Proximity, Not Merit, Wins Again
by Abdulrauf Aliyu
December 12 arrived with a note that stirred disbelief across military and civilian circles alike. A memo, circulating online, reportedly from the Office of the National Security Adviser, announced the “special presidential promotion” of Colonel Nurudeen Alowonle Yusuf, aide de camp to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to the rank of Brigadier-General. Initially, I thought it a misreading, a trick of rumour spreading faster than reality. But by December 14, Premium Times and The Cable had reported the story with details too precise to dismiss. The memo was real, and with it, a quiet tremor passed through the corridors of power and the barracks alike.
Retired Group Captain Sadeeq Shehu, a voice of blunt authority on security matters, captured the moment’s gravity on his Facebook page. He did not frame it as a question of personal favour or grievance. His concern was systemic. In his words, “rank is not a gift to be arbitrarily conferred. It is earned through diligence, experience, and proven service. When this principle is suspended, the institution bends at its spine, even if its outward form appears intact.”
The striking element in this case is the speed and scale of the leap. Colonel Yusuf became a Colonel only last year. The implications of this acceleration are subtle, but profound. It sends a message that proximity to power, rather than cumulative service or operational experience, determines advancement. For officers and soldiers exposed to daily risks far from the comforts of office, this message is neither theoretical nor abstract.
The Mechanics of Morale
Promotions in the military are more than administrative exercises; they are instruments of organizational rhythm and morale. When officers understand that rank is tied to performance, effort, and time served, the institution thrives; but when it becomes a matter of convenience or access, the structure begins to wobble.
Consider the officer in a remote post, facing harsh conditions and daily danger, counting the months and years until eligibility for promotion. Now imagine seeing a colleague leapfrog into the next rank without undergoing the same scrutiny, bypassing the crucible of service that defines competence. The effect is corrosive. Respect for authority erodes, motivation declines, and ambition reorients itself toward comfort and visibility rather than skill and service.
The military depends on a predictable cadence. Time-in-rank, professional evaluations, and board-based selection create a framework where officers compete fairly and understand the pathway to advancement. Circumventing this process, as the alleged memo suggests, fractures expectations and subtly reshapes the culture. Incentives shift away from duty and courage, toward access and proximity. Over time, this recalibration threatens the very coherence and effectiveness the institution depends upon.
Courage Quietly Ignored
The consequences extend beyond procedure and perception. Officers deployed in theaters of conflict risk life and limb with the expectation that diligence, courage, and resilience will be recognized. Many have not yet seen that recognition materialize. Meanwhile, those stationed near the centers of power receive accelerated advancement, with all the ceremonial honours and privileges that accompany it.
This is not merely a matter of personal grievance. It is a matter of operational ethics. When rank is perceived as a function of convenience rather than capability, the lessons transmitted to the corps are toxic. Officers begin to ask not what will make them better leaders, but what will keep them visible, comfortable, and near influence. Initiative in the field may be discouraged. The desire for visibility replaces the need for judgment. Professionalism is reshaped around expedience rather than mastery.
The system, when it functions properly, channels ambition toward competence. When shortcuts appear sanctioned, ambition is diverted toward proximity. The effect is cumulative and subtle. Over time, a force may appear intact but becomes less reliable, less disciplined, and less prepared to respond to the demands of the field. The cost is often invisible until it manifests catastrophically.
Procedural Breaches and Institutional Risk
The alleged promotion raises further concern because of how it was processed. Reports suggest the memo moved directly from the Office of the National Security Adviser to the Chief of Army Staff, bypassing the Minister of Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff. In any disciplined organization, chain-of-command integrity is not ceremonial; it is a mechanism of accountability. Circumventing these channels may appear expedient, but it undermines trust and authority.
The military’s credibility relies on rules being more than suggestions. They must be enforced consistently and transparently. Deviations signal that rules are negotiable, and once negotiable, they begin to lose their power. Officers internalize these lessons. Subtle at first, the shift becomes institutional over time. Habits of circumvention become expected. Authority becomes performative rather than substantive. The very framework designed to maintain cohesion and professionalism begins to erode.
This is not speculation. It is observation. Institutions where access matters more than competence often produce officers skilled at navigating corridors of power, but less capable in the field. Discipline becomes situational, and the operational effectiveness of the organization suffers. Those on the front line, who cannot negotiate proximity, bear the cost silently.
Preserving the Covenant of Service
Colonel Yusuf’s competence is not the question. The institution is. Soldiers and officers deserve a system that values courage, skill, and dedication above political convenience. Promotions must be predictable, merit-based, and procedurally sound. Anything less is an erosion of trust, a quiet recalibration of priorities, and an invitation for institutional decay.
Principled dissent, as Shehu suggests, is necessary. Leadership must reinforce the rules, uphold the chain of command, and ensure that promotions remain grounded in law and operational assessment. The moment calls for clarity and action. Every shortcut tolerated today sets a precedent for tomorrow, recalibrating expectations and ambitions in ways that will affect generations of officers.
Rank is not a ceremonial honour; it is a covenant. Breaking it may appear convenient in the short term, but the long-term consequences are severe. Officers learn to value proximity over service. Cohesion fractures quietly. Morale wanes. Performance in the field declines imperceptibly until crisis reveals the full cost. Soldiers exposed to danger deserve assurance that merit and sacrifice will be recognized. Anything less is betrayal, not merely of individuals, but of the institution itself.
December 12 may be remembered for the memo, but the story is about more than a single promotion. It is about the values that define an institution. It is about how ambition, discipline, and professionalism are cultivated or undermined. It is about ensuring that those in operational theaters understand that their courage, skill, and diligence are recognized and rewarded. It is about protecting an institution from the quiet erosion that comes when convenience supplants competence.
As the dust settles and the story circulates, the question remains: will leadership act to preserve process, fairness, and trust, or will expedience continue to rewrite the rules quietly? The consequences of inaction will not be immediate, but they will be inevitable. Institutions remember the lessons taught by actions more than words, and once the lesson is learned that proximity outweighs merit, reversing it becomes almost impossible. Our politicians must remember that in the military, rank is earned, not granted, and that integrity is the only foundation upon which long-term institutional strength can be built.
