrol boat formerly owned by the Irish Navy; NNS Centenary, an offshore patrol vessel from China; and NNS Sagbama. They are expected to enhance the Nigerian Navy’s capacity to protect offshore oil installations, combat illegal bunkering, tackle piracy, undertake emergency search-and-rescue missions, and provide logistical support to the other branches of the armed forces.
A strong navy is the backbone of any nation’s military capability. Given its power to project sustained force over relatively long distances, the navy is vital to any strategy aimed at properly confronting the security issues facing Nigeria. President Jonathan himself emphasised this at the commissioning when he declared that a well-equipped navy was essential because of the nation’s dependence on offshore oil resources and the food security and employment potential inherent in the maritime sector.
In spite of its best efforts, the Nigerian Navy has not been able to fully tackle the problem of oil theft and illegal bunkering to the extent that an estimated 400,000 barrels of oil are being stolen every day. Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea now exceeds that off the coast of Somalia.
To further compound matters, the navy’s role appears to have been diminished by a recent and hideous aberration: the emergence of ex-militants as important actors in the nation’s anti-bunkering security infrastructure. It is ironic that the navy’s own acquisition of vessels comes some two months after a maritime security company owned by former warlord, Mr. Government Ekpemupolo (alias Tompolo), took delivery of seven decommissioned Norwegian battleships. Even though the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) has claimed that the vessels were bought on its behalf, it is still strange that a private firm would be given priority ahead of the navy.
It also appears that Nigeria’s efforts to overcome the Boko Haram insurgency in the north-east are being hampered by inadequate arms, ammunition and equipment. In spite of repeated denials by the military hierarchy and the Federal Government, several incidents appear to bear this notion out: the so-called “tactical manoeuvre” of August 2014, in which 480 soldiers appeared to retreat into Cameroon in the face of superior insurgent firepower, is a prominent example. In addition, several soldiers on trial for mutiny and other acts of indiscipline have argued that their actions were motivated by a refusal to go into combat without the standard complement of arms and equipment.
This situation is indefensible, given the trillions voted for defence in recent times, in addition to the U.S. $1 billion loan recently secured by the Federal Government. It is surprising that no attempt has ever been made to undertake a comprehensive audit of all military and defence-related expenditure, in spite of the apparent disjunction between what is budgeted and what actually reaches combat units.
The consequences of under-funded, poorly-resourced and inadequately-equipped armed forces cannot be under-estimated. Indeed, the ramifications are already tragically apparent in the anti-insurgency campaign: from a local uprising, it has spread to encompass Borno, Yobe and Adamawa sates, with deadly attacks extending to Abuja. Nigeria’s inability to handle the crisis has pulled in Cameroon, Chad and Niger. Worst of all, the shootings, bombings and terror continue unabated. If Nigeria is to triumph over the insurgents, it must ensure that its armed forces are properly equipped to carry out their statutory roles.
