The Nigerian Army has dismissed claims made by a former soldier, Rotimi Olamilekan, popularly known as “Soja Boi,” describing them as misleading and inaccurate.
In a statement shared via its official social media platform, the Army said Olamilekan, an ex-lance corporal, was not dismissed for speaking out or criticizing political leadership, as alleged.
“The Nigerian Army categorically states that Mr. Olamilekan was not dismissed for ‘speaking the truth’ or expressing opinions on political leadership,” the statement said.
It explained that his dismissal followed repeated acts of indiscipline and violations of military regulations, including breaches of the Armed Forces Social Media Policy.
“He was dismissed following persistent and grave acts of indiscipline, including violations of the Armed Forces Social Media Policy,” the Army added.
According to the Army, personnel are bound by a strict Code of Conduct and the Armed Forces Act, which prohibit unauthorized media engagements, misuse of military identity, and partisan activities.
“Unauthorised media appearances, commercialisation of military identity, partisan content creation and misuse of military uniform constitute clear breaches of established regulations,” it stated, noting that due process was followed before his dismissal.
Responding to claims about poor welfare and remuneration, the Army said its salary structure is well-defined and transparent.
“The Nigerian Army operates a well-structured and transparent salary system, where earnings are determined by rank and years of service,” the statement noted.
It added that, beyond monthly salaries, personnel receive uniform allowances and other entitlements paid directly into their accounts.
On welfare for troops in active service, the Army said soldiers deployed for operations are entitled to additional benefits.
“Troops deployed on operations or assigned to duties outside their units receive Ration Cash Allowance, Habit Allowance, in addition to free feeding arrangements,” it said.
The Army also dismissed allegations that soldiers are required to purchase their own uniforms and protective gear, including bulletproof vests and helmets.
“The claim that soldiers are required to purchase uniforms and protective equipment… is entirely false,” the statement said.
It maintained that the provision of uniforms, kits, arms, ammunition, and operational gear remains the responsibility of the institution.
“Dedicated ordnance units oversee the procurement, storage, and issuance of these items to ensure troops are adequately equipped for operations,” it added.
While acknowledging that some personnel may choose to supplement issued kits, the Army stressed that such actions are voluntary.
“Such actions are voluntary and do not indicate any systemic failure,” it said.
The Army further insisted that no soldier is sent to the battlefield without proper protection.
“For the avoidance of doubt, no soldier is deployed to an operational theatre without the necessary protective equipment,” it stated.
Describing contrary claims as harmful, the Army warned that such narratives could undermine public confidence and troop morale.
“The assertion that troops operate without protective gear is not only false but also reckless,” it said.
The Army reaffirmed its commitment to discipline, accountability, and the welfare of its personnel, noting that operational decisions are guided by strategic requirements.
