Franklin D. Roosevelt, 31st President of the USA (1933-45) stated that “there is no such thing as security for any nation or individual in a world ruled by the principle of gangsterism”. An astute lawyer and a most indomitable spirit, able to surmount his physical disability, Roosevelt was re-elected President for a fourth term in 1944. His statement about “a world ruled by the principle of gangsterism” referred to issues that related to the 2nd World War and Security Votes.
It is wrong for any nation or individual to remain neutral in a situation of conspiracies and gang-ups, whereby the interests and wellbeing of the majority of humanity are at risk. The USA got involved in the World War based on the principle of saving humanity from gangsterism. The issue of security votes also had something to do with covert and overt acts undertaken to forestall conspiracies and gangsterism.
Unfortunately, after the global and other political wars, the history and principle of security votes took a different turn, inclining towards cryptocracy or secret government. A vital peculiarity about security votes is that such funds are not subject to public audit or debate. Reasons for keeping issues concerning security votes secret are quite obvious and justifiable too. However, the application of security votes in some developing countries remains objectionable.
Once upon a time, late Melford Okilo as Governor of old Rivers state, in a spate of anger, let the cat out of the bag by revealing how security votes were spent. He did say something about using security votes to fuel or quell conspiracies, gangsterism, instability and communal tensions here and there. It is also worthy of note that members of the academic community who are alert would know that the campus environment is a fertile ground for the deployment of security votes – why?
Therefore, issues concerning cultism and gangsterism within and outside tertiary campuses may have something to do with the deployment of security votes. Can this same logic or supposition not be extended to what we observe about chieftaincy and other tussles in various communities? Similarly, can such votes or funds be dispensed and applied without active collaborations of security agencies and individual operatives?
It is a common knowledge that a number of bandits, terrorists and assassins operate in military and police uniforms, carrying firearms that are strictly prohibited and regulated. How do they come about such accoutrements? Do covert or secret operations which are parts of the items covered by security votes, not include acts of illegality and criminality, for which the operators enjoy some immunity?
What do we call a system of governance which turns blind eyes to acts of illegality and criminality carried out with impunity by state agencies and officials? Does a true democracy allow such strategies as acceptable means of achieving goals? The reign of Fascism of Germany and Italy in the 1930 and 40s was a part of what Roosevelt referred to as the principle of gansterism. Can we deny the fact that such gangsterist system is not in practice in some countries, under the name of cabal or pressure groups?
Since security votes are not subject to public audit or scrutiny, is it not likely that such funds can be abused grossly? Those who would like to know what many faces that corruption can take, would not find it hard to include abuses in the use of security votes. Is it not trying to stretch the principle of immunity too far when security votes can be used as instruments of abuse of human rights?
With the Freedom of Information Act in place, can operators of security votes be compelled to subject such funds to public audit? Enigmatic cases involving whistle blowing and security votes have been many, one of which was the recovery of huge sums of money in a building in Ikoyi, Lagos.
Even though a security agency claimed that the money was meant for some covert and overt operations, that case has kept a large number of Nigerians wondering how enigmatic security matters can be. “Who is fooling who?” James Last asked!
It is obvious that those who try to stick out their necks on security matters often get their fingers and faces burnt, which can be a viable deterrent strategy. But what should be considered quite disturbing with regards to security votes is the colossal sums of money involved, even in the midst of glaring insecurity and hunger in the land. Like a Black Hole, security votes vanish without any trace, record or questions asked, with a Vortex that exude lots of security concerns. Let us propose a vote for abolition of security votes and put in place a more transparent strategy as am alternative.
Dr. Amirize is a retired lecturer at the Rivers State University, PH.

Bright Amirize