As the Governor, I’ve taken a principled stance on the Security vote. Since taking office, I’ve directed that it should be allocated to benefit the state, not my office. This reflects the sacrifices I’m making as a leader, and I encourage others to follow this example.”
Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke posted this striking communication on social media at 2:54pm on October 5. He elaborated on the post during his interactive session with the people of the state in the capital, Osogbo, on the same day.
“As a leader who is leading by example,” he was quoted as saying, “I have sacrificed the entire sum of my security vote (about N600m monthly) from the inception of my administration since November 2022. I have dedicated this monthly fund to the development and progress of Osun State.” He added that he preferred to use the security vote for such purposes “rather than keep it to myself like others before me.”
His words, if factual, are food for thought. His action, if real, demonstrates a rare altruism in high office by a governor in Nigeria. It is unclear how he ensures security if he spends the “entire” security vote on “development and progress.” Perhaps his claim is a bit hyperbolic. But the substance of his statement is significant, and deserves commendation.
Historically, so-called security votes at the governorship level in Nigeria have been linked with corruption. Indeed, a former governor of Kano State, Musa Kwankwaso, once described security votes as “another way of stealing public funds.”
Read Also: BBC insists Tinubu’s CSU certificate not forged
In March 2022, for instance, officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arrested the immediate past governor of Anambra State, Willie Obiano, “for alleged misappropriation of public funds, including N5bn Sure-P and N37bn security vote which was withdrawn in cash.”
Also, in a letter to then President Muhammadu Buhari, in January 2022, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) highlighted a report by Transparency International (TI) indicating that “most of the funds appropriated as security votes are spent on political activities, mismanaged or simply stolen. It is estimated that security votes add up to over N241.2bn every year.”
The group urged Buhari to instruct the EFCC and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to “jointly track and monitor spending of security votes” by the 36 state governors.
Paradoxically, security votes connected with governors in Nigeria are usually not used for security purposes. In 2020, for instance, a former governor of Abia State from 2007 to 2015, Senator Theodore Orji, who was under investigation at the time, told the EFCC how he spent N38.8bn security votes in eight years for other purposes, showing that security votes do not mean what they should mean. The former governor was reported saying he received N370m monthly as a security vote in 2007, and N410m monthly from 2008 to 2015.
Orji said he shared much of the N38bn with members of the Abia State House of Assembly, his security informants and traditional rulers. He claimed to have also given part of the money to military units, the police, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) and security agencies as what he called statutory allocations.
In a breakdown of who got what, the former governor said he gave state legislators N5. 760bn, at N60m per month, in the eight years, and also claimed to have paid N75m monthly to security informants in 15 of the 17 local government areas of the state within the same period.
He was also reported saying the so-called informants pocketed about N7.200bn from 2007 to 2015, and some of the security agencies received N2m per month. But he failed to provide a comprehensive list of all the beneficiaries of the largesse.
Governor Adeleke’s claim on the use of his security vote prompts questions on how other governors are using their own security votes. National Publicity Secretary of the Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) Ken Robinson lamented in an interview: “What the security vote has become is money that cannot be queried, that cannot be audited and money that cannot be asked how you are spending it.” This is unacceptable because it encourages non-accountability and corruption.
There is a need to rethink security votes at all levels of government in the country towards preventing abuse of useful security resources. Who determines the security votes in the individual states? What are the considerations? Are the security votes meant for the personal security of governors or for the security of the states they govern? This particular question leads to an examination of Nigeria’s odd practice of federalism, under which the states are disallowed from having their own police, for example. The centralisation of security enforcement at the federal level is ultimately counter-productive.
Tackling Nigeria’s serious and diverse security challenges requires not only federal effort but also state-level and regional interventions. Individual states should devise arrangements to ensure security in their territories. The introduction of regional security organisations funded by state governments in the southwest and southeast regions of the country is commendable. It may well be that if security votes were spent on security at all levels of government in the country, the current terrifying level of nationwide insecurity would not exist.
Governor Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is a politician who has a reputation for exhibitionistic public dancing. But he has gone beyond entertainment by setting a good example on the matter of security votes. He said enough to suggest that the “security votes” fraud is still in vogue among people in power in the country today as an easy path to wealth acquired fraudulently.
Is it possible that there are other governors following Adeleke’s path who are unknown because they have not publicly stated what they do with their security votes? Let them remove their masks for recognition.
If Adeleke is a lone traveller on this path of exemplary gubernatorial altruism, others should learn from him. The lesson: Security vote should not be a fraudulent scheme. It is nobler to spend discretionary security votes in the interest of the people, and with a sense of transparency and accountability.
