Politics
Still On Security Votes
When Mr Ibrahim Magu, the Acting Chairman, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), spoke at the induction programme for returning and newly-elected governors, he did not mince words in accusing governors of misusing security votes.
He alleged that some governors deliberately fuelled insecurity in their states just to collect more money as security votes.
He noted that some of the governors “now covertly promote insecurity as justification to inflate their security votes.”
Magu also alleged that there was a link between corruption, banditry and terrorism.
His allegations were contained in a paper, titled, “Imperative of Fighting Corruption/Terrorism Financing in Nigeria.’’
Magu told the session that a debate on the legality of security votes enjoyed by the governors was ongoing.
“We have also seen evidence of theft of public resources by some state governors, cashing in on the insecurity in their states.
“Insecurity has also offered the required oxygen for corruption to thrive as evident in the $2.1bn arms procurement scandal involving top military commanders both serving and retired.”
A study carried out by the University of Nigeria, agreed with Magu on the abuse of security votes.
The study is titled “Legitimising Corruption in Government: Security Votes in Nigeria.’’
It was authored by Obiamaka Egbo, Ifeoma Nwakoby, Josaphat Onwumere and Chibuike Uche, of the Department of Banking and Finance, University of Nigeria.
“The tendency among Nigerian politicians, particularly the executive arm at the various levels of government, to manipulate security issues for political and economic gains is widespread.
“This has been fuelled by the abuse of security votes, an ‘opaque fund’ reserved for the executive which is not appropriated, accounted for or audited through the legislature.
“ Sometimes, a state governor could (mis)appropriate as much as N100 million monthly as security vote.
“Such slush funds are channelled into the secret funding of militias and gangs of government enforcers.’’
The appropriateness or otherwise of security votes was at the centre of discourse at the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) second Quarterly Anti-Corruption Policy Dialogue Series.
The dialogue focused on Accountability for Security Votes.
ICPC Chairman, Prof. Bolaji Owasanoye, who spoke, agreed with Magu that security vote is an easy and attractive route for stealing public funds.
According to him, it is also a veritable avenue for abuse of public trust, escalation of poverty and underdevelopment and ironically the escalation of insecurity.
“It has pushed up insecurity somehow, that is not to say we do not need security vote.
“In the 2019 budget as appropriated, for example, 162 Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) had money appropriated for them as security votes.
“These MDAs span boards, centres, committees, ministries, commissions, councils, hospitals, schools, law enforcement agencies, obviously the armed forces and intelligence offices.”
Owasanoye said that the number and categories of MDAs given security votes, suggest that something was wrong with the parameters for determining those who are entitled to security votes.
“This then provokes some question as which MDAs are entitled to security votes and how should security votes be accounted for?
“It is clear from our present approach, that we do not have any rational principle being followed at the moment.
“If there is one, I will be happy that my ignorance will be diminished and removed,” he said.
The chairman explained that it was clear from the current approach to budgeting for security votes, that no principle was being followed.
He said that this is clear from the quantum and range of sums appropriated in the 2019 budget for MDAs, where the lowest amount for security vote was N3,600, while the highest amount was N4.20 billion.
“What on earth can anyone do with N3, 600, and I am not talking of an individual.
“If the N3, 600 is the security vote of an individual, most likely it will take him from somewhere to his house. That is the safest place to be.
“But what on earth can an agency do with N3, 600 as security vote, as appropriated?”
With this disparity, what then should security votes be used for?
Owasanoye opined that it was pertinent because MDAs with budgets for security votes also have separate budgets for other security related matters, such as the production or procurement for security or defence equipment.
“In the case of defence and core security and law enforcement agencies, some of these items and the votes are undoubtedly justified. But the quantum and use is open to scrutiny,” he said.
He, however, explained that it was apparent that security vote was not for any of those other security items mentioned, because they were often separately covered in the budget.
“There is the erroneous impression that security votes are not being accounted for with our recent experience as a country, that almost lost a geo-political zone to insurgency.
“Whereas billions of dollars were appropriated for security, but diverted by corruption to matters like engaging prayer warriors demands that we reflect very closely and ask ourselves whether we can afford to continue on the same trajectory of lack of accountability for security votes.
“We need security votes; we should give the votes to those who deserve to have security votes and we should demand some framework for accountability,” he said.
On his part, Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai, said that security vote was subject to audit and “if it is not done, it is wrong”.
He said that the votes were not votes for defence and were also not meant for the armed forces.
“Strictly speaking, if you look at security votes in the true context, it is not meant to tackle insecurity.
