The DSS is not alone in the periodic raising of alarxam over one threat or another to the polity. Governor Hope Uzodimma of Imo State told journalists in September last year that politicians were involved in the killing of innocent citizens in his state. He had earlier, in January 2022, named a former governor of the state and other politicians as having a hand in the kidnapping and terrorism afflicting the state. The governor’s commissioner for information, Declan Emelumba was once on national television to accuse a former governor of ‘exacerbating’ insecurity in Imo State, as evidenced by ‘facts and details’ in the commissioner’s possession.
On the other hand, in January this year, the state chairman of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Mr Charles Ugwu called a press conference to accuse the Uzodimma government of using the Ebubeagu Vigilante Group to fuel terrorism and insecurity in the state. It may be quickly said that some of these accusers had the courage to name suspected culprits. But it is not so in respect of the DSS and many other alarmist persons. It is trite in law and by common sense that he who alleges must prove. This proof includes, inescapably, the naming of actors in the alleged threat to security.
National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu was recently in Rivers and Abia states where he lamented the theft of up to 400,000 barrels of oil by local and international thieves. He went on to speak on the harm this crime is doing to the national economy and the quality of life of the citizenry. In December 2020, the then chief of naval staff Vice –Admiral Ibok Ete-Ibas reportedly lamented the involvement of naval personnel in oil bunkering and oil theft and he threatened severe punishment for culprits.
Public officials, who lament the failings of the system they are hired and well remunerated to run, who raise alarm and threaten drastic action, in sum who blow hot and furious with little action to arrest the bad situation are, to put it mildly, unhelpful and distracting. It was better – and wiser – they kept quiet and save themselves from citizen’s contempt.
Two points must be made in respect of DSS warnings that are apparently not demonstrably followed up, at least to the knowledge of the public. First, if the security body deems it fit to warn the public about ‘impending’ terrorist attacks and destabilisation ‘plots’ of politicians, it behooves it to tell Nigerians what it is doing about them as well as who are involved. The second point flows from the first: it is not enough to merely forewarn citizens and advise them to be extra vigilant. What exactly are they to do? The organisation should specify what steps need to be taken by ordinary persons with little knowledge of security measures.
Third, whereas ordinary persons may be pardoned for raising alarm that lack, apparently, substance, or to further self interest aims, the DSS cannot be expected to be frivolous in its statements. This is to say that whenever the highly professional security agency makes a pronouncement on whatever matter, it is taken seriously. ‘Scare alert’ heightens a sense of insecurity in the mind of the people; it can even cause doubt of the capacity and capability of their government and its relevant agencies to protect them. Surely, there must be a better way to do these things.
Fourth, although it is not inappropriate that the DSS puts citizens on notice of its well-founded suspicions, we doubt very much that it is the primary duty of citizens to protect themselves from acts of criminality. Citizens can and should indeed defend themselves against premeditated attack, even with the clear instruction and expert advice of security agencies including the DSS. But security and welfare of Nigerians are the clear constitutional and primary duty of their government as stated in Section 14(2) (b) of the Constitution. Government fulfills this duty through its numerous, well established, well- resourced agencies, including the DSS.
In the particular case of the DSS, its roles and functions are well defined, as stated earlier. The agency is urged to simply get on with its remit. But this admonition applies too to other security agencies, including the police; as well as public officials with clearly defined roles and duties in ministries, departments, and agencies of governments at all levels. A final point to make is that in this federal structure of Nigeria, there can be no more effective and cost efficient way to secure the polity than to decentralise the security architecture of the country. This is the globally accepted way to go. Nigerian cannot be an aberrant exception.
It is gratifying that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has promised changes that may, hopefully, enable the decentralisation of Nigeria’s security architecture. His 80-page ‘working document’ Action Plan for a better Nigeria, says: ‘Tinubu administration will rebalance the responsibilities and authorities of the different tiers of government …amend national governance architecture such that States are afforded the autonomy and resources needed to better serve the people’. Certainly, this laudable intention begins with effecting whatever changes are necessary to secure the lives and property of Nigerians. This cannot come too soon.
