Felicia Itodo
National Defence College,
Abuja, Nigeria.
Abstract
The paper is a critical attempt at reviewing and analyzing the role of the Nigerian military in internal civil conflict management in historical perspective. Thus, it delves into the different periods and instances of the involvement of the Nigerian military in managing conflicts within the country. The qualitative method of research was adopted for the purpose of the study. The findings of the study sheds lights on the evolving role of the military in maintaining peace and security during times of civil unrest and its overall impact on the socio-political landscape of Nigeria. On this backdrop, the study argues that in spite of the challenges faced by the military in their operations aimed at resolving complex and multifaceted conflicts, it has been able to achieve one of its major constitutional roles, which is the preservation of Nigeria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Introduction
Conflict in Nigeria is rapidly spreading, posing perhaps the greatest security challenges to the country and its people since the end of the Civil War in 1970. The scale of the conflicts could be seen in the Boko Haram’s insurgency in the northeast of the country and increasing attacks by the Islamic State West African Province (ISWAP) in the capital city of Abuja. The farmers-herders conflicts over access to land in the North-Central geo-political zone and parts of the southof the country has added impetus to the destructive longstanding Christian-Muslim tensions. Similarly, threats to national unity have exponentially increased due to the debilitating criminal activities of cattle rustlers across the northwest of the country and a resurgent Biafran agitation for independence in the southeast. In addition, there is an unimaginable rise in kidnapping activities across the length and breathe of the country. Undoubtedly, the Nigerian military is being overstretched because of deployment of its personnel in almost all the states of the federation. More disturbing is the fact that the Nigerian police force is undersized, ill-trained and has been outgunned by armed groups active in the country.
One of the major constitutional roles of the Nigerian armed forces (NAF) is civil conflict management, aimed at providing security and protecting the civilian population and their property. This often involves troop’s deployment to conflict areasto prevent continued violence and restore law and order. The involvement of the NAF has been very critical and predicated on the fact that Nigeria is a diverse nation with many ethnic, religious, and political leanings. Relationships have thus been very difficult and sometimes resulting in senseless and avoidable wanton clashes, which have cost lives in hundreds of thousands. At the heart of the problem is the failure of state institutions to manage ensuing differences that arise from competition for scarce resources and the ethno-religious tensions that often result from them. These divisive realities explain why Nigeria has experienced several civil conflicts since its attainment of independence from the British in 1960. These conflicts have threatened national unity, security and the corporate existence of the nation-state.
The result has been increased responsibility for the Nigerian military, which has to grapple with an increasing internal threats to national unity and potential external threats from its neighbors. In addition, the country’s armed forces has continued to play a leading role in the security architecture of the African continent, owing to its strategic location in the West African sub-region, as well as its population and natural resources. Thus, the Nigerian military has a rich history of civil conflict management through its active and successful participation in United Nations and ECOWAS peace-keeping missions. One of the key strategies the Nigerian military has employed in the management of civil is the use of peacekeeping operations within and without Nigeria. These operations involve the deployment of troops to conflictzones to restore peace and stability, while protecting civilians and enabling humanitarian assistance for victims of war.
In order to enhance their chances of recording success, the armed forces have worked very closely with other security agencies such as the police force and other paramilitary forces. This strategy has made it possible for the military to coordinate peace efforts and respond more effectively to existing and emerging threats posed by armed groups and individuals threatening national security. This is because military involvement in civil conflicts is necessary only as a last resort, when all peaceful resolution through dialogues have been exhausted.
On this backdrop, a critical appraisal of the pivotal role of the Nigerian military in conflict management and resolution becomes imperative. Thus, this paper assesses the Nigerian armed forces primary responsibility of protecting the territorial integrity of Nigeria and in ensuring the safety of citizens and property, in the light of the escalating civil unrest in the country.
