Build, Don’t Buy: ISN Throws Weight Behind Buratai’s Defence Technology Campaign

The Institute of Security, Nigeria (ISN) has called on the Federal Government to urgently prioritise the development of indigenous defence capabilities as a matter of national survival, warning that continued over-reliance on foreign military imports undermines Nigeria’s sovereignty, drains the economy, and compromises operational readiness.

In a policy advocacy statement released today, the Institute declared that “Nigeria cannot buy its way out of insecurity—we must build our way out,” endorsing the recent challenge issued by former Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant General Tukur Yusufu Buratai CFR, dfisn, at the International Security Conference on Africa in Kigali.

General Buratai had called on African policymakers to end over-dependence on imported defence technologies, arguing that security sovereignty cannot be outsourced.

READ ALSO: Osun Governorship Election: Adeleke Wins 19 LGs, APC’s Oyebamiji Secures 11 LGs

The Institute said it aligned fully with this position, noting that in an era of terrorism, cyber threats, and asymmetric warfare, the path to stability runs through autonomous defence industries powered by robust university-industry-military linkages.

THE CURRENT REALITY

The Institute painted a stark picture of Nigeria’s current defence procurement landscape, revealing that the nation still imports between seventy and eighty percent of major defence platforms. Maintenance, spare parts, and upgrades remain externally controlled, affecting operational readiness and inflating costs.

“Foreign manufacturers often dictate timelines, pricing, and technology transfer terms, leaving Nigeria in a perpetually dependent position,” the statement read. “When active operations are underway, supply chain vulnerabilities create dangerous delays. Political conditionalities attached to arms sales further compromise our ability to respond decisively to threats.”

The Institute noted that this dependency is not merely a security concern but an economic one, with billions of naira leaving the country annually for defence procurement—funds that could otherwise stimulate local industries, create jobs, and drive technological innovation.

PROGRESS MADE, BUT FRAGMENTED

While acknowledging significant strides made in recent years, the Institute emphasised that these gains remain fragmented and lack the coherence of a national defence industrial strategy.

The Defence Industries Corporation of Nigeria (DICON) has recorded notable achievements in producing small arms, ammunition, and armoured personnel carriers in partnership with private firms. The National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure (NASENI), together with Air Force Research and Development Centres, is making progress in developing unmanned aerial vehicles, communication systems, and indigenous aircraft maintenance capabilities.

The private sector has also risen to the challenge. Innoson Motors is producing armoured vehicles for military and civilian use, while Proforce and other manufacturers are producing mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles that have seen active service in counter-insurgency operations. Academic institutions including Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, the Federal University of Technology Owerri, and the University of Lagos are running defence-related research programmes.

“These gains are real but fragmented,” the Institute stated. “Scale, sustained funding, and institutional coordination remain lacking. What exists is a patchwork of isolated initiatives rather than a coherent national defence industrial strategy.”

THE TRIPLE HELIX MODEL

At the heart of the Institute’s recommendations is what it describes as a “Triple Helix Model” integrating universities, industry, and the military into a unified defence innovation ecosystem.

Universities must align curricula with defence needs, producing graduates who are practically oriented. Industry must scale production, standardize quality, and commercialise innovations. The military must define operational requirements, provide testing grounds, and integrate indigenous platforms into doctrine and field operations.

“Without this linkage, research remains in academic journals, and procurement remains abroad,” the Institute warned. “Each pillar working in isolation fails; all three working together succeed.”

STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ROLES

The Institute highlighted the critical roles of current and former military leaders in driving this agenda forward.

General Buratai, the Institute noted, serves as a strategic thinker and advocate for military modernization. During his tenure from 2015 to 2021, he prioritized local content in army procurement, expanded civil-military cooperation, and championed doctrine for internal security operations. His continued advocacy provides intellectual and political momentum.

General Christopher Musa CFR, the Chief of Defence Staff, was urged to drive joint procurement policy that prioritises indigenous platforms and enforce standardisation across all services. His office, the Institute said, is uniquely positioned to break down inter-service barriers and create unified demand for indigenous products.

Lieutenant General Waidi Shaibu, the Chief of Army Staff, was called upon to deepen army-university partnerships for research and development and ensure field commanders provide structured feedback to industry based on operational experience.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Institute proposed a comprehensive framework it has termed the INDIGENOUS DEFENCE CAPACITY ACT FRAMEWORK, with six key pillars.

First, the National Assembly should enact legislation mandating a minimum of twenty percent of the defence budget for local research and development and procurement. DICON and NASENI must be protected from political interference through statutory independence.

Second, a National Defence Innovation Fund should be established, jointly managed by the Ministry of Defence, the National Universities Commission, and industry representatives, to finance university-military research projects through competitive grants.

Third, a Defence Innovation Council should be established, comprising serving Generals, Vice Chancellors, Industry Chief Executive Officers, and Registry professionals, to set national defence research and development priorities.

Fourth, a compulsory internship and service year placement programme should be instituted for engineering graduates in DICON, NASENI, and military research and development units.

Fifth, progressive local content requirements should be established, with forty percent of non-lethal requirements sourced locally within three years and twenty-five percent of lethal requirements within five years.

Sixth, an annual parliamentary review of local content compliance should be conducted, with penalties for non-compliance and incentives for exceeding targets.

CALL TO ACTION

The Institute concluded with an urgent call to the Presidency, the National Assembly, the Ministry of Defence, and University Councils to act without delay.

“General Buratai’s call is timely and urgent,” the statement read. “Nigeria cannot buy its way out of insecurity—we must build our way out. The path forward requires not only political will but institutional commitment, professional expertise, and sustained investment.”

“With strategic leadership from General Musa and Lieutenant General Shaibu, and with universities, industry, and the military working as one, Nigeria can achieve defence autonomy, economic stability, and regional leadership.”

The Institute quoted General Buratai’s closing remark at the Kigali conference: “A nation that cannot defend itself with its own hands and brains cannot be free.”

ENDS

FOR FURTHER ENQUIRIES:

BARRISTER ADEBAYO AKINADE, dfisn

DEPUTY PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

INSTITUTE OF SECURITY, NIGERIA

Email: bayoakinade77@gmail.com / bayoakinade@yahoo.co.uk

Issued by the Institute of Security, Nigeria — Advancing Security Through Research, Policy, and Professional Excellence