The true cost of neglecting Nigeria’s military

Nigeria’s worsening security challenges have exposed a truth that has been decades in the making; that is, no nation can expect its armed forces to defend it effectively while neglecting the welfare, professionalism and institutional capacity of those entrusted with that responsibility. President Bola Tinubu‘s approval of a substantial salary increase for military personnel is therefore more than a welcome intervention. It is an acknowledgement that years of inadequate investment in the men and women who safeguard the country’s territorial integrity have exacted a heavy price, measured not only in declining morale but also in the nation’s ability to respond to increasingly complex security threats.

With junior personnel expected to receive salary increases of up to 80 per cent and the Armed Forces’ annual wage bill projected to rise from about ₦660 billion to ₦924 billion from September, the decision marks one of the most significant improvements in military welfare in decades. It also presents an opportunity to confront a larger question. Can better pay alone reverse years of institutional decline, or has the time come for a comprehensive rebuilding of Nigeria’s security architecture?

The announcement deserves commendation. Yet it should also serve as a reminder that Nigeria’s security crisis did not emerge overnight, nor was it caused solely by inadequate pay. It is the culmination of decades of institutional neglect, inconsistent defence planning, procurement failures, corruption and the gradual erosion of the professional foundations upon which military effectiveness depends.

Nigeria once possessed one of Africa’s most respected armed forces. During the civil war and in subsequent peacekeeping operations across Liberia, Sierra Leone and elsewhere under ECOWAS and the United Nations, Nigerian troops earned international recognition for professionalism, courage and operational competence. That reputation was sustained by rigorous training, institutional pride and a clear understanding of the military’s strategic role.

The years that followed witnessed a gradual decline. Economic pressures from the 1980s, changing national priorities and prolonged military rule shifted attention away from the systematic development of the armed forces. Defence budgets often increased on paper, yet improvements in the lives of rank-and-file personnel remained limited. Barracks deteriorated into overcrowded settlements with inadequate sanitation and ageing infrastructure. Military hospitals struggled with obsolete equipment and shortages of essential supplies. Welfare programmes became increasingly inadequate, while pensions and allowances frequently attracted complaints over delays and administrative bottlenecks.

Perhaps nowhere did these deficiencies become more visible than during the Boko Haram insurgency. Soldiers deployed to some of the country’s most dangerous battlefields repeatedly raised concerns over inadequate protective equipment, obsolete weapons, insufficient intelligence support and delayed operational allowances. Reports emerged of troops purchasing basic items with personal funds, while others complained about poor accommodation and limited support for their families during lengthy deployments. Some soldiers faced court martial after protesting conditions they believed compromised their ability to fight effectively. Although substantial investments have since been made in equipment and air power, those episodes exposed deep structural weaknesses that had accumulated over many years.

Low morale is not an abstract concern. It influences recruitment, retention, discipline and operational performance. A soldier worried about unpaid entitlements, inadequate healthcare for family members or dilapidated accommodation cannot devote complete attention to demanding operational responsibilities. Modern warfare requires not only weapons and intelligence but also confidence that the institution values those who risk their lives in its service.

The welfare challenge extends beyond salaries. Housing remains inadequate for many personnel, forcing thousands to seek accommodation outside military formations. Healthcare services require sustained investment. Educational opportunities for military families deserve expansion. Veterans frequently struggle with rehabilitation and post-service support, while families of fallen personnel often encounter bureaucratic delays before receiving benefits to which they are entitled. These shortcomings diminish public confidence and discourage talented young Nigerians from viewing military service as a viable long-term career.

The salary increase therefore represents an important beginning rather than a complete solution. Welfare must be understood as part of a broader security architecture that integrates training, logistics, intelligence, technology and institutional accountability. Better pay cannot compensate for weak procurement systems that delay critical equipment or inflate contract costs. It cannot replace effective intelligence gathering or modern surveillance capabilities. It cannot resolve inter-agency rivalry or eliminate corruption that diverts resources from operational needs.

Other nations offer useful lessons. Professional militaries in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States combine competitive remuneration with sustained investment in training, family support, housing, healthcare, veterans’ services and transparent procurement. Personnel welfare is treated as an operational necessity because governments recognise that national security begins with the wellbeing of those responsible for defending the state.

Nigeria must adopt the same philosophy. Defence procurement should become more transparent without compromising operational security. Indigenous defence manufacturing should receive greater support to reduce dependence on costly imports. Military housing requires comprehensive renewal, while healthcare facilities, rehabilitation programmes and veterans’ services deserve sustained funding. Intelligence capabilities must continue evolving to match increasingly sophisticated criminal networks. Equally important is strengthening cooperation among the armed forces, intelligence agencies and law enforcement institutions to ensure that security operations are guided by coordination rather than institutional rivalry.

The financial commitment announced this week will undoubtedly increase pressure on public finances at a time when government resources remain stretched. Nevertheless, the cost of neglecting military welfare has proved far greater. Every successful terrorist attack, every community displaced by bandits and every life lost because security institutions lack the capacity to respond carries economic and social consequences that far exceed the price of investing in capable armed forces.

Ultimately, a nation’s military reflects the seriousness with which it approaches its own survival. Nigeria cannot aspire to lasting security while expecting soldiers to bear extraordinary burdens without corresponding institutional support. The latest salary adjustment is therefore welcome, but history cautions against viewing it as the destination. Unless accompanied by enduring reforms that restore professionalism, strengthen accountability and modernise every aspect of military capability, today’s announcement will become another isolated intervention remembered more for its symbolism than its lasting impact.

The country’s security challenges demand something more ambitious. They require rebuilding the institution itself. Only then will improved welfare translate into a stronger military, a more resilient security architecture and a safer Nigeria.