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
Francis (2007) has defined conflict as the pursuit of incompatible goals and interest by various groups in the society. Thus, it is an inevitable outcome of human co-existence in the society, often due to the scramble for scarce resources.Conflict management is an essential part of the human society and a larger process ofmaking it possible for humans to live in peace, realizable only through stability. Thus, it is a way in which conflict is controlled before or after it has happened. Conflict management consists of conflict resolution and transformation, which is a long-term project that involves institutional rules and regulatory procedural rules (Otite and Albert, 1999:11). Akin to this position, Ross (1993:8), has observed that conflict management centerson the conscious attempt at eliminating and neutralizing disagreementsbefore they erupt into crises/halting conflicts that had already erupted. According to Sandole and Sandole-Staroste(187:7), the restoration of peace in conflict zones is a long and complicated process that comprises of a number of stages. Some of the stages they identified in their study include the following:
- Conflict Prevention (to nib in the bud potential crises before they break out).
- Conflict Settlement. (Fostering peace agreements amongst warring factions so that violence can be halted).
- Conflict Management (To mitigate likely future violence through the instillation of positive attitudes and values in concerned parties.
- Conflict Resolution (To tackle therootcauses of conflicts in human societies and to build a new and sustainable relationship betweenhostile groups).
It is important to note that the processes involved in the management of conflicts have always been considered an effective path to conflict resolution. This informs why the concepts of conflict management and conflict resolution have been used jointly in scholarly discourse. The management and resolution of conflicts is one of the fundamentals of civil-military relations. It is pertinent to note that in the relationship, democratically elected leaders are principal to military leaders who serve as agents of the state in its pursuit of security. In fact, civilians create the military to serve their needs, funds them and define their strategic direction in the state. The major objective of the relationship is internal security and defense of the country from external agression, which is constitutionally a shared responsibility and thus, dependent on their cooperation in strategic operations in institutional and socio-economic domains (Gaub, 2016:1-12). Effective security and defense cannot be achieved without the partnership of both sides. Little wonder why they depend so much on each other in all operations. Their collective goal is a constructive relationship capable of managing conflicts and providing maximum security in a rapidly changing world (Gaub, 2016:1-12). This is because the absence of security would inevitably translates into economic crises and also halt progress in a country’s national life.
The significance of the relations and its susceptibility to tensions and actual crises has engendered a number of theoretical assumptions. One of the famous of all the theories is the one by Samuel P. Huntington. Its major articulations include the following: the isolation of the armed forces from other parts of the social structure; defense of the society should be assigned to military formations that are politically and ideologically neutral and in areas exclusively within military imperatives/jurisdictions (Huntington, 1957: 10-22; Travis, 2017: 397). His theory, which is predicated on the moral neutrality of the military, has been widely criticized by scholars for placing undue emphasis on the control of the military, instead of a relationship that is based on cooperation and mutual respect (Rapp, 2015: 13–26; Herspring, 2005).
There is also another theory dubbed the Concordance theory. The thrust of the theory is that shared valuesand collaboration should define the relationship between civilian administrators and the military establishment. (Schiff, 1999, Levy, 2012: 529–556). However, this theory has been greatly undermined by successive coups in a country like Nigeria. By implication, it does not stop the tension because the political class in Nigeria remains suspicious of the military in spite of the country’s longest uninterrupted democratic governance since 1999 (Oriola, 2022: 275-309).
Furthermore, the theory of shared responsibility has been advanced to shift the focus on just the military. It presupposes shared ideas and responsibilities in the realization of state objectives, national security. The major assumptions of the theory are that civilians are the major and legitimate actors and determine the actions and responsibilities of the military. Secondly, the relationship is dynamic because it changes over time and is anchored on mutual respect (Bland, 1999, 10).The present study adopts the shared responsibility theory because it explains the current reality in Nigeria in which civilian administrators direct the activities of the military, without controlling how they go about it. Similarly, it explains why the constitutional responsibility of the NAF seemed to have overshadowed those of civil authorities such as the Nigerian Police Force. It is a well-known fact that the primary responsibility of the police force is internal security, while that of the military is primarily against external threats. However, the fact that the police force has been overwhelmed by the emerging threats in the country explains the increasing responsibility of the NAFs, as directed by civil authorities.
