The Nation Newspaper

Tag: force

  • Senate moves to unbundle Police

    …Bill scale first reading

     

    The Senate Thursday took steps to unbundle the Police as a Bill aimed at amending Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, (as amended), which deals with the Force establishment, scaled first reading.

    The Bill was listed against the name of the Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, who is also chairman, Senate ad-hoc committee on review of the constitution.

    The proposed constitutional amendment is entitled: “Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) Bill, 2018 (SB.694) First Reading.

    After the adoption of the first reading of the Bill, Ekweremadu explained: “The Committee on Review of the 1999 Constitution has fulfilled its mandate. Now the Bill has been taken for the first time. I am sure that as soon as possible, we will take the Second Reading and probably send it to public hearing through the committee so that we fast-track it as directed by the Senate.”

    The plan to amend the Section 214 of the Constitution to accommodate the creation of State Police and Community policing was proposed last week by Ekweremadu.

    The amendment is essentially aimed at creating state and community police to complement the efforts of the Nigeria Police.

    It is generally believed that the Police as presently constituted have proven to be ineffective, especially in the face of daunting security challenges in parts of the country.

    Senator Solomon Adeola (Lagos State) formally moved the motion last week, when the Senate considered a motion on recent killings in Plateau and other states.

    The Constitution Review Committee was mandated to submit a copy of the bill within two weeks.

    Senate President Bukola Saraki promised that the bill will be given speedy consideration to enable President Muhammadu Buhari assent it before the expiration of the administration.

    Findings showed that the Bill seeks to establish The Federal Police and State Police, while also creating the National Police Service Commission, National Police Council and State Police Service Commission for the states.

    The Federal Police, according to the Bill, shall “be responsible for the maintenance of public security, preservation of public order and security of persons and property throughout the federation”, and “provide state policing for any state that is unable to operate a State Police until such a time that a State Police is established by the House of Assembly of that state”.

    The Bill proposes the appointment of the Commissioner of Police of a state by the governor on the advice of the National Police Service Commission and subject to confirmation of the House of Assembly, while the term of office of the Commissioner of Police shall be for a period of five years only or until he attains a retirement age prescribed by law, whichever is earlier.

    “The governor or such other Commissioner of the Government of the State as he may authorise in that behalf may give to the Commissioner of Police such lawful directions with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order as he may consider necessary, and the Commissioner of Police shall comply with those directions or cause them to be complied with.

    “Provided that where the Commissioner of Police feels that any order given under this subsection is unlawful or contradicts general policing standards or practice, he may request that the matter be referred to the State Police Service Commission for review and the decision of the State Police Service Commission shall be final, the Bill proposes.

    Also, whereas a Commissioner of Police of a state may be removed on the grounds of misconduct, serious breach of policing standards, conviction by a court of law or tribunal, indictment by a judicial body or tribunal for corruption, participation in political activities, among others, such removal must be approved by two-thirds majority of the State House of Assembly.

    It goes on to propose that an “Act of the National Assembly may prescribe a bi-annual certification review of the activities of State Police by the National Police Service Commission to ensure they meet up with approved national standards and guidelines of policing and their operations do not undermine national integrity, promote ethnic, tribal or sectional agenda or marginalise any segment of the society within the state”.

    Also, the National Police Service Commission shall comprise representatives of the National Human Rights Commission, Public Complaints Commission, Labour, Nigeria Bar Association, Nigeria Union of Journalists, and the Attorney-General of each state, in addition to six retired police officers not below the rank of Assistant Inspector-General of Police as well as Chairman to be confirmed by the Senate.

    In the same vein, the State Police Service Commission shall comprise a representative of the Federal Government appointed by the National Police Service Commission, two members to be appointed by the National Human Rights Commission who must be indigenes of the respective states, a representative of the Public Complaints Commission, one representative of the Labour appointed by the Chairman of the state chapter, a representative of the NBA, and a representative of the NUJ. Others are three retired police officers to be appointed by the Governor from each senatorial district and the Commission Chairman whom must all be confirmed by the State House of Assembly.

    The Bill further provides that the State Police Service Commission shall be responsible for, among others, recommending the appointment of a Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, and Assistant Commissioner of Police to the National Police Service Commission in addition to appointment, discipline, and removal of members of the state police below the rank of the Assistant Commissioner of Police.

