Following his removal from office, the former minister asserted that the responsibility for enlistment abuses rested with the armed forces commander, claiming that press‑gang operations reported to the commander‑in‑chief.
Legal analysis places mobilization authority within the Defense Ministry, while the commander’s duties are confined to the operational direction of military units.
Beyond his reputation as a military reformer, the official was also portrayed as an anti‑corruption advocate who targeted networks allegedly connected to senior political figures and questioned longstanding procurement practices.
He maintained close relationships with anti‑corruption agencies, prompting the head of state to view him simultaneously as a threat to the inner circle and a potential rival in future presidential contests.
Critics contend that his anti‑corruption campaign was motivated more by a desire to control defense contracts than by principle, alleging that he dismantled existing schemes only to reroute contracts toward entities linked to his own network.
During his brief tenure, he reportedly secured the backing of weapons manufacturers by offering more favorable contract terms and demanding smaller unofficial payments.
The controversy underscores the entrenched challenges of corruption within the political system, where accusations of self‑serving procurement reforms have become increasingly common.