The Nigerian Military and Civil Conflicts Management Up to 1999
The origin of the NAF is dates back to the last decade of the 19th century when the British formed the Royal West African Frontier Force (RWAFF) to aid Lugard’s conquest of Northern Nigeria (Flint, 1960:160-167).Soon after the conquest of the Sokoto Caliphate, it became an instrument of oppression and was also used to maintain ‘‘law and order’’ in the colonial state. In 1956, when Nigeria was close to realizing political independence, its regiment of RWAFF was renamed rename the Nigerian Military Forces (NMF) (Miners, 1971). At independence, it was completely re-organized in pursuit of national security in the country and across its borders. In line with this objective, it was formally renamed the NAF in 1960, as the successor to the RWAFF, which was an imperial army.
Regrettable, however, various shades of conflicts became the reality of Nigerian immediately after its independence. The conflicts were largely ethno-religious, inter and intra conflict as well as a protracted Civil War between 1967 and 1970 (Olufemi and Adewale, 2017:720-729). These conflicts, according to Orhero (2020:361-374) were mostly the result of differing perceptions, colonial legacy, poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, religion, ethnicity, poor communication and dependence and competition for scarce and limited resources. The organization of political parties on regional lines did not help matters as it plunged Nigeria into crises, beginning from the First Republic, over vent for power and dominance on strategic fronts. Thus, since the attainment of political independence, the military has been brought out of the barracks to play active role in continuous management of conflicts.
Undoubtedly, the inter and intra party tussles generated tensions as was seen in the Action Group’s (AG) crisis of 1962, Census crises of 1962/63, federal election crisis of 1964 and the Western Region crisis of 19565. All of these put together contributed immenselyto the collapse of the First Republic in January1966and the rise to eminence of the military in Nigerian government and politics. The succeeding months engendered the major crisis in Nigeria; the Civil War that lasted between 1967 and 1970. Although the Nigerian military was involved in managing the earlier civil conflicts highlighted, its major role in conflict management came to the fore during the Civil War years. The conflict was the result of politico-economic tensions amongst the regional governments of Nigeria since the mid-1950s (Putt, 2023). Against the backdrop of the feeling of economic and political marginalization, the Biafran leader, Odumegwu Ojukwu announced the secession of the Eastern Region from Nigeria on the 30th of May, 1967, which was denounced by the Yakubu Gowon regime (Ugwueze, 2021:207-233).
It is important to note that the NAF was shouldered with the responsibility of suppressing the rebellion, maintaining law and order and preserving the unity and corporate existence of the country. Thus, the three branches of the NAF viz. Army, Navy and Air force played critical roles in the various aspects of conflict management during the war. Interesting, they deployed both military and non-military approaches in managing the conflict Ugwueze, 2021:207-233). At the forefront of the operation was the Nigerian Army. It launched numerous offensives aimed at recapturing the territories the Biafrans laid claims to. In the process, key strategic locations were secured trough conventional warfare tactics. It was supported by the Air Force, whose activities facilitated the army’s movements and logistics, by airlifting army personnel and ensuring regular necessary supplies across the conflicts zones (Siollun, 2020). On its part, the navy focused on securing the coastal areas and waterways of Nigeria to ensure external support for the secessionist fighters were tracked and halted. Consequently, it conducted patrols, imposed blockades and interdictions in order to disrupt maritime activities in favor of Biafra, which included the possibilities of arms smuggling (Siollun, 2020).
Apart from combat duties, the non-kinetic roles of the military in managing the conflict were particularly felt in the following areas according to Korieh (2013:727-740):
- The Nigerian Army in particular helped in the delivery of humanitarian assistance to civilians devastated by the conflict, especially in the Biafran strongholds. This was because of the widespread displacement of people, outbreak of diseases and famine that resulted from the conflict. In response to the directives of the federal military government, the military set up refugees’ camp, distributed relief materials and provided medical services to mitigate the sufferings of the people.
- The personnel of the Nigerian military were also deployed for peacekeeping operations, targeted at reconciliation during and after the war. In fact, they took active part in negotiations with the leadership of Biafra, geared towards finding lasting solutions to the conflict. Furthermore, their role in re-integrating former Biafran soldiers into the armed forces after the bloody war cannot be over-emphasized. These efforts contributed immensely in preserving the unity and corporate existence of Nigeria.
