Anambra State is grappling with a severe security crisis that has left the public in fear and uncertainty. Reports of brutal kidnappings, extortion, and violent crimes have permeated the fabric of the state, creating a widespread sense of urgency for immediate government action. Under significant pressure, Governor Charles Chukwuma Soludo’s administration has ramped up efforts to combat crime.
Yet, these actions have sparked growing concern about the balance between swift security measures and the preservation of due process and justice. The challenge is no longer just about quelling the violence but safeguarding the principles of justice while responding to an urgent crisis.
The persistence of criminal activities in Anambra has been devastating, with numerous lives lost in grisly circumstances, including the horrific murder of Justice Azuka and the tragic case of Miss Onyekwelu, a banker whose body was found near Nnobi. These incidents, and many others, have understandably provoked widespread calls for immediate action.
However, the government’s hasty measures, such as the demolition of the Udoka Golden Point Hotel in Oba and the mistaken killings in Owerre Ezukala, have raised serious concerns about the unintended consequences of rushed actions. Though perhaps motivated by a desire to restore order, these actions risk undermining the justice they aim to protect.
The core issue is the balance between security and the rule of law. While there is no doubt that Anambra’s criminal violence needs to be addressed, it is crucial to remember that the state must not act recklessly, abandoning due process in the name of security. As the saying goes, “A stitch in time saves nine.”
Had the government acted when it should, more lives might have been spared, and the current crisis could have been avoided or mitigated. But as it stands, the government’s delayed response has resulted in a frenzied rush to restore order, leading to drastic measures that may cause more harm than good.
This situation raises important philosophical questions about leadership, justice, and governance. At the heart of these issues lies proactive versus reactive governance. Proactive governance emphasises foresight, planning, and prevention, while reactive governance focuses on responding to crises after they occur.
In Anambra, the government’s delayed response has led to a situation where urgent, reactive measures are now being taken. While swift action is necessary in certain situations, it should not come at the cost of careful deliberation and respect for human rights. The failure to act decisively from the outset has caused collateral damage, with innocent people suffering due to poorly executed measures designed to tackle criminality.
The philosophical implications of this reactive approach are significant. As philosophers like Aristotle have argued, authentic leadership involves foresight and the moral duty to prevent harm before it occurs. Leadership that is reactive and driven by political expediency, as seen in Soludo’s administration’s delayed response, undermines the very essence of good governance.
Rather than focusing on short-term political gains or election cycles, leadership should be based on the long-term welfare of the people, with careful attention to justice and fairness. An approach that waits until a crisis escalates into full-blown chaos can only lead to further instability and increased suffering for citizens.
The case of Anambra’s security measures also draws attention to the ethical debate between utilitarianism and deontological ethics. Utilitarianism advocates for actions that bring the greatest good to the most significant number, even if they compromise certain moral principles in the short term. In the context of Anambra, this could justify extreme security measures aimed at restoring order.
However, utilitarian approaches often overlook the moral costs of such actions, such as the erosion of due process and the wrongful punishment of the innocent. In contrast, deontological ethics places the highest value on individual rights and justice, even if it means taking a slower or less immediately effective approach.
A deontological approach would argue that no matter the urgency, the government must uphold the rule of law and ensure that all actions are conducted fairly and respect human rights.
In its attempts to restore security, the government of Anambra has run the risk of undermining its moral and ethical obligations. While the intention to reclaim protection for people is understandable, it must be done within the boundaries of the law.
The state must ensure fairness, transparency, and due process in its security interventions, avoiding the trap of summary justice, which can lead to the wrongful punishment of innocent individuals. The philosophical underpinnings of justice are clear: a just society is one where laws are applied equitably, and accountability is demanded from criminals and those in power tasked with enforcing the law.
UnderNigeria’s foundational law, specifically Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution, every person is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property except through the due process of law. When the state compromises these principles, it risks lawlessness, where justice becomes a fleeting notion instead of a pillar upon which the homeland stands.
Furthermore, religious and cultural perspectives on justice reinforce the need for compassion and fairness. Christianity, for example, teaches that justice should be tempered with consideration and that vengeance belongs to God, not human hands. African traditional beliefs, too, emphasise fairness in resolving disputes and maintaining societal balance.
These religious and moral teachings remindus that in pursuing justice, the state must resist the temptation to take matters into its own hands. Vengeance outside the framework of the law may provide temporary satisfaction, but it ultimately erodes society’s ethical foundations and can lead to further violence and injustice.
Anambra’s challenge is not only to restore security but also to rebuild trust in its governing institutions. A government that acts without due process, whether through rushed demolitions or summary executions, begins to resemble the very chaos it seeks to eliminate.
Anambra’s leadership must maintain a commitment to the rule of law, ensuring that security measures are carried out within a justice, fairness, and accountability framework. The government’s duty to protect life and property should never come at the cost of undermining the principles of justice that form the state’s bedrock.
The situation in Anambra offers a profound lesson about the importance of proactive leadership in the face of crisis. It highlights the dangers of reactive governance, where decisions are made hastily under pressure, often with disastrous consequences.
The government’s delayed response to the growing criminality in the state has now led to the implementation of rapid and forceful measures that risk causing further harm to innocent citizens and eroding public trust. A truly effective and just government acts with foresight, planning, and careful deliberation, even in times of crisis. The people of Anambra deserve leadership that prioritises their welfare, upholds the rule of law, and restores security without compromising justice.
Ultimately, while the urgency to combat crime in Anambra is undeniable, the state’s leadership must remain steadfast in its commitment to justice, fairness, and due process.
Security cannot be achieved at the expense of human rights or the rule of law. Governor Soludo’s administration must focus on long-term, sustainable solutions to insecurity that prioritise protecting citizens and upholding justice. By doing so, Anambra can overcome its challenges and build a future founded on fairness, accountability, and peace.
Onukwuli PhD, wrote from Bolton, UK. He can be reached via:
[email protected]
