Professor of Political Science at the University of Ibadan, Prof. Dhikru Adewale Yagboyaju, has warned that Nigeria’s return to democratic rule has not ended the influence of military rule, saying its effects remain deeply embedded in the country’s political culture, institutions and governance.

Yagboyaju spoke at the Foreign Policy Lecture Series themed Political Army and Democratisation in Nigeria, 1966-2026, organised by the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) in Lagos.

The don, who presented the outcome of a study on the military and Nigeria’s democratisation process, said although the military had stayed away from direct political governance since 1999, its influence continued to shape political developments, including the emergence of political leaders and the conduct of elections.
He said the military had ruled Nigeria for 27 of the 39 years between independence and the return to civilian rule in 1999, making its influence on the country’s political development difficult to erase.

According to him, despite the physical withdrawal of the military, we have evidence of hangover effects of military rule in civilian civilisation in Nigeria.

Yagboyaju said the enduring influence of military culture could be seen not only in politics but also in everyday life, citing the proliferation of “military zone” signs, military stickers, camouflage, caps and other military symbols in civilian spaces.

He, however, stressed that the military remained a noble profession whose primary responsibility was to defend Nigeria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, insisting that it had no political mandate to govern.
The don said the January 1966 coup marked the beginning of a costly experiment that fundamentally altered Nigeria’s political trajectory, particularly when the military administration replaced the country’s federal structure with a unitary system.

He described the decision as evidence of the military’s poor understanding of Nigeria’s diversity, arguing that the country’s complex ethnic and regional composition made centralised governance particularly unsuitable.

According to him, the military’s intervention also came at a huge cost to its own professional standing, as an institution associated with discipline, precision and professionalism became exposed to corruption, opportunism and incompetence.
Yagboyaju further argued that military rule weakened citizens’ rights through the abrogation of constitutions, restriction of political participation and suppression of political freedoms.

He said the era was also characterised by state-sponsored violence, political repression and attempts by military rulers to remain in power for prolonged periods without being subjected to democratic accountability.

The don noted that the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election and the events that followed under the military regime further damaged Nigeria’s international reputation, resulting in diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions.

He said the country’s foreign policy was consequently forced to respond to the negative global image created by military rule.
According to him, the return to democracy had brought some benefits to the military, including renewed international cooperation in training, equipment and professional reorientation, as well as increased defence budgetary allocations.

However, he said the military had struggled to adjust psychologically from being a dominant political force to operating under civilian authority.

Yagboyaju identified the military’s alleged behind-the-scenes influence in determining political succession as one of the manifestations of this adjustment problem.