- Equally important was the role of the military in post-Civil War efforts. They assisted in rebuilding efforts such as infrastructure, restoring public services and post continuous security operations in war torn areas. Also, they facilitated the process of the demobilization of the combatants and their further reintegration into the larger society.
The post-war years witnessed continued crises such as ethno-religious conflicts, communal violence and political unrest. The military was involved in managing them either through direct military intervention or in partnering with civil authorities to restore order and stability. The most destructive conflict of the 1980s was the Maitatsine uprising in Northern Nigeria. The movement was led by one Muhammadu Marwa, a Cameroonian based in Kano. It was opposed to the secularity of the Nigerian state, vociferously condemned Western education, culture and technology (Adesoji, 2011:98-119).The first of the Maitatsine’s riot broke out on December 18 1980 and accounted for the death of 4000 persons. Other riots followed suit between 1980 and 1985, which killed and injured thousands of Muslims and Christians in the North (Adesoji, 2011:98-119). Being the first wave of religiously inspired violence in Nigeria, it bred ethno-religious tensions and discords between Muslims and Christians.
The Nigerian military was deployed by the Nigerian state to quell the uprising and to restore peace and order in the affected states. The military raided the group’s hideouts, targeted their leaders and had their weapons confiscated. This was achieved through intelligence gathering and engagement with leaders of the affected communities (Isichie, 1987:194-208). In addition, the military sought to understand the grievances that led young people to join the notorious group, so they can be addressed through community initiatives and dialogues(Isichie, 1987:194-208). The objective of the peaceful approach adopted by the Nigerian military was to counter radicalization, win the hearts of the youth and to achieve social cohesion in the long-run.
The reason being the realization that poverty and unemployment, in spite of the Oil boom of the 70s and 90s that many hoped would bring about transformation in the economic fortunes of Nigeria, accounted for the large membership of the group. Hence, the implementation of socio-economic programs to bridge socio-economic disparities and improve the living conditions of the people. This was in order to check the fertile ground upon which extremist ideologies flourish. These efforts of the military were pivotal to the restoration of peace and stability in Northern Nigeria.
However, the Abacha administration in the 90s approached conflict management unconstructively, through the use of excessive force, with little or no result. For example, personnel of the police and military force were deployed to resolve the Ife-Modakeke crises in 1997 but failed until the United States Agency for International Development/Office of International Initiatives (USAID/OTI) intervened (Orhero, 2020). The Olusegun Administration which started in 1999 followed suit, as it failed to pursuesolid grounds for conflict management. From the foregoing analysis, it is clear that the deployment of military in conflict management works better if peaceful means such as negotiations and community engagements are exploited maximally.
The Military’s Civil Conflict Management Strategies at the Turn of the 21st Century
It is highly unlikely that any keen observers will dispute the fact that terrorism/insurgency and counter insurgency operations have become major factors in world history at the turn of the 21st century. Nigeria is not an exception to this. In fact, Nigeria has become one of the most terror-stricken nations of the world. The reason being that the activities of terror groups have increased, as insurgents, militias and other dreaded terrorists groups seek to gain popularity and attention of the government through asymmetric conflicts that manipulate terror and violence (Arreguin-Toft, 2001:93-128). As such, terrorism and counterinsurgency operations have assumed a high level of significance in Nigeria’s security architecture (Eliagwu, 2003). But before the rise of terror in the century, the Sharia crises between the months of February and May 2000, marked an escalation in religious tensions in Northern Nigeria.
The crises broke out as a result of the introduction of the Islamic Sharia law in a state with a balanced Christian and Muslim population, Kaduna, resulting in the death of about 5000 people (Harnischfeger, 2008:16). The inability of the Police Force to bring the crises to an end led to the deployment of the army, which commendably restored law and order to the state.In addition, Jos, one of the peaceful cities of Nigeria, became a theatre of war and civil conflict management by members of the armed forces. It is eminently important to note that the rise and escalation of terror groups and violence in Nigeria is traceable to divergent historical factors. However, all are bound by a common denominator; discontent with state institutions (Miller, 2007:331). This explains why counterterrorism policies and actions against insurgent groupssuch as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) and Boko Haram (BH), differ and were/are in accordance with their ideologies and objectives.
The oil rich Niger Delta region of Nigeria has been a scene of communal, ethnic and political unrest. The clashes date back to the 1990s and are due to grievances resulting from poverty, environmental degradation and poverty, blamed on the neglect of government and the activities of multinational organizations and corporations (Ani & Chukwu, 2014:124-145). Thus, the rich resources of the zone has created more problems for its people instead of improving on their standard of living. The result has been incessant violent attacks on oil installations, bunkering, hostage taking and escalating insecurity, especially since the return to democracy in 1999.These activities were spearheaded by the youth under the auspices of the MEND, beginning in 2005, in order to gain the attention of local authorities in Nigeria and the international community (Williams, 2016:173-202). As a militant group, MEND’s struggles were resource control orientedand driven by the desire to secure a fair share of the oil deposits of their region. Consequently, they staged protests against the adverse effects resulting from oil explorations, which rendered many of their people farm-less and polluted rivers, where fishing activities take place.
On the other hand, BH is a radical Islamist group whose major objective is the creation of an Islamic caliphate because it is diametrically opposed to Western culture and education, which it considers forbidden(Williams, 2016:173-202. The wanton killings of innocent civilians by the group, through its violent attacks on helpless communities and innocent civilians, is reflective of the deep-seated problems of governance and extreme poverty in the northern part of the country.
What is unequivocal from the following is the fact that while both of them emerged on the backdrop ofeconomic crises/frustration and political instability, they brought to the table different types of conflicts, requiring different approaches to conflict management. For instance, while the ideology of BH is religion, aimed at institutionalizing Sharia law in Northern Nigeria, MEND was more of an ethnic nationalist group interested in reforms in revenue allocation within the Nigerian federation. In the case of Boko Haram, it began organized terrorism in response to military campaigns, which resulted in the extra-judicial killing of its leader, Mohammed Yusuf in 2009(Hoffman, 1995:273). Hence, the strategies adopted to resolve the conflicts were different and predicated on their drivers. They were also guided by the fact that total eradication of these groups was impossible without diplomatic overtures. It was against this background that military actions were carried out side by side with community engagements for the purpose of halting continuous radicalization of people by these groups.
The armed forces of Nigeria faced serious challenges in managing these uprisings. In the case of MEND, a multifaceted approach that brought together military operations, negotiations with the group and development initiatives were adopted (Udoh, 2013:63-93). The kinetic approach degraded the capability of the group and dismantled its infrastructure. This was in addition to targeted strikes, raids on their camps and constant naval patrol to tackle oil bunkering which had had adverse effects on the economy of Nigeria (Udoh, 2013:63-93). While the military operations were ongoing, channels of dialogues were left opened to enable the government address the legitimate grievances of the group and the people of the area. Most importantly, there was a departure from the excessive use of force under the regime of the late Umaru Musa Yar’adua, who unlike his predecessors, favored dialogue to resolve the issue once and for all. As part of his initiatives, an amnesty program that offered to rehabilitate, trained and re-integrate the militants into the society was introduced. As a result, thousands of militants were disarmed and peace gradually returned to the zone (Ebienfa, 2013:637-643).
Furthermore, managing the Boko Haram uprising was one of the biggest challenge faced by the military since its formation. This was due to their reliance on conventional military tactics to manage the conflict, while the group continued to wax stronger and evolve in their strategies. This informed the development of a comprehensive strategy that incorporates both conventional and non-conventional tactics of warfare. On the military fronts, offensives were launched to degrade their capabilities and reclaim territories under their control through operations that involved increased troops deployment, joint task force and partnership with regional states such as Cameroon, Niger and Chad (Williams, 2016). The multinational efforts with these neighbors enhanced cooperation and coordination through intelligence gathering and sharing, which helped to secure borders and limit the movements of the group’s fighters. In support of the military operations, the government worked towards achieving economic development and reduction in poverty, so as to address the root causes of the spread of the extremist ideology (Williams, 2016).
