(Link
on Daily Trust site)
The
apparent incapability of the Nigerian police to stop the persistent deterioration
of the security situation in Nigeria, on the one hand, and the justifiable
worries over the implications of sanctioning the creation of state police or armed
security outfits in a fragile federal state like Nigeria, on the other,
represent a dilemma that requires a collective sense of responsibility to
address without prejudice to the bases of the country’s corporate existence.
This is
particularly necessary now that the six South-west states have launched a sub-regional security outfit named Amotekun without
enabling laws, which they, in the first place, lack the jurisdiction to make,
thereby prompting the raging controversy. Also, though the federal government
has declared the outfit illegal, the governors behind it aren’t likely to
comply.
This
development is also likely to encourage other governors or geopolitical zones
to follow suit; after all, advocates of “true federalism” have always advocated
enabling legislation for the creation of state police to complement the federal
police. They have always argued, among other things, that it’s one of the basic
characteristics of the American-style federalism that Nigeria ostensibly practices.
However,
northern Nigerian establishment has always been against it on account of deep-rooted
worries that it may undermine and jeopardize the country’s corporate survival,
which the region particularly considers non-negotiable.
Besides,
there are understandable worries that against the backdrop of the recurrent outbreak
of ethnoreligious conflicts in the country, state police, more so state
security outfits could be manipulated in the intimidation and victimization of
vulnerable communities living in states other than their respective native
states. After all, over the decades, there have been so many instances across
the country whereby indigenous armed groups would carry out heinous atrocities
against communities on account of their regional and ethnoreligious
backgrounds. Massacres and counter-massacres have been committed, which left irreparable
scars in the minds of millions of Nigerians.
There are
worries also that it may trigger a vicious circle of victimization, vendetta and
vengeance among various ethnoreligious groups in the country. Because whenever
a particular ethnoreligious community suffers victimization at the hands of an
indigenous armed security outfit in a state or a geopolitical zone, the
perpetrators’ ethnoreligious compatriots living in the victims’ native state(s)
would be automatically exposed to imminent retaliatory victimization at the
hands of the indigenous armed security outfits there, which may result in pervasive
chaos that may indeed escalate into uncontrollable ethnoreligious conflicts
across the country. Already, there have been many instances of this scenario involving
many, if not most, states in the country.
Critics
of this idea also warn that state police or armed security outfits are likely
to end up as tools in the hands of state governors and other politicians to
perpetrate politically-motivated intimidation and persecution against their
political opponents. Politicians, after all, already sponsor armed thugs who intimidate
and perpetrate violence against the electorate, election officials and, of
course, their rival armed thugs to effectively grab election victory for their
respective sponsors.
Northern
Nigerian establishment is particularly obsessed with those worries, which
explains its uncompromising obsession with Nigeria’s corporate existence. Interestingly,
however, what most northern Nigerian elites don’t want to publicly admit is
that the underlying motive of this obsession is the fear that the region may
not survive the cessation of the inflow of crude oil proceeds, which
automatically stop in the event of the country’s disintegration. This is
notwithstanding the region’s immeasurable agricultural and crude oil reserves
potential, for it requires massive investment and indeed takes time to develop
into economy-sustaining resources.
Anyway, now
that the South-west states have created an armed security outfit for their
geopolitical zone presumably to complement the police, which generated the current
controversy, there’s no better time than now to address the issue decisively. Because,
among other things, while the federal government lacks effective enforcement
instruments to enforce its ban on the outfit, other zones and states are likely
to equally launch their respective security outfits soon. And unless
constitutionally sanctioned and regulated, the trend may lead to the
proliferation of armed security outfits with serious security implications that
the country cannot afford.
This is
also absolutely urgent in the face of the alarming worsening of the security
situation in the country as the atrocious activities perpetrated by bandits,
kidnappers, terrorists, armed robbers and other crime syndicates steadily
overwhelm the already grossly understaffed, under-equipped, exhausted and
largely demoralized Nigerian police personnel.
Though
it’s indeed a tricky dilemma, yet it can be addressed, only that it takes a sense
of responsibility and an imaginative approach on the part of those in the
positions of authority to provide appropriate constitutional provisions that
not only sanction the creation of standard police in states or geopolitical
zones but also address all the underlying worries surrounding it.
Effective
federally-regulated supervisory mechanisms should also be put in place to
ensure strict compliance with the standard professional policing practices and
ethics that translate into efficient mutually complementing policing between
the federal and the state police.