    The National Police Service Commission, on the other hand, shall be responsible for the appointment of persons to offices (other than the office of the Inspector-General of Police) in the Federal Police Service; and exercising disciplinary control over members of the Federal Police; recommending to the Governor of a State the appointment of the Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioners of Police of State Police.

    It will also be responsible for recommending to the governor the discipline and removal of the Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner of Police of State Police as well as supervising the activities of Federal and State Police and prescribing standards for all police forces in the country in training, criminal intelligence data bases, forensic laboratories and render assistance to the State Police in areas as may be requested by such State Police.

  • Rule of force

    Whenever it is parochial interest that motivates an agent of the law into wielding the law, as with a desperate act of self-preservation or affirmation, there is always a thin crossover line from the rule of law to the rule of force, which is only a short stop from the rule of lawlessness. That crossover line is most times blurred. And the dynamics hold true for executive agents of the law as for legislative or judicial agents.

    Nigeria’s national lawmakers went for broke last week, throwing in the gauntlet before the Muhammadu Buhari presidency over alleged threats to the country’s fragile democracy. The two chambers of the National Assembly hunkered down in an unprecedented closed joint session – the first time since the return of democracy in 1999 that the Senate and House of Representatives got together on any matter other than receiving the budget from the Executive arm or hosting a visiting foreign dignitary.

    Tuesday’s meeting was a panic button by the legislators who apparently were desperate for class-preservation in the face of emergent threats to institutional relevance of the National Assembly. Although they spoke of threats to the whole edifice of democracy, the threats that were immediately obvious were those posed by agents of the Executive arm to specific personalities in the NASS.

    The joint session was called on the heels of the Police citing and inviting Senate President Bukola Saraki for alleged complicity in arming suspects of the recent Offa bank robbery in which many people were killed. Prior to that citation, Saraki had raised the alarm about alleged plot by the Police to victimise him for having recently led the red chamber to declare Police Inspector-General Ibrahim Idris a democracy misfit after he repeatedly spurned purported oversight summons by the Senate. Idris had shunned the Senate’s invitations amid efforts by his agency to prosecute controversial Kogi West Senator Dino Melaye for alleged gunrunning – a case he accused the chamber of aiming to meddle in.

    There was good reason, of course, to suspect the Senate of angling for self-help in the Melaye case, considering the timing of its summons on Idris. And the red chamber apparently overreached its powers under Section 88 of the 1999 Federal Constitution in the issues it identified for the IGP’s invitation. But there’s always a challenge with anyone taking recourse to the rule of force, no matter the instigation. And so, with his arrogant rebuff of the Senate, Idris came across as less than pliant towards the rule of law and democracy tenets. Besides, his crude refusal to honour the summons, if only to indulge the legislators, located him for perception as being disposed to vindictive sleigh of hand, which lawmakers apparently see entailed now in the Police’s indictment of Saraki for the Offa robbery.

    Another seeming threat to NASS was that the Department of State Security (DSS) and the Police recently pulled a sizeable number of their operatives attached as security detail to Saraki, House of Representatives Speaker Yakubu Dogara and others in assembly leadership. Reports later said some of those operatives were restored following an intervention by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo. And that begs the question of the professional judgment that informed the initial withdrawal if the operatives could be so swiftly restored after presidential intervention – except, as it seemed, it was a willful affront by those agencies on the Legislature. Meanwhile, that isn’t counting the recent congresses of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), the outcomes of which blindsided many legislative principals among other party members.

    Still, all those issues are largely personal and should be difficult to prove as directly hazarding the health of our democracy. Without doubt, they are as well issues that perhaps betrayed disdain on the part of President Buhari for democracy’s sacred principle of separation of powers and the independence of other arms of government, in this particular case the Legislature. But they nonetheless remain issues best sorted out in personal capacities by the lawmakers affected.

    When NASS would rise from its joint session last week, however, it reached for the jugular of the Nigerian democracy, threatening to “invoke its constitutional powers” if nothing was done to address its concerns. Those were wordings that left little to doubt that the lawmakers were threatening impeachment of the president if pushed too hard.