Another initiative of the military was the engagement of the affected communities in their counterinsurgency efforts. For instance, civilian security outlets were formed and an alliance between them and the military was forged. The initiative created a basis for joint efforts and operations by the Nigerian military, State Security Services, Civil Defence, the police force, vigilante groups, traditional leaders, the general public and experts in different areas of conflict management (Oriola, 2023). The involvement of these stakeholders provided vital information that aided their efforts in restoring normalcy in the northeast of Nigeria. Similar approaches have been deployed in tackling the farmers-herders crises as well as kidnappings in different zones of Nigeria.
Overall, the military has apart from its military operations in conflict zones helped to facilitate political peaceful negotiations amongst conflicting communities/parties. There are also occasions in which they mediated, especially when dialogue becomes necessary to achieving a lasting solution. In this regard, they have established temporary ceasefires and established safe zones to create conducive environments for peaceful negotiations and the safety of all participants. Be that as it may, it has been criticized in relation to strict adherence to human rights standards in its operations due to human rights abuses and instances of arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings during military operations. Interestingly, mechanisms for ensuring accountability of serving personnel in human rights matters have been put in place by the Nigerian government.
Conclusion
This paper has provided a historical review and analysis of the role of the Nigerian military in internal civil conflict management since independence. Thus, appraising its roles in democratic governance and the continuing corporate existence of the country, despite the numerous challenges it has faced. This praiseworthy role was made possible in coordination with civil authorities and sister security agencies, which enhanced the gathering and sharing of intelligence in joint operations against rebel groups. The paper argues that in addition to neutralizing threats posed by rebel groups in conflicts through the use of force, it hasalso contributed to civil conflict management process through capacity building and training programs for civilian law enforcement agencies, local community leaders, and other relevant stakeholders, aimed at conflict resolution and peace building. The empowerment of these community actors with the requisite skills and knowledge is geared towards the realization of sustainable peace and preventing the recurrence of conflicts.Equally important is the fact that, incidences of human rights abuses widely criticized both locally and internationally have beckoned on the military the need to operate within the framework of the rule of law. In pursuance of the said objective, personnel of the Nigerian military have received improved training and oversight mechanisms have also been put in place to ensure they adhere to international standard practices in military operations. This has deepened the fabric upon which civil-military relations flourish.
But given the nexus between good governance and development, the election of good leaders at all levels of governance holds the key to minimizing the rate of civil conflicts in Nigeria. This is because the absence of good governance and economic opportunities serves as a driver of violent crimes and insecurity in the society.Hence, only good leadership will guarantee the provision of basic social amenities and by implication, employment opportunities, which will engage the minds of the citizens in productive ventures and also reduce poverty.
References
Arreguin-Toft, I. (2001). “How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict.” International Security, 26, (1).
Adesoji, A.O. (2011). ‘‘Between Maitatsine and Boko Haram: Islamic Fundamentalism and the Response of the Nigerian State.’’ Africa Today, 57 (4).
Ani, K.J. and Chukwu, J.O. (2014). ‘‘Counterterrorism Operations In Nigeria.’’ World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 18, (1).
Bland, D. L. (1999). ‘‘A Unified Theory of Civil-Military Relations.’’ Armed Forces & Society, 26(1),7–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327×9902600102.
Elaigwu, V.A. (2003). The Military and the Management of Civil Crises in Nigeria 1960–93. Kaduna: Nigerian Defence Academy Press, 2003.
Ebienfa, K.I. (2011). ‘‘Militancy in the Niger-Delta and the Emergent Categories.’’ Review of African Political Economy, 38 (130).
Francis, D. (2007) “Peace and Conflict Studies: An African Overview of Basic Concepts.” In Best S. G. (ed) Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies in West Africa. Ibadan: Spectrum Books.
Flint, J. (1960). Sir George Goldie and the Making of Nigeria. London: Oxford.
