President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s approval of a 30 to 80 per cent salary increase for personnel of Nigeria’s armed forces is a significant response to a long-standing concern over military remuneration. But higher pay, important as it is, addresses only one part of a much larger challenge.

Nigeria asks its military personnel to confront terrorism, banditry, kidnapping and other security threats, often under difficult and dangerous conditions. If the country wants a force that is motivated, resilient and operationally effective, it must think beyond salaries.

Military welfare is not merely a labour issue. It is a national security issue.

Under the new arrangement, which takes effect on September 1, personnel from Private to Staff Sergeant will receive an 80 per cent salary increase, those from Warrant Officer to Colonel will receive 50 per cent, while officers above the rank of Colonel will receive a 30 per cent increase. The presidency said about 250,000 personnel would benefit, raising the annual military wage bill from N660 billion to N924 billion.

The adjustment is substantial and should help ease some of the financial pressure facing service personnel and their households. It also sends an important signal that the sacrifices of those serving in the armed forces are being recognised.

The bigger question, however, is what comes next.

Welfare Beyond the Paycheque

A soldier’s welfare cannot be measured only by what appears on a monthly payslip.

Housing, healthcare, pensions, mental-health support and post-service security all shape the quality of military life. Weaknesses in any of these areas can undermine morale even when salaries improve.

Housing is particularly important for personnel who may be transferred or deployed repeatedly during their careers. Stable and adequate accommodation provides security not only for service members but also for their families, who often bear the disruption associated with military life.

Healthcare requires the same attention. Military personnel face risks that go far beyond those encountered in most occupations. Combat injuries are the most visible, but prolonged deployments and repeated exposure to violence can also carry serious psychological consequences.

A credible welfare system must therefore include specialist medical treatment, rehabilitation and appropriate mental-health services, including support for personnel affected by post-traumatic stress disorder.

The responsibility should not end when active service does.

Personnel retiring from the armed forces need predictable pensions and gratuities, while those making the transition to civilian life should have access to programmes that help them acquire new skills and employment opportunities.

Delays in retirement benefits or inadequate support after years of service can weaken confidence in the institution long before a soldier reaches retirement. Serving personnel watch how veterans are treated. What happens after service can influence morale during service.

That is why military welfare must be viewed across an entire career, from recruitment to retirement.

The Families Behind the Uniform

The risks of military service are rarely carried by service personnel alone.

Behind many soldiers, sailors and airmen are spouses, children and other dependants whose lives are directly affected by deployment, injury or death.

For personnel operating in dangerous environments, one of the most important sources of reassurance is knowing that their families will not be abandoned if they are killed or seriously injured in the line of duty.

That assurance requires more than promises.

Death benefits, insurance payments and other entitlements should be processed promptly and transparently. Educational assistance for children of fallen or seriously injured personnel should be strengthened, while surviving spouses should have access to sustainable forms of support rather than short-term interventions.

A properly funded and accountable mechanism for supporting widows, orphans and recognised dependants of fallen personnel would help provide that certainty.

Such measures should not be treated merely as compensation after tragedy. They are part of the social contract between the state and those it asks to risk their lives in its defence.

Taking care of military families is therefore part of taking care of the military itself.

Welfare Also Means Surviving the Battlefield

The debate over military welfare should also extend to what happens when personnel are deployed.

A soldier may receive a better salary and still be placed at unnecessary risk if communications fail, protective equipment is inadequate, intelligence is weak or medical evacuation is too slow.

Operational capability and personnel welfare are therefore closely connected.

Nigeria must continue to invest in intelligence and surveillance systems, secure communications, counter-improvised explosive device capabilities, night-vision equipment and other technologies appropriate to contemporary security operations.

Unmanned aerial vehicles can strengthen surveillance and intelligence gathering across large and difficult terrain, but technology alone is not enough. Equipment must be accompanied by proper training, reliable maintenance, spare parts and clear operational procedures.

Medical evacuation capacity is equally important.

When personnel are seriously injured in combat, the difference between rapid evacuation and delayed treatment can be the difference between life and death. Major operational theatres should therefore have dependable systems for moving wounded personnel quickly to appropriate medical facilities.

These capabilities are sometimes discussed only as questions of military modernisation. They should also be understood as welfare.

Protecting troops while they perform their duties is as important as compensating them for doing those duties.

This is also where funding and accountability matter. Military operations require resources that can be deployed without unnecessary administrative delays, but greater funding must be matched by effective oversight. More money does not automatically produce better security if procurement is poorly managed, equipment cannot be maintained or resources fail to reach operational units.

The objective should be a military that is not only better funded, but better supported and more effective.

Beyond the Pay Rise

President Tinubu’s salary increase is an important acknowledgement of the pressures facing Nigeria’s military personnel. At a time when the armed forces are confronting multiple and evolving security threats, better remuneration can contribute to morale, retention and household stability.

But the success of the policy should ultimately be measured by what follows it.

A comprehensive military welfare strategy must connect pay with healthcare, housing, family protection, pensions, retirement support, professional training, modern equipment and effective operational support.

These are not separate issues. Together, they determine whether personnel feel protected by the institution they serve and whether the armed forces can sustain the people on whom their effectiveness depends.

Nigeria cannot expect military personnel to carry extraordinary risks while treating their welfare as an ordinary administrative matter.

The pay increase is therefore a welcome step, but it should be the beginning of a broader reform rather than its conclusion.

A country that asks its military personnel to risk their lives must build a system that protects not only those in uniform, but also the families who carry the burden of their service.