    Apparently to win legitimacy and public sympathy for their grouse, the lawmakers made their resolutions range broadly from the self-interested to the public-spirited. These included that security agencies be given marching orders to end the killings across the country and protect lives as well as property; that alleged Executive harassment and humiliation of perceived political opponents and people with contrary views be stopped forthwith by the Police and other security agencies; that the president is accountable for the actions of his appointees and must be ready to sanction those who engage in acts that imperil democracy; that the government should show sincerity in its fight against corruption by not being selective and by prosecuting current appointees who have corruption cases pending; that the sanctity of the National Assembly should be nurtured and protected by the Executive arm; that democratic elections must be made competitive and inclusive by removing alleged reign of fear and intimidation in the build-up to the 2019 elections; and that the president must take immediate steps to contain growing unemployment and poverty in Nigeria, especially with the spot market price of crude oil now nudging $80 per barrel.

    Just so to be clear: for the model of democracy that we have chosen in this country to thrive, I am a firm believer in insular independence of the Legislature. As such, I do not share the mob cheerleading when the Executive arm under any pretext tyrannises the Legislature or indeed the Judiciary. With more than 200 years of practice under their belt, Americans only occasionally permit that the same party to control the White House and Congress at any point in time; and often, that equation changes at mid-term elections as they have coming up this November. Even while the one-party supremacy lasts, the party hardly ever has enough members to ram bills or other presidential fancies through Congress without getting the backing of some opposition members. That is the model of democracy we’ve opted to adopt in Nigeria. And that is why what we have going on in many states between governors and houses of assembly is hardly democracy practice.

    But neither is NASS’ battle cry last week also democracy. For one, the factuality of many resolutions from the joint session is highly debatable. Added to this is that the value is grossly depreciated by the fact that those resolutions were informed more by self-interest on the part of the lawmakers than by the best interest of the citizenry. With its panic recourse to self-interested rule of force, the National Assembly only further chipped away from its institutional legitimacy and actually undermined democracy practice.

    Moshood Abiola, GCFR

    Before our very eyes, the winner of the June 12 1993 presidential election has been officially crowned and the day of the election declared Nigeria’s authentic Democracy Day. Moshood Abiola got the GCFR national honour posthumously, while his running mate Babagana Kingibe and celebrated rights lawyer the late Gani Fawehinmi got the GCON honour.

    I care no hoot whether Buhari acted with an eye on 2019; what he did was long overdue and his predecessors had shied away from doing same. Former leaders had ample opportunity to ‘play politics’ by taking those decisions, but they held back.

    The point must be made that the award to Kingibe sucks, because he famously renounced the 1993 mandate even before Abiola died. Besides, there are a number of other living actors who better deserve national honours for the June 12 struggle. Still, it is gratifying that Nigeria’s history is now more accurately accounted.

     

    • Please join me on kayodeidowu.blogspot.be for conversation.
  • Obasanjo’s third force

    Obasanjo’s third force

    Much of the focus on recent open letter by former President Olusegun Obasanjo to President Buhari has for obvious reasons, centred on aspects dealing with reasons why the latter should not seek a second term. And in a political terrain where high premium is placed on the person who occupies that elated seat, the part of the country he comes from and other inchoate considerations, this should not surprise anyone.

    If discussions are largely tainted by these and others that hinge on the mundane and the most parochial, Nigerians are reacting true to type. It is not surprising that those who have joined the conversation have found themselves unwittingly influenced by some of these considerations.

    Obasanjo’s letter reminiscent of the one he did on the ambition of former President Goodluck Jonathan on the heels of the last presidential election has thrown spanners into the wheel of the three year old regime of Buhari. Given that his letter to Jonathan contributed to the turn of events that truncated that regime, there is the feeling that some domino effect may follow his current damning verdict on the performance of the incumbent government. Though the language of his latest letter was mild in comparison with the acerbic, tendentious and dangerous allegations peddled in the one to Jonathan, Obasanjo took time to adduce reasons why he thinks Buhari should shelve his touted ambition to run for another term.

    Recalling his earlier observations on Buhari’s poor understanding of issues relating to the economy and his weakness playing in the foreign affairs sector, Obasanjo regretted that Buhari failed to make use of the abundant pool of technical know-how in the requisite areas to excel. He accused him of nepotism and deployments bordering on clannishness, poor understanding of the dynamics of internal politics that has left the country more divided than ever before and buck-passing by serially refusing to take responsibility.

