Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05ABUJA797
2005-05-19 14:29:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Abuja
Cable title:  

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT OF THE NIGERIAN MILITARY

Tags:  PGOV KDEM MARR KPKO NI 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

191429Z May 05
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
).

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