“We have funding for Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces. If you have budget lines for these services and organisations, then why security votes?
“However, it can be used for security; but it is not meant to solve insecurity,
“There are other votes which are constitutional which include the contingency fund,” he said.
Buratai explained that even though there was security vote that was generally applied, it must follow the Public Procurement Act 2007.
The chief of army staff said that if security vote was made constitutional and proper guidelines set out on utilisation, the issue will be laid to rest
Governor Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti State, described security vote as the budgetary or extra budgetary allocation ostensibly for security, received by the President, Governors and Local Government Chairmen.
This allocation he said, is spent without legal obligation to account for how it is spent.
Fayemi said that security votes have not been widely accepted by citizens, because of the assumption that such funds are being abused by state governments.
He said that the problem really is not about the security vote but about its usages and the character of the people administering it.
“Security votes attract more attention because of the seemingly non accountable nature of the expenditure under the budgetary provision.
“There is widespread belief that the appropriation of security votes in Nigeria is unconstitutional and thus illegal.
“This is not correct because in the Nigerian constitution, the executive is entrusted with the responsibility of preparing a budget which is then sent to the legislature for ratification.
“The fact that huge amount of monies are routinely being budgeted and expended in the name of security vote does not make it an illegal practice
“The act of approving any sum allocated to such a heading, covert or overt, legalises the concept. The insinuation that such money is not budgeted for is not true,” Fayemi said.
Like Magu said, the legality or otherwise of security vote is ongoing, and must continue until it properly defined. The earlier the better to avoid misuse and diversion of public funds in the guise of security vote.
Sharang writes for the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN).
Naomi Sharang
In a statement issued on Wednesday, December 31, 2025, and signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mr Obiora Ifoh, the party said it had taken note of Mr Obi’s defection alongside some of his supporters, as well as what it called a “lacklustre speech” delivered by the former Anambra State governor at the defection event.
“We wondered what new he intends to sell to Nigerians,” the party said, adding that it was not surprised by the move, having “since September 2024, parted ways with Peter Obi and some of his blind supporters in the National Assembly.”
According to the statement, the faction said it had patiently awaited Mr Obi’s exit, describing it as a blessing.
“The party is finally liberated by this defection and as party leaders, we count it as a blessing,” the party said.
The faction further disclosed that it had previously urged Mr Obi and his supporters to leave if they were unable to work with the party leadership.
It claimed that several lawmakers had been suspended for anti-party activities and that similar action would have been taken against Mr Obi but for the intervention of “some well-meaning Nigerians.”
It also blamed its internal crisis on Mr Obi and Abia State Governor, Dr. Alex Otti, accusing them of sponsoring what it described as an insurrection against the Julius Abure-led leadership.
“The crisis we had in the Labour Party was caused by Peter Obi and the Abia State governor, Alex Otti,” the statement alleged, adding that it was surprising Dr Otti had not followed Mr Obi out of the party despite his suspension.
Reacting to Mr Obi’s defection event in Enugu, the faction claimed the gathering was largely boycotted by prominent political and traditional institutions in the South East, insisting that those present were “political spent forces who cannot win in their wards should there be an election today.”
It warned that this development signalled the failure of any future Mr Obi presidential or vice-presidential ambition, claiming he had “clearly lost the charm that had endeared him to the people prior to 2023.”
The faction also accused Mr Obi of misleading the South East during the 2023 elections, alleging that the region suffers political marginalisation under President Bola Tinubu’s administration as a result.
“He must be told that the South East lost out completely in President Ahmed Tinubu’s government because they trusted and believed in him in 2023,” the statement said, alleging disparities in ministerial appointments and infrastructure allocation to the zone.
The Abure-Led LP apologised to Nigerians for its decision in the last election.
“We gave Nigerians a candidate we thought was good for the nation in 2023, but time has since proved that we made the greatest political mistake. We plead for forgiveness from Nigerians,” the party said.
It urged Nigerians to watch out for a rebranded Labour Party, promising to present “the best prospect” capable of returning Nigeria to what it described as its “glorious days.”
steadily toward unity, justice, and shared prosperity”, he said.
Speaking to journalists on Wednesday at his country home in Ikere-Ekiti, Dr Oluyede said the development came as a shock, stressing that INEC supervised and monitored the PDP governorship primary that produced him as the party’s candidate.
According to him, INEC officials documented the process, completed all required forms, and even affirmed his candidacy in court through sworn affidavits arising from cases linked to the primary election.
