Why Tinubu Replaced Service Chiefs — Presidency.

Tinubu.

The Presidency has shed more light on why President Bola Tinubu dismissed and replaced the country’s service chiefs.

It dismissed claims that the military shake-up was linked to a supposed coup plot, explaining instead that the decision aimed to “inject new direction” into the armed forces.

The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said on Saturday that President Tinubu had acted within his constitutional authority to restructure the military leadership.

“Service chiefs can be hired and fired by the President. He is the Commander-in-Chief. He has the power to hire and fire,” Onanuga stated.

On Friday, President Tinubu announced sweeping changes in the military command structure.

According to a statement from the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communication, Sunday Dare, General Olufemi Oluyede was appointed as the new Chief of Defence Staff, taking over from General Christopher Musa.

The statement added, “The new Chief of Army Staff is Major-General W. Shaibu; Air Vice Marshall S.K. Aneke is Chief of Air Staff, while Rear Admiral I. Abbas is the new Chief of Naval Staff. Chief of Defence Intelligence, Major-General E.A.P. Undiendeye, retains his position.”

President Tinubu urged the new service chiefs to justify the confidence placed in them by improving professionalism, vigilance, and unity across the armed forces.

Dare stated that the new appointments took effect immediately.

The reshuffle came just a week after an online news platform published a report alleging that certain military officers had plotted to overthrow President Tinubu.

The report, which circulated on 19 October, linked the detention of sixteen military officers to the alleged coup and claimed that the cancellation of the Independence Day parade was part of efforts to curb unrest within the armed forces.

However, the Defence Headquarters denied the allegation.

In a statement signed by the Director of Defence Information, Brigadier General Tukur Gusau, the military described the publication as “false and intended to cause unnecessary tension and distrust among the populace.”

Gusau clarified that the cancellation of the Independence Day parade was “purely administrative” and that the detained officers were being investigated for “issues of indiscipline.”

He stressed that the armed forces remained committed to the Constitution and loyal to the President.

Nonetheless, the timing of the removal of the service chiefs, which occurred shortly after the coup rumours, has continued to arouse public speculation.

Responding to the claims, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Tope Ajayi, explained that the decision followed two years of continuous service by the previous military chiefs.

He said the move reflected the President’s determination “to inject new direction, vision, vigour and energy” into the armed forces.

“This is not a reaction to any rumour of coups. He is exercising his powers. The service chiefs have done two years,” Ajayi explained.

“We are fighting security issues — Boko Haram in the North-East, banditry in the North-West, IPOB and ESN in the South-East, kidnapping in the South-West, and other crises in the North-Central,” he added.

Ajayi emphasised that the President’s action was lawful.

He further noted that the country’s high defence expenditure had affected funding for other important sectors.

“In the last 15 years, look at our national budget — security taking the largest chunk. The President wants to deal with this matter once and for all so that the money going into defence expenditure will be better deployed to fund critical infrastructure like power, roads, broadband, education, and healthcare,” he said.

Ajayi added that the President’s decision was consistent with the constitutional provision that allows appointees to serve at the President’s discretion.

“Every appointee of government, whether you are minister, head of agency, or service chief, serves at the pleasure of the President. Nobody has a secure tenure. The only two people in the Federal Government who have a guarantee of tenure are the President and the Vice President,” he explained.

Despite these clarifications, public debate continues to connect the shake-up with the alleged coup plot.

A senior officer in one of the intelligence agencies said those drawing links between the leadership changes and the coup rumours “have a point.”

“Information about the matter is not something you can easily get. The official statement of the military is that there was nothing like a coup attempt, and we stay with that.

“However, those trying to connect the removal of the service chiefs to the denied coup plot also have a point. People will definitely add two and two together and form their opinions,” he said.

On X, several Nigerians linked the timing of the announcement to the earlier reports of arrests within the military.

Ikechukwu Ude wrote, “There were rumours of a military coup last week, and today some of the military service chiefs were sacked. That the rumour was debunked, but it seems to be true right now from the sack of service chiefs! No civilian with zero capacity can stop military generals if they intend to change any government.”

Another user, Muduwa Kerra, remarked that the removal of the service chiefs showed how close Nigeria had come to a coup.

Similarly, Abraham Uyanna asked, “If there wasn’t an attempted coup, why is there a sudden change of service chiefs?”

The African Democratic Congress also called on President Tinubu to explain the replacement of the country’s top military officers.

In a statement released on Friday by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the party said, “We note that nearly all the service chiefs that have been removed were appointed only 28 months ago, with the current Chief of Defence Staff himself appointed just a year ago as Chief of Army Staff.

“We also note that this kind of decision has serious and far-reaching implications for stability within the ranks and therefore could not have been taken without strong reasons. Our position remains, therefore, that the Federal Government owes Nigerians a categorical explanation about what truly happened.

“As an opposition political party, our interest remains the stability of our country and our democracy. In the light of developments in our neighbourhood of Chad and the Sahel States, we are gravely concerned.”

The party added that the extensive shake-up of the military hierarchy was likely to fuel further speculation rather than ease it.

Security experts have also given mixed reactions to the development.

A former Director of Legal Services in the Nigerian Army, Colonel Yomi Dare (retired), described the new appointments as a source of motivation for the armed forces.

He said, “There is no security implication other than that the outgone officers have done their bit. The new service chiefs, by virtue of their appointment, must now be motivated to work effectively. They should assess what their predecessors achieved and, in unspoken words, learn from what they did and failed to do.”

In a similar view, a former Director of the Department of State Services, Mike Ejiofor, noted that while the President had the authority to change the military hierarchy, the major issue remained inadequate funding and poor operational conditions.

“For me, changing the service chiefs might not necessarily change anything because they have all been working under very difficult situations,” he said.

“We should also not forget that they are operating under serious financial constraints. People say this year’s budget is the highest in terms of defence, but has it been implemented? The funds have not been released, so they are working in a very tough environment.”

Ejiofor urged the Federal Government to release funds promptly and strengthen cooperation among the agencies.

“A foundation has already been laid by the former service chiefs, so the new ones should consolidate on the gains made by their predecessors,” he said.

On the other hand, security analyst Akogun-Abudu Oluwamayowa criticised both the timing and purpose of the overhaul.

“What is happening in this country in terms of insecurity is not about changing the service chiefs. One of the problems we are facing is that we do not have perimeter fencing. People from other countries come into our country without barriers, wreaking havoc. The change may not be effective when major issues are not tackled,” he said.

He advised the new chiefs to prioritise the welfare of soldiers.

“The best welfare for soldiers is not training but their well-being. Their salaries are not even enough. These people are really suffering. I advise that these new service chiefs fight for the soldiers and pay attention to their welfare,” he said.