Nobody is saying that the firing of the service Chiefs is not within the ranks of the President or the Senate, particularly from the South has not hailed Obasanjo action. But the biggest question is why appoint new ones without the Senate confirmation? There is a democratic process, isn't it?

If he does not need Senate confirmation of those chiefs, then we are talking about too much power for the President and open season for abuse. That is not democracy. The Chiefs definitely need senate confirmation because it deals with national security.

Hail Biafra

Such appointments are based on merit and preference. The president has to be comfortable with such appointees. Realistically, there is no way we can divorce personal preference from such appointments.

From the above "reasons" given, rather, belately for being behind Obasanjo's decision to fire the Service Chiefs, the question is did Obasanjo act onbehalf of the Nigerians who elected him, for his foreign and local "friends", especially the Americans, for Nigeria's security interests, or to clear the cost by surounding himself with people who will protect him when he rigs the 2001 election?
If the "main taget" was Victor Malu and that there were some "interest groups", then who are these "interest groups"? Are the so-called 'interest groups' defending Nigeria's interest(s), by targeted Victor Malu because of his questioning of the "American over-bearing military presence in Nigeria"? How can the Americans whose plank in their foreign policy is to "protect American interests" suddenly be protecting Nigerian interests?
The other "reason" given for the sack is that since Malu were to go for his "rigid and uncopromising" stance, then the other Service Chiefs must go; Question, why sack the other Service Chiefs for the "crime" commited by Malu? Where then is the work and reward and "merit" some of you have elluded?
It was also said in the paper that Victor Malu's "comments" at the Oputa Panel was also responsible for his sack; Question, why should what one says at the Oputa Panel costs the person his or her job, and maybe his life? Is it not proper to ask whether the supposedly "truth and reconcilation" Oputal Panel not a tool of the Obasanjo regime to witch-hunt and punish his past and present perceived enemies?
Didn't Obasanjo play ethnic politics by succumbing to his Yoruba constituency by targeting Malu for the role he (Malu) played during Oladipo Diya's (a fellow Yoruba) arrest and trial?
From the perspective of a fair and unbiased observer, the "reasons" given for sacking ALL the Service Chiefs at same time has nothing to do with protecting Nigeria "interests"-- nothing to with "solidifing democracy" as the Americans would want us believe -- It also has nothing to with "merit", or with "restructuring the (Nigerian) Armed Forces", as posited by Obasanjo's point-men, on the contrary, it has everything to do with pleasing President Obasanjo's "friends" from within and outside Nigeria...The total sum of this incident and events since Obasanjo assumed office is that Nigeria under Obasanjo is practicing everything other than democracy, so, when you hear or see Obasanjo being praised and feted abroad by those whose interest(s) he is protecting, don't be surprised.

Ikpat,
Why are you so disingenuous? When will you grow to be a man by saying what you mean and how you mean it without being so transparently hypocritic? Do you think you are in Nigeria where 'NEPA' has rendered most Nigerians unreachable?
It's time you stop making mockery of yourself.

quote:

---

Three reasons accounted for Malu's retirement. First, those within the government favourably disposed to former Chief of General Staff, Oladipo Diya, never forgave him for the trial, jailing and stripping of the rank of the Odogbolu-born former General.

---

Of course, Malu should have been sacked for Odi massacre, if for nothing else.
Interesting, what was Mr. Ikpatt's take on Odi?

quote:

---

C. Ikpatt
Senior Member
Member # 463 Nigeriaworld forum
posted April 28, 2001 02:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What were those "...war-time (Nigerian Civil War) scientific and technological accomplishments.." that so fascinated the "world"? Building bombs from scrap metals? Even kids make more sophisticated ones today.
2. Why must it be the Governments sole responsibility to harness scientists and technologist?

3. Are there present laws that prevent good ole war scientists or anybody else from inventions or R&D? Lets not dwell in the past - Nigeria should be considering launching own satelites and developing top rate technologies than seek retroactive blessing of wartime obsolesence.

Those 3 Nigerians who are being honored sourced no help from the Nigeria government in order to secure achievements. That is the idea. Government roles should merely be regulatory and in the provision of good environment for the replication of likes of Drs. Nnaji et al.

