Insecurity: Calls for sack of service chiefs are ‘out of place’ — Presidency

By DENNIS EREZI

Nigerian Government has said the demands for the sack of service chiefs is not the solution to the security challenges in the country.

“The clamour for the sack is out of place considering that the president is not subject to the opinion of opposition political party which has clamoured for this all the time,” presidential spokesman Garba Shehu said in an interview on Arise TV on Tuesday.

“It is entirely his (Buhari) determination; he decides who he keeps as his service chiefs and for how long.”

President Muhammadu Buhari has been under renewed pressure from critics, government oppositions and other citizens to reorganise the security architecture in the country after Boko Haram killed about 43 rice farmers at Zabarmari, in Jere Local Government of Borno State over the weekend.

The victims have been buried on Sunday with the state governor Babangana Zulum in attendance.

Buhari expressed grief over the killing of farmers on rice fields and described the terrorist killings as insane.

While Buhari said he has given an order to the military to confront Boko Haram, Nigerians are demanding the replacement of service chiefs who head different security agencies in the country.

But presidential spokesman Shehu said the appointment and sack of service chiefs are not tied to public demands.

“I am not aware that the tenure of service chiefs is subjected to any law or regulation that is clearly stated,” Shehu said. They serve at the pleasure of the president and (if) the president is satisfied with their performance, he keeps them. The buck stops at his table —with due respect to the feelings of Nigerians.”

Shehu had earlier criticised the slain farmers for going to their farmlands without military clearance.

Although the government had previously claimed that it had defeated Boko Haram but Shehu said it is not possible for military operatives to secure every part of the state at once.

He later said his statement was not aimed at being less-empathetic about the loss of lives but to emphasise the need for caution in working around the area. (The Guardian)