Lieutenant General Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma is, undeniably, one of Nigeria’s most famous former Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) who is at the same time a strong political power broker and super rich whose influence in the various aspects of national life is almost incalculable. Nigerians of varying backgrounds respond, in differing or even conflicting ways, to all his pronouncements in whichever manner or language he makes them, which therefore explains the controversies that his
It is fully legitimate for the former Army Chief to express concerns over the noticeable systemic failures that have continued to manifest in various forms and sizes and which have constituted crippling threats to the unity and development of the country, just like he did recently during the presentation of staff of office to the Aku Uka of Wukari in his home State—Taraba. His condemnation of the poor handling of the security matters by the government and recommendation of strategies for the control of the situation, some of which have however appeared to be crude or just unimplementable are always considered as natural reactions of a concerned elder to a disturbing situation.
General Danjuma is not such kind of an elder who can be said to be unaware of his environment or unmindful of the consequences of his actions and utterances. As a military chief whose roles in the preservation of Nigeria as one entity were most commendable and whose professional and personal ties with other individuals cut across sectional, ethnic and religious barriers, he can not be looked down on or dismissed as just some kind of trouble-maker.
In fact, the combination of his antecedents, status and the well-acknowledged calmness is the basis of all the attention that he receives when he voices out his concerns over issues of national importance. The intensive interrogation of his intentions and the measurement of the effects of his comments on issues and situations in the country by the various groups of Nigerians are clearly indicative of the tremendous respect that he enjoys.
Even with the reservations and the resultant complaints in some critical quarters that some of the pronouncements he makes are bereft of such basic ingredients as balance, objectivity and accuracy, there are always compelling reasons for the citizens to just listen to him and respond in a manner they individually or as groups consider most appropriate. Every particular response or reaction to his comments is therefore fully informed by certain basic considerations.
Yet, some of the sentiments and the agitations he persistently champions have continued to give him away as a leader who is openly over-sensitive to matters that require careful handling. Unlike many other senior military officers, retired and serving, with whom he shares ethnic and religious backgrounds, Danjuma easily throws caution to the dogs whenever he attempts to interprete a situation or volunteer suggestions.
The prevailing insecurity to which the citizens, irrespective of their religious and/or ethnic backgrounds, are continuously lost is terrible enough to unsettle Danjuma. All the victims of the crisis, especially those with whom he shares certain identities have reasons to consider him a hero and consequently always expect him to speak on their behalf.
The phrases –“our land” and “our people”—that he most liberally uses to describe his original place and communities is, perhaps, an indication that he is not only sufficiently conscious of the expectations of those groups of people but also ready to meet them. Either as part of the determination to discharge a communal responsibility or in a bid to continue to enjoy the ovation that comes from his ‘land and people’, the former CoAS is always making complaints that are creating apprehension in the minds of the ‘other ones’.
The self-defense advocacy is not entirely Danjuma’s idea as even those who are directly in control of the instruments of governance or, more precisely, security architecture have strongly called on the victims of attacks to rise up against the criminals. Either before or after he loudly lamented the insecurity, attributed it to complacency of the authorities, alleged complicity of security agencies and strongly advocated self-defense which necessarily entails the acquisition and use of arms by communities, some other leaders had done exactly same.
While, for example, Governor Aminu Bello Masari of Katsina State and Defense Minister–Major General Bashir Salihi Magashi—demanded the communities to violently tackle the attackers, Governor Mohammed Bello Mutawallen Maradun revealed the intention of Zamfara State Government to facilitate the acquisition of arms by the people of the State for the purpose of self-defense. They frustratingly described self-defense, in the face of heightening violence, as the best strategy for the control of the situation.
Therefore, the former CoAS is a target of counter-attacks not because of the nature of the allegations and recommendations he made, but because of the manner, circumstance and the environment in which he made them. It is a lot more right than wrong to conclude that some of the specific allegations and prescriptions he made are more an instigation than a sincere effort towards the resolution of the crises in the land.
At a time when the inter-relationships amongst the diverse communities in particularly the Northern part of the country are evidently characterized by all kinds of suspicion, any such outburst by an elder and leader of Danjuma’s status is inimical to national peace and stability. This is an attitude that is too insignificant to meet the demand of Nigerians for the display of absolute patriotism and maturity by the leaders.
As a trained warrior, he can anytime decide to be tough, especially if the issues at hand are about human security and prosperity. Merchants and perpetrators of lawlessness easily develop fear in the same way that even uncaring governments become responsive whenever people like Danjuma begin to bark.