---

This guy obviously needs to exorcise his soul.
There is an eerie and diplomatic silence in response to this clearly deranged statement coming from c. Ikpatt from members of that forum. Except from 1 or 2 guys there.

To return to the points raised in the article it states that
(1) He was sacked for being too rigid and uncompromising, please remember that as flawed as our democracy is its still in its infancy, thus positions taken by him which run counter to (elected government) policy may be seized by unscrupulous members of the armed forces to cause additional problems.

(2) As much as I do not like Foreigners being involved in sacred internal matters such as defense, the American and British may have something to offer our armed forces in dealing with their civilian counterparts.

I honestly believe that we must have a strong armed forces, but we must also have one that understands its role in civil society and it certainly is not to oppose an elected government, this role you leave to politicians in opposing parties.

This said though the President must be careful not to expose us unnecessarily to foreign interests.

The overgrown boy scouts?
In one of his very first public statements, Gen Malu called for a shoot-on-sight policy of soldiers who attempt to take over broadcast houses. Coming from the head of the army, the significance is that the army is equipped and professional just well enough to grab microphones. Look back twenty years and you will struggle to find anything more significant in military terms done by the army except to announce coups.

Another of the more visible roles of the Nigerian army was demonstrated at Odi. After the massacre of unarmed grandparents and their grand children, the officers who commanded the operation were decorated by the president. About the same time as Odi, there were also reports that border villages were under siege by the Camerounian and Niger nationals. Needless to say that no officers were promoted for repelling foreign enemies. Probably, because no officers bothered to engage any enemies!

The above examples just about summarise the usefulness of the Nigerian Army. I make no apologies for my contempt of the Nigerian Army. I wish anyone can give me a plausible reason why I should not.

But he trusted Malu very well and made him Chief of Staff, Nigerian Army; negating the fact he was a potential to his own demise. Now, if Obasanjo is sincere and believed in strenghtening the nation's military to effect change, why would he, all of a sudden, fire all the service chiefs when they were indeed the men he knew, trusted and believed they were the right choices in his vow of "no sacred cows?"

Did Obasanjo not know that Malu was part of Abacha's reign of terror? Or regardless, despite the testimonies at the Chwkwudifu Oputa Human Rights Commission, of which the Yorubas, somehow, had faulted Malu on the implications of Oladipo Diya's demise, was Diya himself not part of the causes that destroyed the Yoruba nation?

And who is now questioning Diya for his role in twarting the "June 12" results. We all know the story and it is only time that would tell.

In due course i hope if Obasanjo is not going to prosecute him then this should be left to others in the future to do. he in essence is/was an enemy of Democracy.

since there is no economy to talk about, so then what you are telling us is that it took Obasanjo two years to figure out that all his appointments from Ministry of Finance to defense to service chiefs were all mistakes. Now I have one answer for you; in 1988 then Vice President George Bush running for president boasted watch me & how I pick my veepee to tell you my Leadership skills. He proceeded to pick Dan Quayle I guess you know how that turned out.

My position on this matter is that President Obasanjo has found his Chief of Army staff wanting and has removed him no more no less.

Whatever the case may be in our Democracy Minister's / Armed forces heads serve at the will of the President

quote:

---

The reasons are their alleged:
* failure to fully submit to the authority of the civilian ministers of state in charge of the Army, Navy and Airforce;
* refusal to support the American military personnel in the country;
* failure to check some officers who incite the rank and file in the military against government policy, and
* reckless spending which the government believes is the hang-over of past military administration.

---

My biggest beef is the appointment of the new chiefs without due process. Nigerians should have been given the oppotunity to witness the process of hiring and screening on television net work and hear from these chiefs how they tend to serve the Nigerian people. Rather than in secrecy after all it is about national security. Is it?

On issues like this I just feel like saying "next".

Malu & friends will actaually be relieved that they made it out alive to enjoy their loot for the rest of their lives. The biggest looser was that mis-shapen goggled dwarf sani who convulsed to death while his bedromm was filled with stacks of dollars and harlots.