By Bishop C. Johnson
Retired U.S. Army Captain & Security Strategist
A retired United States Army Captain and security strategist, Bishop C. Johnson, has cautioned that military officers are obligated to obey only lawful orders issued through the established chain of command—not the directives of retired generals, former commanders, or political office holders.
Johnson, who weighed in on recent national debates regarding the limits of military obedience, stressed that no professional armed force functions on the basis of personal influence or informal authority. According to him, the integrity of the military depends on strict adherence to constitutional and legal command structures.
“In every professional military, officers must obey only lawful orders,” he said. “They are not required to follow operational directives issued by retired Generals, retired Admirals, or political figures—no matter how influential those individuals may be. The system collapses when those outside the lawful chain of command can issue instructions.”
Johnson explained that both in the United States, where he served, and in other democratic nations, an officer’s oath is to the constitution—not to individuals. This design, he noted, protects the military from political capture, manipulation, or personal interference by former officials who no longer hold command authority.
Lawful Orders Only
He emphasized that a lawful order must satisfy three conditions:
-
It must originate from a competent authority within the chain of command.
-
It must serve a legitimate military purpose.
-
It must comply with the constitution and military law.
“If any of these conditions fail, the officer is obligated to refuse the directive—even if it comes from a respected retired General or a powerful political office holder,” he said.
Nigeria’s Legal Framework Aligns
Johnson noted that Nigeria’s Constitution and Armed Forces Act reinforce the same principle: the military is not subject to the personal control of former commanders or political actors outside the lawful command structure.
“To preserve professionalism, national stability, and democratic integrity, the armed forces must remain guided strictly by law—not by pressure or influence from individuals, regardless of their past rank or political relevance,” he added.
Understanding the Oath
Johnson highlighted a key distinction in U.S. military oaths: enlisted personnel swear to obey orders from the President and officers, while commissioned officers swear loyalty only to the Constitution. Warrant officers take the same oath as commissioned officers.
He explained that this system ensures officers do not become tools of political leaders, former commanders, or personalities with undue influence.
Unlawful Orders Must Be Rejected
Johnson listed examples of unlawful orders that officers are trained to reject, including directives to harm unarmed civilians, falsify reports, commit torture, deploy troops without legal authority, or act outside the chain of command.
“Officers must analyse orders, determine their legality, and refuse those that violate the Constitution or military law. Obeying an unlawful order is itself a criminal act,” he warned.
Context of Ongoing Civil-Military Debate
Johnson’s position comes amid heightened public discussion about political figures summoning or directing military personnel outside appropriate channels. He stressed that professional military ethics require officers to resist such pressures.
“This is the foundation of modern civil-military relations,” he said. “The military’s loyalty is to the nation and its laws—not to individuals.”