Gaub, F. (2016). ‘‘Civil-military Relations in the MENA: Between Fragility and Resilience.’’ European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS).
Huntington, S. (1957). The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations.Vintage Books.
Herspring, D. (2005). The Pentagon and the Presidency: Civil-military Relations from FDR to
George W. Bush. University Press of Kansas.
Harnischfeger, J. (2008). Democratization and Islamic Law: The Sharia Conflict in Nigeria. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag Publishers.
Hoffman, B. (1995). ‘‘Holy Terror: The Implications of Terrorism Motivated by a Religious Imperative.’’ Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 18, no. 4.
Isichie, E. (1987). ‘‘The Maitatsine Risings in Nigeria, 1980-85: A Revolt of the Disinherited.’’ Journal of Religion in Africa, 17 (3).
Korieh, C.J. (2013). ‘‘Biafra and the Discourse on the Igbo Genocide.’’ Journal of Asian and African Studies, 48 (6). Doi: 10.1177/0021909613506455.
Levy, Y. (2012). ‘‘A Revised Model of Civilian Control of the Military: The Interaction Between the Republican Exchange and the Control Exchange.’’ Armed Forces & Society, 38(4).https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327×12439384.
Miners, N.J. (1971). The Nigerian Army 1956-1966. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.
Miller, G. (2007). ‘‘Confronting Terrorisms: Group Motivation and Successful State Policies.’’ Terrorism and Political Violence. 19 (3).
Olufemi, F.J. and Adewale, A.A. (2017). ‘‘The Role of Civil Society Organizations in Conflict Management in Nigeria.’’International Journal of Asian Social Science,2(5).
Otite, Onigu and O. Albert eds. (1999).Community Conflicts in Nigeria:Management, Resolution and Transformation. Ibadan: Spectrum.
Oriola, T. B. (2017). “Unwilling Cocoons: Boko Haram’s War against Women.’’ Studies in
Conflict and Terrorism, 40(2), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2016.1177998
Oriola, T.B. (2023). ‘‘Nigerian Troops in the War Against Boko Haram: The Civilian–Military Leadership Interest Convergence Thesis.’’ Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 49 (2). Sage Publications. DOI: 10.1177/0095327X211072894.
Orhero, A.E. (2020). ‘‘Conflicts and Crises in Nigeria: Management and Resolution for Peace Building.’’International Journal of Legal Studies (IJOLS), 7(1). DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0014.3127.
Putt, S. (2023). ‘‘The Nigerian Civil War: The Conflict that Captivated the World.’’ The Collector.
Ross, M.H., (1993) The Management of Conflict: Interpretations andInterests in Comparative Perspective, Yale University Press, andNew Haven.
Rapp, W. E. (2015).‘‘Civil–Military Relations: The Role of Military Leaders in Strategy Making.’’Parameters, 45(3).
Sandole, D. and Sandole-Staroste, E. (1987) (eds.)Conflict Managementand Problem-Solving: Interpersonal to InternationalApplications, New York University Press, NY.
Schiff, R. (1999). The Military and Domestic Politics A Concordance Theory of Civil-Military Relations. Routledge.
Siollun, M. (2020). ‘‘Nigeria is Haunted by its Civil War.’’ The New York Times.
Travis, D. S. (2017). ‘‘Saving Samuel Huntington and the need for Pragmatic Civil–Military Relations.’’Armed Forces & Society, 43(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327×16667287
Ugwueze, M. (2021). ‘‘Biafra Documentaries: Explaining Continual Resurgence of Secessionists Agitations in the South-East, Nigeria.’’Civil Wars, 23 (2). Doi: 10. 1080/13698249.2021.19o3781.
Udoh, I.A. (2013). ‘‘A Qualitative Review of the Militancy, Amnesty and Peace-building in Nigeria’s Niger-Delta.’’ Peace Research, 45 (2).
Williams, D.U. (2016). ‘‘The Role of Conflict Resolution in Counterterrorism in Nigeria: A Case Analysis of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) and Boko Haram (BH).’’ Peace Research, 48 (1/2).