Connect with us

Politics

On State Police And Nigeria’s Polity

Published

on

There are esoteric reasons in the current prolonged agitations for state police, or otherwise.  That is, beyond the known reasons given by different individuals and groups. A critical scrutiny of all the views expressed so far reveals unanimity in several areas regarding the importance of state police.

For one, the agitations, no matter the stand, have revealed that more Nigerians have become interested in governance. What this means is that more people are becoming more knowledgeable in the affairs of government to the point of making their own contributions. Whether such contribution is inconsequential is talk for another day.

But the truth is Nigerians have become more familiar with the intricacies of democracy after years of military dictatorship. The question thus is how prepared are the privileged few in governance to making the same adjustments as the majority of Nigerians?

Another area of agreement among all contributors to the state police saga is that the Federal Police has failed irrevocably in its responsibility to protect the lives and properties of Nigerians. Hence, the most pressing need for a way forward.

It is based on this agreement that the Governor’s Forum, which has become a very important arm of government, deemed it necessary to come up with the idea of a state police that would be under the direct control of governors, who are the chief security officers of the 36 federating states.

This agreement, ironically, turned out to be the point of disagreement, first among the governors, and later the rest of the schooled Nigerian public.

While governors in the southern part of the country are for the establishment of state police, because they believe it is the solution to the worsening security situation in the country, their colleagues from the north think differently.

To them, Nigeria is not ripe for a state police. They thus align with the Presidency, which has minced no words in its stand that the country still has a long way to go before it can effectively contain regional policing. Both of them have allies in former Inspectors-General of Police (IGPs), who in a recent meeting with the Presidency said state police would amount to “an invitation for anarchy”.

In the words of a human rights activist, Shehu Sani, the reason behind the opposition of the northern state governors to state police are numerous. Among them are the fear of a repeat of the brutality it used against the opposition during the colonial era in the north, and the possibility of some governors using it to enhance their secessionist tendencies.

“During the colonial time, the local police were directly under the emirate system referred to as Native Authority. At that time, they were brutally used against members of the opposition”, Sani said.

He continued that “They arrested people like late Hijiya Gambo Sawaba, then woman leader of late Aminu Kano’s party, Northern Element Progressive Union (NEPU) for no other reason than being a member of the opposition…

“If you look at what the Sharia police (Hisbah) are doing today at Kano and Zamfara, it is similar to what the Native Police did in the First Republic. Even though the Hisbah set up by the state governments claim to be enforcing Sharia law, they are used against people who criticize governors and their policies. Governors also use Hisbah to rig local government elections.”

The second key reason, according to Sani is that the North’s opposition “has to do with the event that led to the build up to the civil war. There is very strong fear that if the state police are allowed, some states’ secessionist ambition could arm the state police through the back door with weapons, which could lead to the breakup of the country.”

One of the former IGPs, Mike Okiro, made the same anti-decentralisation argument during a recent meeting of the South-South Peoples’ Assembly held in Delta State. According to him, “State police cannot help the country. We have tried it before in this country under the regional governments and it did not work.

“It is clear that state governors will misuse it if we go back to state police. They will use it against their political opponents, and I think in a democracy, people should be given the freedom to exercise their rights.”  This stand has obviously been a common feature of the anti-state police perspective.

As elder Statesman and leader of Ijaw nation, Chief Edwin Clark puts it, “I don’t believe in state police, even though it is an essential ingredient of democracy. Nigeria as of today is not developed democratically to the extent of having a state police.

“The way the state governors behave has not made it necessary to have a state police. Some of the governors behave like dictators and there is this fear that they will use the state police for their political interests such as political thuggery,

“The governors are the chief security officers of their respective states and with state police, they will acquire the powers of life and death, where they will use it at their beck and call   to intimidate and cajole their political enemies.

“At the right time, when the democratic practice is matured, state police can be introduced, but certainly not now. I will rather advocate the reformation of the Nigeria Police,” he explained.

Clark further argued that it was curious that some states that are yet to pay the minimum wage of #18,000.00 are among the advocates of the creation of the state police. He reasoned that if they are unable to pay the minimum wage of #18, 000.00 in a situation where the least paid police man earns about #30,000.00, where would they get the money to fund the police?

The implication of this leitmotif stand of the anti-state police is that the Federal Government is more mature and hence more capable to use the police for the good of all than the state governors.

However, former Lagos State Police Commissioner, Mr. Young Arebamen (rtd), disagrees with this perspective. He says the security challenges have grown beyond the competence of a centralised police and advised the Fedral Government not to politicise the issue.

“I can’t understand why some people are afraid of state police, if we have done something for 50 years and we still have problem of insecurity in the system, it is high time we began to think differently… if you eat eba that contained poison in the 60s, will you because of that stop taking eba? The answer is no. all you need to do is to avoid poison”, he said.

