Service Chiefs and the Cost of Waiting for Orders
By Matthew Eloyi
The tragic bombings in Maiduguri, which claimed at least 23 lives and left over a hundred injured, are a grim reminder that Nigeria’s fight against insurgency is far from over. But beyond the horror of the attacks lies an equally troubling question: why did it take a presidential directive before Nigeria’s service chiefs moved to the frontline?
President Bola Tinubu ordered the relocation of top military leadership to Borno State – a move that should have happened instinctively, not reactively. Within a day, the Chief of Defence Staff and the Chief of Army Staff arrived, signalling urgency. Yet the timing exposes a deeper flaw in Nigeria’s military leadership culture: hesitation where initiative is required.
In moments of crisis, especially one involving coordinated attacks by Boko Haram, leadership must be immediate, visible and decisive. The idea that service chiefs needed presidential prompting to “take charge of the situation” is difficult to justify. These are seasoned officers entrusted with safeguarding national security. Their mandate does not begin only after instructions from the Commander-in-Chief; it is continuous.
History offers a stark contrast. During the peak of the insurgency, the then Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Yusuf Buratai (rtd), took the extraordinary step of relocating his command base to Borno. He did not shuttle in for inspections or symbolic visits; he embedded leadership at the heart of the conflict. That decision sent a powerful message to troops and citizens alike: that the war would be led from the front.
Leadership in conflict zones is not merely administrative; it is psychological. Troops battling insurgents in difficult terrain draw strength from proximity to command. Civilians, too, find reassurance in knowing that those responsible for their safety are not operating from a distance. When bombs explode in a major city and military leadership remains elsewhere until summoned, it risks projecting detachment at a time when urgency is paramount.
Read Also: WAR, ENERGY, AND THE INESCAPABLE LOGIC OF POWER
To be clear, the recent relocation is welcome. Engaging frontline troops, assessing security gaps and coordinating with local authorities are all necessary steps. But they should not be triggered by tragedy alone, nor delayed by protocol. The resurgence of attacks in Borno did not begin with this incident. Warning signs: sporadic assaults, intelligence reports, and increased threats during Ramadan were already present.
This raises concerns about whether Nigeria’s security architecture has become overly centralised, waiting for signals from the top rather than acting on ground realities. A military that waits risks always being one step behind.
The service chiefs must remember that command responsibility includes anticipation, not just reaction. Their presence in Borno State should be part of a sustained operational posture, not a temporary response to a presidential order or a media cycle.
If Nigeria is to decisively confront insurgency, it must revive a culture of proactive leadership within its armed forces. The example set by Buratai demonstrated that bold, forward command can shift both momentum and morale.
At a time when Nigerians are once again gripped by fear, the country needs more than directives. It needs leaders who move before they are told, act before situations escalate and stand where the danger is greatest, without waiting for permission.