Nigerians have experienced what it means for their government to be controlled by the military. From independence in 1960 until 1999, the country was under democratic rule for only about seven years. Since then, the military has taken a back seat in the affairs of the state. But in 2020, then president Muhammadu Buhari deployed the military to enforce restrictions imposed to manage the COVID pandemic.This was not unusual. The armed forces have long been used in Nigeria for roles normally assigned to the police, from quelling protests to responding to floods. In more than 30 states, troops were already involved in counter insurgency, anti-banditry, peacekeeping, and other security missions. COVID related orders extended this presence, making soldiers highly visible on patrols and roadblocks.The military’s tasks included enforcing curfews, dispersing gatherings and closing markets – functions usually handled by the police. Two presidential regulations under the Quarantine Act expanded the powers of the security agencies. Alongside enforcement, the military provided medical and logistical support. Military hospitals were used for treatment. The military assigned more than 220 personnel to the overstretched health sector. The Air Force moved medical supplies across the country, and military researchers joined regional vaccine collaborations.Nigeria’s armed forces number about 223,000, with more than two thirds of this number in the army. Without a robust reserve force, Nigeria’s regular troops remain the main option for emergencies.I am a security researcher, focusing on the evolving nature of civil-military relations and their implications for peace and security in Nigeria. In my contribution to the book Military Operations in Response to Domestic Emergencies and Global Pandemics, I wrote about treating a public health emergency as a security threat.I described how the Nigerian military demonstrated adaptability and reach during the pandemic by providing logistics and health support. But reliance on soldiers for civilian enforcement revealed serious costs: human rights abuses, corruption, weak oversight and the diversion of resources from security operations. In future emergencies, Nigeria needs a more balanced civil-military framework where soldiers act as partners in service rather than feared enforcers. Relying on soldiers for civilian tasks often has immense consequences.The accountability gapNigeria has laws authorising military deployment in aid of civil authorities under presidential order with parliamentary oversight. Section 217(2) of Nigeria’s constitution and section 8(3) of the Armed Forces Act permit internal deployment to restore order and maintain public safety. Section 218 subjects presidential authority to legislative checks and control. In practice, however, checks are weak. This was evident during the COVID deployment. Other issues evident from that time include: Command and scopeBuhari’s March 2020 address announcing lockdowns referred vaguely to security agencies, without formal authorisation for the military. Yet the Defence Headquarters declared its readiness to act. The ambiguity raised questions about authorisation of military deployments and constitutional compliance. With no clear rules of engagement, soldiers had wide discretion. Often, this translated into space for abuse and excessive use of force. Disproportionate punishment of curfew violators became the norm. Checks and balancesCourts hold the authority to review military action. But during the lockdown judicial deference to the executive and weak legislative scrutiny meant abuses of civilians went unchecked.Civilian leaders tolerated overreach for political expediency, giving the military more space in civilian matters than is acceptable in a democracy.The opportunity costsThe deployment of troops placed heavy strain on already stretched forces. Personnel and resources were diverted from counter insurgency and anti banditry campaigns. Armed groups, especially Boko Haram, shifted from targeting civilians to attacking the military, achieving initial successes despite countermeasures. They also intensified recruitment among people impoverished by lockdown job losses and spread misinformation to weaken public health messaging. More than 100 lives were lost and over 50 attacks by bandits were recorded in the north-west states of Sokoto, Zamfara, Katsina and Kaduna between April and July 2020.The closure of military schools and training centres and restrictions on gatherings had an impact on timely completion of training and readiness for missions.Lockdowns also coincided with a rise in armed robbery.CorruptionSoldiers at checkpoints extorted money from truck drivers and travellers, often ignoring official permits. COVID measures undermined The military approach undermined public health goals. Fear of troops discouraged cooperation with contact tracers, while corruption and unlawful violence deepened public distrust and resistance to preventive measures.In some areas, civilians refused to cooperate with health officials, obstructed patrols or withheld information about rule-breakers.Abuses The military’s reputation in domestic operations was already mixed, with critics citing unprofessionalism and human rights abuses in previous deployments. As the National Human Rights Commission report on COVID-19 enforcement observed, heavy handed enforcement of pandemic restrictions reinforced these perceptions.Abuses were widespread: curfew violators were beaten; health workers were harassed. In the first two weeks of enforcement, personnel killed 18 civilians, more than the virus had at that stage. Few of these cases were prosecuted and military trials lacked transparency.Lessons learntThe COVID-19 deployment illustrated persistent gaps in Nigeria’s civil-military relations. For future public health or disaster responses, Nigeria’s government could draw five main lessons:Clear authorisation: Internal military roles should be grounded in explicit presidential orders, endorsed and bounded by parliamentary legislation, with the scope and duration defined.Rules of engagement: Domestic missions need clear guidelines that stress minimal force, rights protection, and coordination with civil agencies.Stronger police capacity: Building police capability in equipment, training and community relations would reduce reliance on soldiers for enforcement. The military should focus on logistics and medical support.Effective oversight: Legislative committees and independent rights bodies must monitor deployments, investigate abuses promptly and refer all over-reach for immediate action.Rebuild public trust: Training on civilian engagement, human rights and inter-agency coordination would improve professionalism of personnel and restore the public legitimacy of the institution.Sallek Yaks Musa does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.