How to do this in the present state police saga, he explained, is to institute a control mechanism: “control measure should be spelt out in the constitution to avoid abuse of state police by state governors. We should learn lessons from history and proffer solutions for today and tomorrow”

In buttressing his position further, Arebamen noted that even in the present status quo, the state governments “are mostly responsible for the material and financial needs of the Federal Police”.

He said the governors as chief security officers of the states provide the police with patrol vehicles, maintain and fuel the vehicles, in addition to providing bullet proof vests, arms and ammunition, telecommunication gadgets, and also pay special allowances to those serving in the anti-crime squads.

“We should take politics out of security problems and face the reality of the time”, he concluded.

Unfortunately, this is where Shehu Sani totally disagrees when he noted that “The (governors) have bastardised the local government system, pocketed the states legislature and consistently manipulated elections to their favour, and at the same time looting the state treasury.

“If they have proved incapable, dubious and dishonest in handling those institutions, is self destruction for anyone to think that they can perform magic with state police”.

Even he, however, agrees that state police is necessary, “but the advocates should (first) come out with measures that will make it impossible for state authorities to manipulate”.

One way to do this, he said, is not just “creating layers of security and multiplicity of state apparatus, but ensuring that social justice and economic opportunities are abound for all Nigerians”.

This, obviously, is an unequivocal challenge for government to not only come up with a dispassionate constitution at all levels of governance, but also ensure that such constitution is followed to the letter in terms of application.

Continue Reading

Politics

Obi Visits Atiku In Abuja Amidst 2027 Speculations

Published

on

The Labour Party’s (LP) presidential candidate in the 2023 presidential election, Mr Peter Obi, has visited his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) counterpart, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, in a surprise move that may not be unconnected with the 2027 presidential poll.
Alhaji Abubakar, a former Vice President, announced Mr Obi’s visit in a tweet on Monday afternoon,
“It was my honour and privilege to host @Peter Obi today. – AA,” the post read, with a photo of both men exchanging a handshake.
Although Alhaji Abubabar did not reveal the details of their meeting, insider sources close to the candidates told The Tide source that the meeting, which lasted about one hour, was about a merger towards the 2027 election.
The sources also disclosed that Mr Obi initially met with Jigawa State former Governor and PDP chieftain, Sule Lamido, in Abuja before his private meeting with Alhaji Abubakar.
Before Mr Obi visited the opposition PDP leader, there were speculations that the duo may be plotting to form an alliance to unseat President Bola Tinubu in the 2027 presidential election.
Mr Obi was previously in the PDP, where he joined Alhaji Abubakar and served as his running mate in 2019. However, in the build-up to the 2023 election, he defected to the LP, where he contested the presidential race.
Mr Obi and Alhaji Abubakar lost their presidential bids to Bola Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate.

Continue Reading

Politics

Assembly Crisis: Court Strikes Out Suit As LP Withdraws Petition Against INEC

Published

on

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday struck out a suit filed by the Labour Party (LP) seeking an order compelling INEC to conduct a fresh election in the Rivers State House of Assembly to fill the seats of the defected lawmakers.
Justice James Omotosho struck out the suit after counsel for the party, F. I. Adariku, applied to withdraw the suit.
In the suit, the LP had sought the order of the court to compel the commission to conduct a fresh election to fill the seats of the lawmakers who defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
But INEC, through its lawyer, Victor Giwa, disagreed with the LP.
Giwa, in a preliminary objection filed on INEC’s behalf, prayed the court to dismiss the suit for being frivolous and incompetent.
According to the lawyer, the suit is an abuse of court process.
He urged the court to decline jurisdiction in the case as the plaintiff (LP) lacked the locus standi and territorial jurisdiction to institute the action.
Giwa, a human rights activist, argued that there was a pending case currently ongoing at a Federal High Court, Port Harcourt judicial division, with suit number: FHC/PH/CS/25/2024 before Justice E.A Obile.
He said the Port Harcourt suit had same parties and concerned same subject matter which was filed earlier before the instant suit in February.
However, after INEC filed its objection, the LP approached the court to withdraw the suit.
Adariku, who held the brief of Kehinde Edun, the party’s national legal adviser, sought to withdraw the suit, praying the court to strike it out.
A. S. Adisa, who held the brief of Giwa, did not oppose the application.
“It is hereby ordered as follows: that this matter having been withdrawn is hereby struck out.
“That the cost of 50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) is awarded against the plaintiff in favour of the 29th defendant (INEC),” Justice Omotosho declared.
The Tide source reports that other defendants in the suit were Gov. Siminalayi Fubara, Dumle Maol, Major Jack, Franklin Uchenna Nwabochi, Christopher Ofiks, Azeru Opara, and Enemi George.
It also included Granvill Wellington, Ngbar Bernard, John Iderima, Queen Uwuma Williams, Loolo Opuende and Abbey Peter.
Others are Igwe – Obey Aforii, Justina Emeji, Ignatius Onwuka, Hon. Chimezie Nwankwo, Lemchi Prince Nyeche, Barile Nwakoh, Emilia Amadi, Nkemjika Ezekwe, Davios Oxobiriari, Nwankwo Sylvanus, Gerald Oforii and Wami Solomon.

