•The security detail of prominent Nigerians is far too large
A significant fall-out of the rise in rhetoric in the run-up to the just-concluded governorship elections in Anambra State is the emergence of the fact that the incumbent, Chief Willie Obiano, is guarded by no less than 221 police officers.
Governor Obiano had complained that his personal security detail had been withdrawn a few days to the November 18 election. Claiming that this was a thinly-veiled attempt to manipulate the polls against him, he demanded their immediate restoration.
The police high command responded by saying that the members of the governor’s security detail had merely gone for a one-day seminar on election security after which they had returned to their posts, and went on to claim that the governor had 221 security aides attached to his office.
They include one ADC, one Chief Security Officer (CSO), one Unit Commander drawn from the 45 Mobile Police Force (Mopol), and one Administration Officer. In addition, there are 105 Mopol personnel, 46 personnel drawn from the Special Protection Unit (SPU), and 66 conventional police officers. According to the Force Public Relations Officer, CSP Jimoh Moshood, Obiano’s security detail exceeded police commands in some states of the country.
In a country so badly under-policed that there are only about 370,000 police officers for a population of 170 million, it is hard to understand why one individual requires so many police to protect him in a democracy. If this figure is extrapolated for the thousands of other political office-holders, traditional rulers, celebrities, high net-worth citizens and sundry “big people” across the nation, it will be seen that a very significant percentage of police resources are tied up in protecting prominent Nigerians from their own fellow-citizens.
The implications are obvious. The security challenges currently being encountered in the country require a substantial physical police presence, a show of force which simultaneously discourages the commission of crimes and indicates the ability to respond to them with despatch. Militant activity, kidnapping, herdsmen attacks and communal disturbances in particular demand this sort of policing, as they thrive in circumstances where the supposedly long arm of the law is too short to be of any positive effect.
To worsen matters, over-inflated security details like Obiano’s bloat the recurrent expenditure accounts of administrations across the country, thereby reducing funds available for capital expenditure. In an era where the need to reduce the cost of government has been widely accepted, it is wrong to waste money in the name of personal security. The inspector-general of police should not be making this kind of provocative disclosure. Indeed, he should begin to reduce the number of policemen attached, not only to Obiano, but any other governor or highly placed Nigerian with such an intimidating number of policemen. People who claim to be democratically elected do not need such security details, especially given the inadequate policemen in the country.
However, Obiano’s claim that his security aides had been withdrawn is a serious charge which cannot be completely dismissed as campaign rhetoric. If the governor still had the security cover he was used to having, he would not have raised the alarm. Why would the police instruct the governor’s security detail to present themselves for an unscheduled seminar without informing their principal? For that matter, why did they not tell him themselves, as a matter of courtesy and administrative procedure? Who did they expect to undertake their duties during the period they were away?
It is troubling that the police failed to address these issues in its response to the governor’s accusation. The attempt to point out that Obiano was being guarded by hundreds of policemen, while worrying in itself, still does not explain why his personal protection detail would be withdrawn without officially notifying him.
This is why successive governors across the country have complained that they are Chief Security Officers of their states only in name. They cannot issue formal orders to state commissioners of police, and have no say in security operations beyond the state security council meetings.
The paradox of being guarded by a virtual battalion of individuals who take their orders from elsewhere is an anomaly which must be resolved in the interest of enhanced peace and security.