By Okey Ikechukwu
After reading the media reports on a conference organized by retired military officers described as associates of late Major General Rabe Abubakar (rtd.) calling for “comprehensive reforms” of Nigeria’s security architecture, following the retired general’s death in the hands of bandits, the question that came to my mind was this: “Are these gentlemen paying close attention to what they were saying, as military professionals?
In their call for “stronger security institutions, improved collaboration among security agencies, and increased investment in intelligence gathering and border control” did they think through the implications of their blanket statement and what it says about them in real terms?
But let us, before addressing the issues arising from the press conference, first extend our heartfelt condolences to the family, friends, colleagues and associates of the late Major General Rabe Abubakar. This was a fine officer and decent gentleman I knew personally. Professional, softspoken and totally bereft of any military swagger. My first contact with him was during a television programme, when he came on a joint talk show as military spokesperson.
His tragic death in the hands of criminals offends our every sense of what is right and is a painful loss to his loved ones and to a nation he served with distinction throughout his military career. As a retired officer, his place as part of the reservoir of human capital and institutional memory for national development, and even the training of military personnel, has been denied the nation by this unfortunate incident.
The nation has lost a patriot whose years of dedicated service to the defense and security of the country deserve to be remembered with honour and gratitude. We pray for him as a departed fellow human whose good deeds mark him out. We also pray that his family, friends and all those mourning him today find the strength and fortitude accept the obvious pain, in unconditional obedience to the Will of God.
The chorus among those who knew him, both professionally and personally, is: “He was a good man”. As I write, his wife, Hajia Amina Rabe Abubakar, who survived the ordeal of days of uncertainty and privation is currently recuperating; after being rescue by security personnel.
While acknowledging that it was obviously against this backdrop of grief, sense of bewilderment, sympathy and respect for the memory of the deceased that the “friends, colleagues and associates” of the late senior officer made their public statements, one is constrained to point out that a greater sense of propriety would have been advisable. Their concern about insecurity, especially in the face of such a heavy loss, is understandable. But the timing, implications for the conveners personally, as well as the purpose and substance of the media output arising therefrom left many who gathered a few days ago to review issues surrounding that unfortunate incident wondering what exactly the organizers hoped to achieve.
Where were these friends of Rabe from the moment he was kidnapped, until his unfortunate demise? That was when needed them, assuming there was anything in the form of material intervention that would have ameliorated the situation.
Three things were in the air when Rabe was abducted alongside his wife by bandits. First, the nation followed the tragic developments with great concern, wondering how anyone would be so daring as to abduct an army general, and even detain him upon knowing his identity. The second was that Nigerians expected his friends and associates to quickly rally and make visible efforts towards securing his release.
The third was that the public believed also that there must be some ongoing efforts to rescue him, but with great care being taken to avoid massive collateral damage, in the form of civilian casualties. We did not see his now-visible friends in public in some form of mobilization, evident engagement with the authorities, or any structured interventions on his behalf. Then, all of a sudden, they were talking about stronger security institutions without telling anyone exactly what they meant by that.
I personally find it unacceptable that senior military personnel, serving or retired, should, in anyway whatsoever, be seen mouthing the hollow chatter about “security architecture” we often hear from many ignorant politicians. That has been the pattern in the last fifteen years.
For the record, it is much easier to gather before television cameras after a tragedy, look badly shaken and concernedld, make general statements about national security and go home feeling important and believing that one has done something, than to actually do something worthwhile in the circumstances. The more impactful and far more meaningful thing is to stand forth, and in support of a colleague, when there is still an opportunity to influence events.
If these retired officers undertook significant efforts behind the scenes it might have made a difference, who know. So, if anything, they owe the public an explanation. What they were doing from the moment the news broke is not in the public domain. Their sudden, organized, emergence after the General’s death inevitably raised questions and invites scrutiny.
The timing of the conference is another issue. The gathering was held after Rabe’s demise. His wife had also already been rescued through the efforts of security forces. So, what practical purpose is served by the conference? Was it to help them organize a funeral, or organize support for his wife and family? The conference offered little indication of any concrete supportive initiatives, or ideas.
If it was it intended to honour his memory, then why did discussions quickly drift into broader political narratives that appeared only tangentially connected to the tragedy? What was particularly striking here was how quickly attention shifted from the late General Abubakar to arguments about regional perceptions of insecurity, selective outrage and the politics surrounding security discourse.
For one media report carry the headline as “Stop Blaming North For Insecurity, Rtd Generals Tell Nigerians”, it must mean that this entire engagement raised this uncomfortable but unavoidable question: “Was the conference truly about General Abubakar, or was his death merely the occasion for advancing pre-existing and as-yet-unclear narratives and motives?
At the aforementioned discussion on this matter, several participants who expected such a gathering to focus on his life, his service, lessons from his ordeal, support for his family, and recognition of those who contributed to the rescue of his wife wondered why their conversation revolved around the familiar talking points that have featured repeatedly in political speeches and public debates on insecurity.
One would also have expected greater emphasis on what led to the rescue of Hajia Amina Rabe Abubakar, what delayed it, etc. They would even then have been in a position to, after professional consultations with serving colleagues, helped in ensuring that tragic events do not overshadow public education on the courage, professionalism and sacrifice of those involved in difficult operations.
What makes the episode even more surprising is the calibre of the individuals involved. These are not ordinary citizens unfamiliar with matters of statecraft, public policy, security management or strategic communication. They are men who have occupied important public offices, served at strategic levels of national responsibility, worn senior military ranks, represented government institutions and participated in decision-making processes that shaped public affairs.
Several of them also hail from the same state as the late general and were therefore expected to appreciate the personal and emotional dimensions of the tragedy. If anyone should understand the importance of timing, judgement and strategic in communication in moments of crisis, it ought to be members of this group.
Their collective experience should have informed a more constructive response—one centred on supporting the family, honouring the deceased, commending those who secured the rescue of his wife and advancing practical recommendations for preventing similar tragedies.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the organizers ought to have known better. Their experience and standing should have guided them towards actions and utterances capable of making a tangible difference, either during the late general’s captivity or in supporting his family after the tragedy. Instead, what emerged was a public intervention that many may regard as ill-timed, poorly conceived and disconnected from the immediate concerns arising from General Abubakar’s death.
One cannot help but wonder what the late General Abubakar himself would have made of the spectacle. A professional soldier who devoted his life to service, discipline and national unity might well have expected his friends and colleagues to rally around him during his hour of need, not after his death. Rather than becoming the focal point of a campaign for his rescue, he became the subject of a conference convened only when there was nothing left to rescue except his memory.
Indeed, many Nigerians may feel that if the late general could speak today, he would be deeply disappointed that individuals claiming to be his friends chose to find their voices only after his death. At a time when solidarity, advocacy and collective action might have mattered most, there was little public sign of such efforts.
The tragedy is therefore not merely that a distinguished officer lost his life, but that those who now claim friendship appeared absent during the period when that friendship was needed most.
The fundamental issue, though, is not whether retired officers should express themselves the way they did. At the end of the day, Nigerians are entitled to ask some simple questions.
Until convincing answers are provided, many will continue to view the conference as an exercise that came too late, achieved nothing, tried to politicize security and raised more questions than it resolved. It is a sad irony that a gathering purportedly organised in honour of a fallen officer may ultimately be remembered less for celebrating his life and service and more for raising troubling questions about the judgment, timing and purpose of those who claimed to speak in his name.