Continue Reading

Politics

Tribunal Reserves Judgment In Kogi Gov’ship Election Case

Published

on

The Kogi State Governor ship Election Petition Tribunal, sitting in Abuja, on Monday, reserved judgment in the petition filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and its governorship candidate, Murtala Ajaka, against the election victory of Governor Usman Ododo.
At Monday’s proceedings, Ajaka’s lawyer, Pius Akubo, urged the tribunal to set aside the respondents’ submissions and uphold theirs.
Meanwhile, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), through its lawyer, Kanu Agabi, told the court that their final written address was dated and filed on May 2 as he prayed the tribunal sitting to dismiss Ajaka’s petition.
Likewise, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Governor Ododo asked the tribunal to dismiss Ajaka’s petition in its entirety for being incompetent and lacking in merit.
Counsel to the respondents, Agabi, Joseph Daudu, and Emmanuel Ukala, while adopting their final written addresses and presenting their arguments against the petitioners, prayed the three-member panel of Justices, led by Justice Ado Birnin-Kudu to dismiss the petition.
Agabi contended that the Appeal Court had decided that if the grounds of a petition are inconsistent with one another and are not consistent with the reliefs, it should be struck out.
He also argued that the evidence of the petitioners were grossly insufficient, citing a Supreme Court decision in a case of Tonye Cole against INEC.
“It is our humble submission that your work in the determination of this petition is simplified in recent judgments by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
“It is to the effect that once the evidence called is grossly insufficient, there is no evidence. In that case, the petitioner filed 305 witness depositions but only adopted 40 of them.
“The petitioner, according to the decision, only adopted about 13.1 per cent of the witness depositions. In this case, the depositions adopted represent just about 3.6 per cent of their witness depositions,” he said.
He said the petitioners only called 25 witnesses out of the scores listed.
Agabi, said in the mathematical calculation of evidence, 3.6 per cent of Ajaka’s witness deposition adopted in the petition amounted to a failure and therefore, ought to be dismissed.
He said the petitioners equally failed to file the witness deposition beforehand in contravention of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obungado’s case.
He argued that the petitioners’ witness who testified about the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines, clearly stated that he could not guarantee whether those were the BVAS used.
Governor Ododo’s legal representation, Daudu, while adopting his final written address dated and filed on May 1, argued that the petition was statute-barred (filed out of time).
He argued that the action of the petitioners was against Section 122(1) and (2)(a) of the Evidence Act, which empowers the tribunal to take judicial notice of the time of filing, service and response.
Although he clarified that the petitioners responded to their service, Akubo objected to Daudu’s citing of the section describing it as a fresh argument.
Daudu, in response, disagreed with Akubo that he was raising fresh issues after a final written address had been filed.
He said if the court found merit in his argument, Akubo had the right to respond because it bordered on issues of remittal procedure.
He also urged the tribunal to dismiss the allegations of forgery against his client, saying it bordered on a pre-election matter, which the apex court had decided in Gbagi’s case against INEC.
Daudu also argued that Section 137 of the Electoral Act cited by the petitioners on allegations of over-voting did not apply in the instant petition.
Similarly, Ukala, who represented APC, urged the court to dismiss SDP and Ajaka’s petition for lacking in merit while he adopted all the processes.
He informed the court that their final written address, dated April 30 was filed same date.
The petitioners’ lawyer, Akubo, told the tribunal that their final written address was dated and filed May 6 adding that their petition was not filed out of time.
He argued that the respondents themselves confirmed that the petition was filed on December 2, 2023, even by their own witness.
“I urge your lordship to hold that we filed this petition within time under our law,” he said.
After taking arguments from all parties, Justice Birnin-Kudu reserved judgment in the petition.
He announced that a date for judgment would be communicated to the parties.
Recall that the tribunal had, on April 25, fixed Monday, May 13, for the adoption of final written addresses after the parties closed their case in the matter.
SDP and Ajaka had approached the tribunal to challenge Governor Ododo’s victory in the Nov. 11, 2023, Kogi governorship election.
In the petition, INEC, Ododo and APC are listed as 1st to 3rd respondents respectively.

Continue Reading

Trending