Is Chief of Defence Intelligence a service chief?, by Sadeeq Shehu
Straight off, No — the Chief of Defence Intelligence (CDI) is not classified as a Service Chief in the formal sense of the Nigerian Armed Forces. But I will explain
WHO THE SERVICE CHIEFS ARE
Under Nigeria’s military command structure, the Service Chiefs are:
1. Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) – heads the Armed Forces of Nigeria and coordinates all services.
2. Chief of Army Staff (COAS) – heads the Nigerian Army.
3. Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) – heads the Nigerian Navy.
4. Chief of Air Staff (CAS) – heads the Nigerian Air Force.
These four (especially the last three) are what is formally referred to as “Service Chiefs.”
WHERE THE CDI FITS IN — AND HOW THE APPOINTMENT WORKS (HISTORICALLY)
The Chief of Defence Intelligence heads the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) — Nigeria’s military intelligence arm and the military’s equivalent to DSS and NIA . The CDI reports to the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and functions as a Principal Staff Officer to the CDS within Defence Headquarters (even as he is located in a separate building outside DHQ Complex). Although he holds a 2-star rank (Major General, Rear Admiral, or Air Vice Marshal), the CDI is not a Service Chief and does not command a service.
HISTORICAL APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE:
The CDI appointment is a tri-service appointment, traditionally rotated in the order Army → Navy → Air Force. A look at the chronology would show that this rotation used to be followed consistently, with only a few exceptions.
When it is the turn of a particular service, the Service Chief of that service selects and submits the name of an officer, informs the President, and the appointment is then announced only within the military. The appointment of CDI used to be treated as a purely internal posting — with no excessive media publicity and no official statement from the Presidency.
The CDI serves as staff officer for intelligence to the CDS and concurrently reports to the President through the NSA, much like the DG DSS and DG NIA.
CDI appointments typically come after the public announcement of the CDS and Service Chiefs.
This procedure underscored that the CDI is not a presidential appointee, nor is he equivalent to a Service Chief. Traditionally, the officer appointed CDI was of lower seniority than the Service Chiefs, reinforcing the hierarchy. Only in recent cases did we start to have a CDI of equivalent or higher seniority to the Service Chiefs.
THE PMB SHIFT — HOW RECENT CHANGES ALTERED PERCEPTION
From the time of late President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) May Allah forgive his mistakes , significant shifts emerged as follows:
1. The CDI appointment began to be unveiled and announced at the same time as that of the CDS and the three Service Chiefs.
2. For the first time, the appointment was announced directly by the Presidency.
3. The CDI began to routinely attend Service Chiefs’ meetings with the President.
This practice, continued under PBAT, has blurred the lines between the CDI and Service Chiefs, creating a public and institutional perception especially from Nigerians not conversant with military matters , that the CDI is now their equivalent.
In my respectful view, a return to the original arrangement would help restore clarity, discipline, and a proper command structure between the CDS, the Service Chiefs, and the CDI.
HOW IT WORKS IN OTHER COUNTRIES — INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
Before I conclude , because military is an international profession , let us examine how it is done in other countries
a. United States
Equivalent: Director, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) (3-star Lt. Gen./Vice Adm.) Reports to: Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not a Service Chief and does not command troops.Selection / Appointment: The Director of the DIA is appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The appointment is approved by the President but is not subject to a high-profile political process like Service Chiefs or Combatant Commanders.The appointment often follows internal DoD vetting rather than public political debate.
b. United Kingdom
Equivalent: Chief of Defence Intelligence (3-star officer). Reports to: Chief of Defence Staff and Permanent Secretary for Defence. Functions as intelligence support, not operational command.Selection / Appointment: Appointed by the Permanent Secretary and the Chief of Defence Staff, with endorsement from the Secretary of State for Defence. It is an internal MoD appointment, often rotating between services. The Prime Minister is informed but does not make a formal political announcement.
Low media visibility — rarely announced with the Service Chiefs.UK CDI is selected internally by the Defence establishment and approved at ministerial level, not treated as a national political appointment.
c. France
Equivalent: Directeur du Renseignement Militaire (DRM) (3-star). Reports to: Chief of Defence Staff (CEMA). Distinct from Army, Navy, and Air Force Chiefs.Selection / Appointment: Nominated by the Chef d’État-Major des Armées (CEMA) — France’s equivalent of CDS. Appointed formally by the Minister for the Armed Forces (Ministre des Armées), with notification to the President. Appointment is internal and professional, not part of the high-profile military reshuffle cycle. Key takeaway: In France, the DRM Director is selected by the CDS equivalent and Defence Minister, with presidential concurrence — not appointed alongside Service Chiefs.
d. India
Equivalent: Director General, Defence Intelligence Agency (DG DIA) (3-star). Appointment rotates between services. Reports to: Chief of Defence Staff. Not a Service Chief, similar to Nigeria’s original model.Selection / Appointment: The DG DIA is appointed by the Chief of Defence Staff, in consultation with the three Service Chiefs.
It follows the rotation policy among the services. Approved by the Ministry of Defence, with presidential notification. Treated as staff to CDS, not a service command appointment. Usually announced internally, not in the media spotlight. Key takeaway: India’s DG DIA is appointed through an internal military process led by CDS and MOD, not as part of a political announcement.
CONCLUSION
The CDI is a key player in Nigeria’s national security and defence intelligence architecture.
He is a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee JIC (together with DG DSS, DG NIA , NSA as head) and contributes to strategic security decisions. However, unlike the COAS, CNS, and CAS, he does not command troops, nor does he lead a service. His mandate is intelligence coordination and strategic support, not operational command.
Across major military powers (U.S., U.K., France, India), the head of military intelligence equivalent Reports to the CDS or equivalent, Does not command a service, And functions as part of intelligence support architecture, not operational command.
Nigeria’s original CDI system pre PMB was fully aligned with global norms, ensuring clear hierarchy, professional order, and functional separation between command and intelligence.
The recent evolution under PMB and PBAT has blurred that clarity and risks institutional ambiguity.
MY FINAL THOUGHT: A return to status quo ante (which conforms to what obtains in most militaries) is strongly advisable to reinforce professional military hierarchy and discipline. This issue among others have been pointed out in the reports of several unimplemented reports of Committees for the reform of the Armed Forces of Nigeria.
Mr Shehu, a retired Airforce officer, security and defence analyst, writes from Abuja
