Nothing has demonstrated that state governors know what to do with the power of the office they occupy. They conduct their affairs like they are in the office but not in power. By my estimation, no governor exercises up to 40 per cent of the powers they have under the current Constitution. They basically appoint people and sign contracts, and sign cheques. Their powers can spur political and social re-engineering. But I do not see any re-engineering, especially in the area of security of lives and property, which brings considerable hardship to Nigerians. What governors do regarding security is window-dressing, which they then follow up with regular complaints about the poor state of security even under their watch.
Recently, the Edo State Governor, Monday Okpebholo, for instance, donated operational vehicles to a joint taskforce he organised, consisting of the Federal Government-owned security agencies. A state governor organises what belongs to the FG to curb criminal activities. The suspended Governor of Rivers State, Sim Fubara, gave a helicopter to one of the nation’s armed forces while also complaining about insecurity. In Ondo State, farmers were killed and other people kidnapped, while an opposition politician accused the state governor of doing nothing to improve the capacity of the state-owned security outfit, Amotekun. This is where the problem is—state governors should strengthen state-owned security outfits, but they do not. Instead, these politicians say they assist the FG’s security agencies to improve security.
Assistance is fine but this is an approach that has not guaranteed the desired results. And it won’t until the national security architecture itself is reviewed. Meanwhile, curbing insecurity is an old debate. My interventions for over a decade have called attention to the nation’s flawed approach regarding insecurity. But the more some of us call attention to the unsuitability, the more of same that state that governors do. Lately in Benue State, lawmakers lamented insecurity after which they invited FG-owned security outfits to address them on renewed attacks on communities. It wasn’t the first time the lawmakers did such. But attacks continue and no one is arrested. So, is there something in it for these politicians who adopt the same approach that isn’t working?
Part of the problem is that there is an economic angle to this thing. Financial gain is a factor. Days back, the 2023 governorship candidate of the opposition party in Ondo State asked his state governor to justify the N1bn “security vote” he controlled and for which more insecurity was the outcome. From the time state governors found a clever way to dispose of huge “security vote”, they have never looked back. One channel is by expending it on security agencies that are not accountable to them. So, TV shows where governors donate to security outfits owned by the FG are regular. It is a safe and very public way to justify the resources they fritter. For no one knows exactly how much of “security vote” ends up where. No auditor questions the manner security vote is utilised, and governors account to no one over it.
When many observe that larger scale corruption happens at the state level, we know huge “security vote” that achieves little, or no security is one of the leaky baskets. It would not be much of a problem if this does not have its fallouts. But criminals waste lives and property while governors donate to security outfits that are not fully on ground in localities to curb it. On top of this, governors call for “true federalism” but facilitate unitarism by focusing energy on FG’s security outfits when they should create and fund theirs at home. Many of the bills that state governors watch their federal lawmakers pass continue to give more powers to the FG, when they should pass bills that decentralise powers. In a nation where federal lawmakers empower the Civil Defence Corps (founded as a private organisation) until they bear arms like the police, governors find it difficult to make lawmakers empower state-owned security agencies to be of equal status.
Even as things stand, states have the opportunity to establish security forces. In states that have them, such have not been backed with the right vision and funding to be effective. It feels like state governors fear something. They have power that they are not keen to touch. They can establish world-class yet localised security forces, but they do not. Here, I emphasise the importance of this aspect. People complain, for instance, that cattle herders destroy crops or kill farmers. And I ask: How do herders with one hundred cattle invade farms, and thereafter travel some 50 kilometres in about 15 hours, and no security force can track perpetrators and bring them to justice? How? Note that locals call the authorities before and after attacks, but there are no adequate and timely responses. It is because states do not empower their own security forces who should be in a better position to handle this.
State security outfits can handle it using a combination of highly mobile land forces, drones, and helicopters. No governor looks into this. Even with the helicopter that Rivers’ people had, their suspended governor gave it to a FG-owned security outfit. The helicopter was on the ground for years, and with the insecurity in his state, Fubara could not think of what to do with it. As I stated in the past, the job of a government is to make provisions that pick up whoever commits crime rather than tell us the tribe criminals come from. Pick them and others will stop. The core of my submission on insecurity over the years is that political leaders at the sub-national levels adopt the wrong approach. It does not produce results, and many states chief executives just finger-point, announcing that perpetrators of crimes are from a certain ethnic group. It was basically what most of them were doing until I called them out in recent years.
The first time I noticed a turnaround following my many criticisms was when the late Governor of Ondo State, Rotimi Akeredolu, announced that his government was embarking on strengthening the state-owned Amotekun Corps. Obviously, he decided he was no longer part of those who mistook announcing the tribe of perpetrators of crime for a solution. Rather, he took action, and I commended him on this page. Political leaders should provide means to prevent criminal attacks. If attacks happen, governments should be swift to arrest and bring perpetrators to justice. This is not happening with the current security arrangement. And it cannot happen because federal security outfits that are not enough in numbers and do not readily get to remote communities are the darlings of state governors. No one compels governors to donate to the centralised security machinery, meaning they are free to channel the same resources to their own state security outfits, which they have control over. Many governors do not show interest.
Among them, there are those who have this laid-back approach to new ways to solve old problems. Otherwise, by now, all governors should have had a policy of designing their security architecture around state-owned security outfits. In a federal arrangement, governors should be providing local solutions that are more effective. But they keep turning to the centralised government agencies in Abuja, whose inadequacies are known. Even the suspended Fubara was saying his state was surprised recently when the Inspector-General of Police donated security boats to protect the state’s waterway. Meanwhile, his administration had donated to the police boats, which were nowhere to be found. Then he added while donating a helicopter to another FG agency: “So, please ensure that while you also use it (helicopter) to do other things, let it be 70 per cent used in Rivers State.” A state governor was pleading with a FG-owned agency when he could have his own security outfits, whose activities he could control.
This is no way to effectively curb insecurity. We know that states can now set up security outfits of different types, while the law for the creation of “state police” is still being looked into. Many states take advantage of this situation, including the south-west states that have created their Amotekun Corps. The states where insecurity persists should do the same immediately. They should fund modern, highly mobile and technology-driven security outfits, not these flatfooted, unmotivated groups whose modus operandi is not better than that of night watchmen in neighbourhoods.