He maintained that no court order or injunction currently restrains INEC from listing his name as the PDP candidate, arguing that the electoral body lacks the constitutional power to determine who emerges as a party’s nominee.
Dr Oluyede described such decisions as the exclusive responsibility of political parties, not the electoral umpire.
While playing down panic over the released list, Dr Oluyede noted that electoral processes often involve reviews and corrections.
He disclosed that he had commenced wide consultations, including engagements with PDP leadership and formal correspondence with INEC, to seek clarification on the omission and determine the next line of action.
The PDP candidate assured his supporters across Ekiti State that he would appear on the ballot, expressing confidence that the situation would be resolved in his favour.
He described attempts to exclude candidates from elections as dangerous and undemocratic, warning that such tactics undermine the people’s right to freely choose their leaders.
Dr Oluyede called on the people of Ekiti to reject any form of disenfranchisement, insisting that elections should be contests of ideas, records, and acceptance by the electorate rather than exclusionary maneuvers.
He also declared that the PDP in Ekiti had resolved its past internal crises and was now united, focused, and ready to win the forthcoming governorship election.
He urged party members and supporters to remain calm and focused, expressing optimism that, with divine grace and the will of the people, the PDP would emerge victorious at the polls.
Mr Obi spoke while formally declaring for the African Democratic Congress (ADC) at a well-attended event in Enugu on Wednesday, where he outlined what he described as a fresh roadmap for rescuing the country from its socio-economic challenges.
Addressing party members, supporters and other stakeholders, the former governor stressed that leadership must be driven by integrity and accountability, warning against the culture of double standards in public office.
“We cannot continue to deceive our people. Leadership is about telling the truth and leading by example. You cannot promise one thing in public and do another in private. That is not leadership, and that is not the change Nigeria needs”, Mr Obi said.
He maintained that genuine national rebirth would only be possible if entrenched wrongs were corrected, adding that governance must be guided by competence, discipline and a clear sense of purpose.
Mr Obi also underscored the need for fresh thinking in the nation’s political space, urging political actors to move away from recycled ideas that have failed to deliver sustainable development.
“We must come with new ideas,” he said, adding that “Nigeria’s problems are not mysterious; what has been lacking is the courage and competence to address them differently. We need a new approach that puts people first and focuses on production, not consumption.”
Calling for a broad based political collaboration, Mr Obi appealed to parties and stakeholders across ideological divides to work together in the national interest.
“This country is bigger than any party or individual. All parties must come together to change the present trend. What matters is not the platform, but the future of Nigeria and the wellbeing of its citizens”, he declared.
Looking ahead to the 2027 general elections, Mr Obi challenged aspirants seeking elective offices to ensure transparency in their credentials, warning that the era of falsified certificates was drawing to a close.
“Anyone contesting for any position in 2027 must come with genuine certificates. All the machinery is now in place to verify what is genuine and what is not. Integrity must start from the very foundation of leadership”, he stated.
Drawing lessons from international development models, Mr Obi cited Rwanda and Indonesia as examples of countries that rose from difficult beginnings to become thriving economies through disciplined leadership and sound policies.
“These countries were once behind us,” he noted, adding that “Today, they are moving ahead because they chose competent leadership, clear vision and policies that support local production and human capital development.”
He also criticised the economic policies of the present administration, particularly the continued importation of food items that can be produced locally, describing such practices as inimical to national development.
“You cannot grow an economy by killing local production. Importing food that we can produce in Nigeria destroys jobs, weakens our farmers and drains our foreign exchange. A serious country must produce what it consumes”, he argued.
The event featured renewed calls from ADC supporters for sustained engagement and mobilisation, as Mr Obi reiterated his belief that Nigeria remains redeemable if led with honesty, competence and a commitment to shared national progress.
In his remarks, the National Chairman of the ADC, Senator David Mark, expressed confidence in the emerging coalition, assuring Nigerians that the party would deliver good governance at all levels of administration if entrusted with power.
The gathering also witnessed the defection of several prominent politicians from different political parties across the South-East and beyond.
The motion endorsing the defection was moved by a former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chief Emeka Ihedioha, and seconded by former economic adviser to ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo, Prof. Osita Ogbu.
Goodwill messages from notable political figures, including Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, Mrs. Aisha Yesufu, Chief Sam Egwu, Dr. Okwesilieze Nwodo, Chief Achike Udenwa, Mr Onyema Ugochukwu and Senator Gilbert Nnaji among others, further underscored the growing momentum within the ADC.