STATE OF THE NATION
BEFORE THE ARMAGEDDON.
The insecurity in the
Nation has reached alarming proportions. We have never had it so bad. Boko
Haram appears to have overwhelmed our security forces and taken over Northern
Nigeria. Mr. President has offered dialogue. Boko Haram has rebuffed. Recall
that Boko Haram caused the former National Security Adviser his job. The new
NSA, SamboDasuki appears lost in the melee. The Sokoto Prince is yet to present
a plan on how to contain this needless violence and loss of lives. The recent
attacks on Telecommunication installations in the North presents a new
dimension to the problem. The effects are being felt across the nation. I
returned from Perth Australia a few days go and realized that service levels on
my MTN phone had dropped to abysmal levels. The data services had degenerated
to very frustrating proportions. MTN has reported that the poor services are
caused by Boko Haram attacks on their fibre optic cables in Northern Nigeria.
This may be the beginning of new dimensions and attacks on strategic assets and
locations. Living in Northern Nigeria must be a hell of a Nightmare. The
effects on businesses are telling. Yet there appears no solution in sight. This
is made more difficult as Boko Haram refuses to disclose its agenda beyond
wanting to islamisize Nigeria. That agenda itself is faulty on all counts
because Boko Haram has carried out several attacks on muslims and have
attempted to murder the Shehu of Bornu, the spiritual leader in that part of
the country. To make it even more scary, that attack was carried out
immediately after Jumaat prayers. In all its attacks, am yet to hear the
Taliban attacking a mosque or targeting Islamic leaders. This therefore calls
Boko Haram’s true agenda to question and makes the resolution of the BH problem
more difficult for the Federal Government. The spate of insecurity is not
restricted to Boko Haram. Armed robbery is taking new dimensions and so is
kidnapping for ransom. Kidnapping has taken the shape of a business venture as
people are kidnapped almost on a daily business across the country from Lagos
to Benin, Port-Harcourt, Warri and into the eastern part of the country. Lagos
State had witnessed a significant drop in crime between 2007 and 2011. The
Fashola administration had set up the Lagos State Security trust fund, which
enjoyed immense support from the private sector that donated heavily into the
fund. These funds were used to procure vehicles and equipment for the police.
It is to Fashola’s singular credit that a state government was able to tackle
security issues effectively in the face of the lopsided security apparatchik in
Nigeria, which cedes the power of the police to a centralized institution under
the control of the federal Government. The Lagos example brings to the fore the
question of Nigeria’s federalism and the potential for growth. It is only in
Nigeria that we pretend to be a Federation yetrun a unitary system of
Government. In other Federal jurisdictions, the powers are shared evenly
between the states and the federal government. And examples abound. The United
States, Australia and even Dubai. It makes mockery of the concept and practice
of federalism when the federal government runs and controls the police force
across the entire nation. A Governor is recognized, as the Chief Security
officer in the state yet has no control over the commissioner of police who is
appointed by the Inspector General of Police who in turn is appointed by the
President. It is simply ludicrous and completely incredible. What manner of
federalism is that? In America, the responsibility of security and policing
within a state resides with the Government of that state. The same applies in
Australia and Dubai. And it makes a lot of sense. Imagine a Police officer
brought from Maidugiri to police in Calabar. How does he begin to understand
the nuances of the local people,their language, their culture and
practices? The people are not likely to
trust him either so this creates a problem. Again, security works best when
approached as a community based affair where everyone is a stakeholder in
securing lives and property. Because of the need for self-preservation, man
will work with others to secure himself and others within the community. And
this is why the argument for state police becomes germane. From the spate of
insecurity enumerated above and the Federal Government’s seeming hopelessness
in the face of attacks and criminal activities across the country, it is safe
to conclude that the security system as presently organized would provide no
security for the people of Nigeria and therefore a change is needed urgently.
The clamor for state police is not new and it makes a lot of sense. It is
easier for the state governments to arrange for a security system that suits
the complexity of their state. They know the terrain better. Again compact
police systems at state levels provide better opportunities for efficiency
rather than the over bloated command structure we have presently. Because the
members of a state police outfit would be recruited from within the state and
its immediate community, there is better understanding of the socio-economic
environment and a cultural affinity between the police and the people. Again,
because the police force is drawn from the community, there is opportunity for
better relations between the people and the police as opposed to bringing a
stranger from Bayelsa, gun in hand to police me in Epe. We owe each other
nothing. But imagine a policeman drawn from my community in Ajah into the Lagos
State Police force. He is likely to know all the black spots and the hoodlums
in the area. With the power of the state behind him, it becomes easier and
faster to deal with crimes. The argument against state police is puerile if not
downright mischievous. It’s the same argument since 1979, that the state
governors may use the police against their political opponents. This argument
is laughable and makes no pretense to logic because the President enjoys that
same power now and may also be accused of using the police to intimidate his
opponents. After all Mr. President reserves the power to appoint and dismiss
the Inspector General of Police and the Minister of Police Affairs. Why is the
president not accused of the potential to abuse police power? Or is it simply a
case of some animals are more equal than others? Clearly, the point then is
that Mr. President is more important than the Governors. Again the argument of
abuse is foolish and without merit. Lets agree that truly this power is subject
to abuse- do we then say that there are no means by which the potential for
abuse can be checked? Of course there are. The constitution can reserve the
power of appointment of the head of a police in the House of Assembly or even in
the judiciary thereby saving it from executive interference or influence. We
could go further by having a separate funding mechanism that saves the police
from the apron of the state Government. We can still go further. The tenure of
the police chief can be fixed subject to death or retirement. This way, the
occupier of the office is not susceptible to any undue pressures of
re-appointment et al. These are some of the mechanisms’ that can be used to
check abuse and pooh poohs the argument against state police. The ongoing
constitution review provides another opportunity for us to
do the needful. We can’t continue like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment