US embassy cable - 05ABUJA797

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ABUJA 000797 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/06/2015 
TAGS: PGOV, KDEM, MARR, KPKO, NI 
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT OF THE NIGERIAN MILITARY 
 
 
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Thomas P. Furey for Reasons 1.4 (B & D 
). 
 
1.  (C)  Summary:  Legislative oversight of the Nigerian 
military is still in its infancy.  Meeting recently with a 
group from the U.S. National War College and Embassy staff, 
members of Nigeria's House Committee on Defense did not seem 
to understand what role they should play but were very 
interested in "being more than a rubber stamp" on decisions 
of the President and Nigerian military leadership.  Some plan 
to introduce a bill to add more specifics on oversight, 
including a confirmation process for military officer 
promotions.  End Summary. 
 
2.  (U)  A visiting group from the U.S. National War College 
met with members of Nigeria's House of Representatives 
Committee on Defense on May 12 to discuss legislative 
oversight of Nigeria's military.  Ten members of the 
Committee were present for the meeting, including Chairman 
Wale Oke (PDP, Osun State).  Also present were military 
officers from Defense and Army Headquarters (Commodore and 
Colonel-level), a Brigadier General from the Nigerian War 
College, a Commander from Nigeria's Defense Intelligence 
Agency, and officers of Nigeria's State Security Service 
(SSS).  After some initial formalities, members of the 
Committee became very free in their questions and responses 
-- with SSS taking notes on which members asked which 
questions. 
 
------------- 
The Committee 
------------- 
 
3.  (U)  Fewer than 20 of the Committee's 40 members 
typically participate in sessions of the committee.  Members 
volunteer for assignment to the Committee, based on personal 
interest or military experience, but the final decision about 
who will be on the committee rests with the House leadership. 
 The Committee on Defense is not the apex committee dealing 
with political-military issues; there are also separate 
committees, of equal precedence, that deal with the Army, 
Navy, and Air Force.  There is no real sub-committee 
structure anywhere within the National Assembly, though ad 
hoc committees do occasionally form to work on specific 
issues.  There is also little committee staff, only a 
Secretary to the Committee (an attorney with strong personal 
 
SIPDIS 
interest in defense issues) and an Assistant Secretary. 
 
4.  (U)  The Committee deals with oversight of issues related 
to the Ministry of Defense, Defense Headquarters and its 
staff (including the Chief of Defense Staff), joint military 
operations (including peacekeeping operations), tri-service 
institutions (such as the National War College and National 
Defense Academy), veterans' issues, and the annual Defense 
budget estimate.  Oversight of issues affecting only one 
service are dealt with by those committees, not the Committee 
on Defense.   The Committee also is supposed to serve as a 
grievance body for members of the Armed Forces (the Committee 
members described this as a Constitutional responsibility), 
and to ensure that states gain equally overall in recruiting 
and promotions -- a version of affirmative action called 
"protecting Nigeria's Federal Character." 
 
5.  (C)  The Committee does not, however, have a role in 
confirming specific officers as service chiefs or other top 
positions.  There is currently a bill before the Committee to 
set up an Armed Services Commission for oversight of the 
promotion process (septel), but there is no agreement even 
within the committee -- not to mention the extreme resistance 
to this idea from the military -- as to whether this level of 
oversight is beneficial.  The members of the House Committee 
seemed surprised at the Constitutional responsibility of the 
U.S. Senate in the confirmation of service chiefs and in the 
appointment and promotion of military officers.  One member 
of the Committee approached Pol/Miloff following the session 
with the War College for help creating a bill to introduce a 
legislative confirmation process for the assignment and 
promotion of certain military officers.  The member said it 
would be difficult, but saw it as a small and necessary step 
toward the larger goal of effective and comprehensive 
oversight responsibility. 
 
6.  (C)  The Committee seemed to have a more formal 
relationship with the Ministry of Defense than with the 
uniformed services.  The Committee Chair initially said the 
Minister of Defense would attend the National War College 
session, but did not show up.  The Commodore from Defense HQ 
commented that he was attending the session in place of the 
Chief of Defense Staff, who was also invited by the Committee 
to the session.  The Defense HQ Commodore said it was his 
first time inside the National Assembly. 
--------------------------------------------- - 
The Session with the U.S. National War College 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
7.  (C)  The session with the U.S. National War College 
started with a presentation by the Committee chair, going 
through an exhaustive (and probably overly broad) list of all 
of the committee's responsibilities.  Questions from the U.S. 
students included the role of the Committee in defense 
budgeting, the physical structure of the committee, 
prioritization of defense projects (C-130s, Coast Guard), and 
the proposed Gulf of Guinea Commission.  The Nigerian 
military officers jumped in to answer questions about 
resource projections and the budget process, because the 
legislators could not come up with answers.  The closest 
thing to a substantive answer from Committee members was, to 
nobody's surprise, a call for debt relief from the Committee 
Chair to allow Nigeria to spend more money on C-130s. 
 
8.  (C)  After the U.S. students' questions, the legislators 
started asking questions of their own.  They were clearly 
excited to learn about the U.S. experience with legislative 
oversight of the military.  Their specific questions related 
to the ability of U.S. oversight committees to summon 
military officers for testimony, even if the SecDef objects, 
and the willingness and the obligation of the officers to 
give their own honest opinions and professional advice, even 
if these views run counter to the SecDef's.  Committee 
members seemed happy to keep full authority on appointment of 
service chiefs with their President, but some members were 
interested in taking a role in more routine promotion and 
assignment issues.  Finally, there were questions and 
discussion about the War Powers Act and the role that the 
Senate has in oversight of emerging military operations. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
9.  (C)  The National Assembly's intelligence oversight 
committees and the Nigerian intelligence community recently 
went through a process of establishing more effective 
oversight, so there is both model and precedent for the 
National Assembly to play an oversight role so as to increase 
civilian control over Nigeria's military.  Oversight could 
also promote a more professional military, a more transparent 
budget process, and a more sustainable democracy.  The 
interest is certainly there on the part of the legislators. 
The military may prove to be a greater challenge. 
FUREY