Nigeria’s long history of military rule is often remembered for coups that toppled civilian governments. Yet one of its most revealing episodes unfolded entirely within the armed forces themselves. On 27 August 1985, Major-General Muhammadu Buhari was removed from office by senior officers of the same institution that had installed him less than two years earlier. The change of power did not grow out of popular protest or public unrest. It emerged quietly from within the military hierarchy, reshaping the country’s political direction and redefining military authority.
From Civilian Collapse to Military Control
Buhari rose to power on 31 December 1983 following a military intervention that ended Nigeria’s Second Republic. The civilian administration of President Shehu Shagari had become associated with corruption, electoral malpractice, and economic decline. The military justified its takeover as a corrective mission, presenting itself as a disciplined alternative capable of restoring order and stability.
EXPLORE NOW: Military Era & Coups in Nigeria
Once in power, the new government suspended political activity, dissolved elected institutions, and centralised authority within the Supreme Military Council. The administration promised national renewal, insisting that discipline and obedience were essential foundations for recovery.
Governance by Discipline
The Buhari government operated through a firm and centralised leadership structure. Power was concentrated largely in the hands of Buhari and his deputy, Brigadier Tunde Idiagbon. Their approach prioritised command, control, and strict adherence to rules over consultation and political engagement.
The War Against Indiscipline became the most visible expression of this philosophy. Citizens were subjected to strict enforcement of regulations governing queuing, punctuality, sanitation, and public conduct. While many Nigerians initially welcomed the emphasis on order, the methods used to enforce compliance soon generated unease.
Political expression was restricted, press freedoms were curtailed, and dissent was treated as a threat to national stability. These measures reinforced the image of a government that ruled through authority rather than participation.
Economic Pressure and Policy Tensions
Economic conditions placed additional strain on the regime. Nigeria was facing declining oil revenues, foreign exchange shortages, and rising debt obligations. The government rejected several policy options promoted by international financial institutions, including currency devaluation and broad structural adjustment.
Instead, it imposed import restrictions, tightened fiscal controls, and pursued economic self-reliance. These policies failed to halt economic contraction and contributed to growing hardship. Within the ruling elite, disagreements intensified over the direction of economic management and the sustainability of rigid controls.
Unease Within the Armed Forces
Discontent was not limited to civilian society. Within senior ranks of the armed forces, Buhari’s leadership style generated quiet resentment. The concentration of power within a narrow leadership circle and limited consultation in governance matters alienated influential officers.
Issues surrounding promotions, command influence, and access to decision-making became sources of tension. Although the military appeared outwardly united, divisions were forming at the highest levels of authority, weakening internal cohesion.
The Palace Coup of August 1985
On 27 August 1985, the internal strains culminated in a carefully executed palace coup. Major-General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, then Chief of Army Staff, emerged as the central figure in the operation. The takeover was swift and largely bloodless, relying on control of military command structures rather than open confrontation.
There were no prolonged battles or mass troop movements on the streets. Buhari and Idiagbon were arrested and detained, bringing the regime to an abrupt end. The military announced the change of leadership through official broadcasts, presenting it as a necessary shift in direction.
A New Military Order
In his first address to the nation, Babangida cited economic stagnation, declining morale within the armed forces, and the need for a more inclusive leadership style. He criticised the rigidity of the previous administration and promised a more pragmatic approach to governance.
One of his earliest actions was the dissolution of the Supreme Military Council and its replacement with the Armed Forces Ruling Council. This change signalled a new governing posture. Military rule continued, but with greater political flexibility, broader engagement with technocrats, and a public commitment to reform.
Meaning and Consequences
The overthrow of Buhari highlighted the instability inherent in military governance. The armed forces, having assumed the role of national disciplinarian, proved unable to resolve internal disagreements without resorting to force. Leadership disputes were settled through coups rather than institutional processes.
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
By removing one of its own administrations, the military demonstrated that authority built solely on command and discipline could not guarantee unity or longevity. Internal divisions, once exposed, reshaped Nigeria’s political trajectory and deepened the military’s entanglement in governance.
Legacy
The events of August 1985 marked a turning point in Nigeria’s military era. Babangida’s rule would extend military dominance until 1993, embedding the armed forces more deeply in political life while promising gradual transition. The overthrow of Buhari remains a defining episode, illustrating how power within military regimes is often contested and unstable.
More than a change of leadership, the coup underscored the limits of rule by command. The military turned inward, and in doing so, revealed the fragile foundations of authority without consultation.
Author’s Note
The 1985 overthrow of Muhammadu Buhari shows how rigid authority can fracture even the most disciplined institutions. Built on control and obedience, the regime collapsed when internal consensus gave way to exclusion and resentment. The episode stands as a reminder that power sustained without inclusion ultimately invites resistance, even from within.
References
Siollun, M. Oil, Politics and Violence: Nigeria’s Military Coup Culture. Algora Publishing
Joseph, R. A. Democracy and Prebendal Politics in Nigeria. Cambridge University Press
Babangida, I. B. A Journey in Service. Bookcraft
