Nigeria’s post-independence history was marked by a series of military coups that reshaped its political landscape. Between 1966 and 1990, the country witnessed coups that successfully changed governments and others that failed within hours. Understanding why some coups succeeded while others failed requires examining the military structure, senior officer decisions, operational control, and political context.
Control of Command and Strategic Assets
A decisive factor in the outcome of coups in Nigeria was the ability to seize military command centres and communication hubs. Successful coups quickly secured Defence Headquarters, regional military commands, and national broadcasting stations, ensuring operational control.
EXPLORE NOW: Military Era & Coups in Nigeria
The January 1966 coup failed because it did not achieve nationwide control. While senior political leaders were eliminated, key military units remained outside the coup’s influence, allowing loyal officers to restore order. Conversely, the July 1966 counter coup succeeded through coordinated action across multiple commands, particularly in the Northern region, consolidating power rapidly.
Role of Senior Officers
In Nigeria, senior officers determined the success or failure of coup attempts. Junior officers could initiate plots, but without the backing or acquiescence of senior commanders, coups rarely succeeded.
The 1985 removal of General Muhammadu Buhari illustrates this reality. Buhari’s government collapsed when senior officers withdrew their support, allowing the coup to succeed without widespread conflict. On the other hand, the 1990 Gideon Orkar coup failed because senior commanders remained loyal to the existing regime, enabling rapid suppression of the rebellion.
Ethnic Balance and Military Cohesion
Ethnic dynamics played a critical role in military cohesion after 1966. The perception that the January 1966 coup disproportionately targeted Northern officers created divisions within the armed forces. This factor contributed directly to the July counter coup.
Later coups were carefully structured to avoid ethnic imbalance, with appointments and postings designed to maintain stability within the military. Where coups threatened this balance, resistance from loyalist officers undermined their objectives.
Operational Speed and Communication
Timing and coordination were vital. Successful coups moved swiftly and ensured uninterrupted control of communication channels.
The 1976 Dimka coup failed largely because plotters could not maintain control of national radio broadcasting and failed to neutralise loyalist forces, allowing the chain of command to reassert authority. In contrast, coups that acted decisively over multiple regions secured authority before opposition could respond.
Intelligence and Internal Security
By the late 1980s, the Nigerian military had developed effective internal intelligence and surveillance systems. This made secrecy difficult and early detection of coup plots possible, reducing their chance of success. The evolving internal security structures played a key role in preventing coups and maintaining order during later years of military rule.
Political Context and Civilian Institutions
Weak civilian political structures during the early post-independence era created conditions that made military intervention possible. However, coups were driven by internal military dynamics rather than public support. Later, as political institutions strengthened and civil awareness increased, military coups became more challenging to execute.
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
The success or failure of military coups in Nigeria was shaped by institutional control, senior officer alignment, operational coordination, ethnic considerations, and intelligence capacity. While public sentiment and international opinion were peripheral, the decisive factors lay firmly within the structure and behaviour of the armed forces.
Author’s Note
This article highlights the key reasons why some Nigerian military coups succeeded while others failed. Control of command structures, loyalty of senior officers, ethnic balance, operational speed, and intelligence capacity were central. Understanding these factors provides insight into the mechanisms of power and military influence in Nigeria’s history, showing that the fate of coups was determined largely by institutional readiness and internal coordination, not popular opinion.
References
Max Siollun, Oil, Politics and Violence: Nigeria’s Military Coup Culture
Toyin Falola and Matthew Heaton, A History of Nigeria
Nigerian Defence Headquarters archival records and post coup tribunal finding
