This Executive Financial Recklessness 

In line with the current administration’s concentrated fight against corruption and corruptive machinations, one thought the lingering security vote contention would have been resolved and done away with a long time ago. I was wrong. It exists and waxing even stronger.
Some civil society organisations (CLOs) have equally made a similar observation and asked the state and federal authorities to end the tradition. The call by the CLOs is appropriate and long overdue. It is a remarkable call to well-meaning Nigerians to escalate pressure on the government to end this executive financial recklessness.
A relic of the military regime, security votes are pillaging of funds released to chief executives to deal with unexpected security developments during the military era. Since then it has flourished without subjecting monies involved to scrutiny by an accounting authority. This is clearly against the open governance system modern democracy advocates.
Statistics reveal that states and the federal government squandered a prodigious N241.4b on security votes in 2017. Even the Transparency International (TI) has acknowledged that the security vote is one of the most official forms of corruption in Nigeria. 
The TI further disclosed that these votes constitute more than 70% of the annual budget of the Nigerian Police Force, almost three times the United States of America’s (USA) security assistance to countries since 2012, and more than 15 times the United Kingdom (UK) counter-terrorism support for 2016 – 2020. This is appalling for a country in need of critical infrastructure. 
In spite of the humongous security votes and the annual budgetary provisions for security, very little is visible in that sector. The ongoing war against insurgency in the North East has uncovered so much. We have seen how the war is laced with major disparagements. 
New variants of security breaches are perpetrated again and again without restraint. How then are the huge amounts of security votes utilised and what do beneficiaries of the money do with them? The high rate of kidnapping, murder and armed robbery, to mention but a few, has given pertinency to the questions. 
Sundry tales bordering on how governors utilise their security votes occupy every single space in the media. Some amass stupendous wealth like houses or landed properties of unimaginable proportion and stack them abroad. They also use the monies to finance unscrupulous fancies and political patronages. 
The reticence by the National and State Assembly, and the federal government on this issue is unpalatable to the situation. This conspiracy of silence only demonstrates how disingenuous the benefiting tiers of government are and how feeble the anti-corruption fight has been. 
Any government that would fight corruption must first appreciate its prejudicial effects. Encapsulated in a typical anti-corruption fight must be the elimination of certain traditional practices (such as the security vote in question) that engender corruption and expose political and public office holders to misappropriate funds. 
As Charles Caleb Colton would say, “corruption is like a ball of snow, once it’s set a rolling it must increase”. The military bequeathed this practice that has festered. But some chief executives have added the dangerous dimension of sponsoring crises in their domains to justify the retention of the system. It has become the issue of corruption breeding more corruption. 
The cabalistic administration of security vote is an abnormality. Atifete Jahjaga in his book, Power, Law, Democracy, Accountability says, “Democracy must be built through open societies that share information. When there is information, there is enlightenment. When there is debate, there are solutions. When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation”. 
Security vote is a constitutional aberration that is contrary to a noble sense of morality. It is one of the most obnoxious policies of democratic administrations and the clearest exemplar of wholesale corruption in our country. Secrecy, opaqueness, and non-accountability associated with this practice are reprehensible in a democratic system, which demands openness, accountability, and transparency.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja in the case of former Taraba State governor, Jolly Nyame, clearly stated that failure of public officers to give an account of security votes entrusted to them amounts to stealing or criminal misappropriation and is akin to genocide. This was part of the reasons the Court affirmed the conviction of Nyame. 
The way out is for both state and federal lawmakers to give effect to the court judgment. They have to be audacious enough to pass bills to at least pare substantially the staggering funds which our chief executives keep as security votes. 

Arnold Alalibo