Privatisation Of Security Apparatus

Without mincing words or shying away from the truth, there is a palpable fear in many quarters that the nation’s security apparatus as currently constituted has been designed to serve some private agenda. Obviously, every nation is concerned about its security and interests, but it is also common that some private sectional interests can feature as serving national interests. In their book titled, National Security and the American Society, Trager and Simonie defined national security as “the part of government policy having as its objective the creation of national and international conditions favourable to the protection and extension of vital national values against existing or potential adversaries”. We value what gives purpose to life!
What are the “vital national values” of Nigeria that must be protected and extended against any “existing or potential adversaries”? Values, personal or national, derive from ideological orientations, rooted in religion and culture, whose survival qualities fire and sustain national patriotism. As a developing nation, Nigeria is still trying to evolve sustainable national values serving as common impetus towards nationhood and patriotism. At best, what predominates at the moment is rooted in economic and political interests which vary according to nebulous considerations potentate need of an average Nigerian now is “stomach infrastructure”.
The Tide newspaper of Friday, June 7, 2019, had a front-page headline: “Insecurity: Danjuma, Lekwot, Others Drag Buhari to U.K. Parliament”. The issue at stake has to do with the spread of Sharia law across a secular state. References were made to “pursuing a jihad or Islamisation agenda”, Boko Haram and armed Fulani herdsmen and possible suspicion of a conspiracy, etc.
In the same newspaper of Monday, December 30, 2019, there was the following headline: “Insecurity: Reorganise Security Chiefs, NCEF Challenges Buhari”. The National Christian Elders Forum (NCEF) reminded President Muhammadu Buhari to stand by his words that the Islamic terrorists are godless, callous gangs of mass murderers by reorganising the National Security Units, to comply with the Federal Character Principle in Section 14(3) of the 1999 Constitution. This would mean that the security apparatus is one-sided, not reflecting the Federal Character Principle.
Like similar complaints before now, there were references to “excessive Pro-Islamic direction of this government since 2015”, and a recycling of “repentant terrorists into the Nigerian Army.” We were also told that “presently, Nigeria is divided under its conflict of ideologies which produced ONE COUNTRY, TWO SYSTEMS” i.e conflict between DEMOCRACY AND SHARID Ideologies. The fear is that the terrorists are emboldened and driven by Sharia ideology.
No honest person would dismiss the suspicion that there are subtle moves to introduce Sharia law into the legal system of a secular, democratic Nigeria. Therefore, the antics of Boko Haram terrorists, armed herdsmen and the Islamic of State West Africa Province (ISWAP) are the harbingers of the shape of things to come. Obviously, there would be spirited denials of any encouragement of the activities of a “remorseless, godless, callous gangs of terrorists that have given Islam a bad name through their atrocities.” Some say the terrorists are not Muslims!
Can any honest person deny the NCEF observation that “the National Security Units that are solely in control are Muslims from the North of Nigeria”? the National Christian Elders Forum also noted that “President Buhari should be held responsible for the audacity, expansion and unbridled atrocities of ISWAP, Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen in Nigeria.” Under these aforementioned observations and circumstances, would anyone dismiss the fact that there is a privatisation of the security apparatus of the Nigerian nation?
Is it not possible that there are subtle efforts to raise or install Islamic ideology as embodied in Sharia Law as the “Vital national values” of the Nigerian nation? Taking “National security” as defined by Trager and Simonie, is it not possible that the one Sidedness of the nation’s security apparatus is a deliberate ploy to actualize some private agenda under the umbrella of national interest?
If Nigeria must put together, embrace or adopt some “vital national values”, then, must such project not follow due process, according to law? Same way that Nigeria was made to become a member of the Organisation of Islamix Conference (OIC) without a national debate and agreement is the same way Sharia Law is being introduced. It was with the same strategy, under limitary fiat, that Decree No. 51 of 1969, on oil and gas, was made as serving national interest, at the expense of a section of Nigerians. Does democracy operate that way?
It is a pity that whenever there is an effort to have a genuine national dialogue for the purpose of resolving contentious national issues, some people make deliberate efforts to sabotage or turn such a project into travesty. The result is that agitations are suppressed via the instrumentality of security apparatus and a state of anomie allowed to linger. The task of nation building demands a template designed to foster justice as the basis for unity, freedom and peaceful coexistence.
Professor Omo Omoruyi pointed out long ago that the nation’s military and security apparatus are skewed in favour of the Muslim North. Have the calls for a revisitation of the lop-sided arrangement not been persistent enough to warrant some realistic and courageous change? The use of security personnel for protection of private business empires has implications. Is it not corruption to use public resources for private interests?