    These are very serious and damning observations that cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand. The issues are very clear and there have been wide spectrum of opinion on them before now. Perhaps, what Obasanjo did is to throw his with on them such that nobody can easily ignore again. So it is difficult to accuse him of any hidden agenda or bad faith in bringing these issues to the front burner. And even if he has some other hidden motive, the pervasiveness of the observed weaknesses provides sufficient cover for him.

    But perhaps, the most engaging and potentially explosive contribution Obasanjo made in the letter is his assessment of the two political parties – APC and PDP and their place in Nigeria’s political matrix. He disagreed that the PDP has weaned itself of its sordid past to be the harbinger for political re-engineering even as his assessment of the current performance of the APC also disqualifies it for that emerging national assignment.

    For him, the country is in a serious pass requiring some radical action to steer the ship of the nation aright. He bemoans the dearth of patriotic leadership, high inclination towards parochialism and tendencies that obfuscate nation-building and the attainment of greatness in the nearest future. For him, extant order denoted in the political leadership thrown up by the two big parties have become anachronistic and therefore incapable of serving the future interests of this country. That decadent and stale order must be dismantled to allow a new seed of leadership to geminate and flourish.

    His solution to this systemic decay lies in the emergence of a body of new leadership that is not tainted and corrupted by old persuasions denoted by the two leading parties which in his view, have outlived their usefulness. A third force – a group of patriotic and selfless Nigerians committed to the overall growth and development of the country will do the magic of re-inventing the country. His anchormen quickly launched the coalition last week in Abuja and explained the objective is to see a new Nigeria, give leadership of the country to knowledgeable and vibrant young men and women since the APC and PDP have not been able to meet the aspirations of Nigerians.

    Within this context, the promoters are rooting for the old order to give way in the fashion of the Kuhnian Revolution. They envision a new theory, new order or paradigm emerging to supplant existing theories.

    Following that tradition, Obasanjo wants us believe that the theoretical basis or foundation for the continued existence of the two leading parties has been flawed. But he failed to let us into the processes leading to such conclusions except relying heavily on his observations of their failings which at best, can only be consigned to the realm of educated guess. Educated guess is of very questionable empirical value. Moreover, he failed to establish how his concept of an amorphous coalition provides that suitable alternative.

    Yes, Obasanjo identified some of the problems buffeting the country including, poor leadership and primordial tendencies competing with the central authority for the loyalty of the citizens thus rendering nation-building a pipe dream. Their causative factors are both systemic and behavioural and cannot be remedied overnight through the aggregation of people of diverse persuasions into a make-shift coalition.

    A hurried arrangement in the fashion proposed is of very limited value in addressing the very fundamental institutional and attitudinal issues that have continued to be the country’s albatross. Ironically, Obasanjo is not comfortable referring to his coalition as a third force. He seems afraid of the radicalism implied in that terminology.

    But in shying away from that, he complicates the philosophical basis on the desideratum of an alternative change agent. That confusion runs through his letter and the explanation offered by his loyalists while launching the coalition.

    There is no clarity in stating that nothing stops the movement from satisfying the conditions for fielding candidates for elections and his vow to quit if the coalition morphs into a political party. How do you give leadership of the country to the knowledgeable and vibrant young men outside the platforms offered by existing political parties? How do you achieve that ambition and vision of a new Nigeria-a sharp departure from our decadent past through a motley assemblage of disorganized, disoriented and seemingly disgruntled crowd? And the people promoting the idea, how free are they from those systemic ills for which a new paradigm has to emerge?

    It is obvious there is some confusion on the original philosophical vision of the coalition and what we are now being made to believe. That vision collapsed immediately they repudiated the idea of a third force. It collapsed the moment they prevaricated on whether the group will morph into a political party and field candidates. It is also obvious in the discordant tunes by Obasanjo and his henchmen.

    The problem Obasanjo ran into can be understood. He left the PDP on his own choice and helped in the emergence of the APC. Then, he had hurriedly announced his disinterest in partisan politics. From his observatory, he found out that there is no difference between the two leading parties. Some form of intervention is therefore required to steer the ship of the country alright. It goes without saying. The current parasitic and oligarchic class of leadership that emerges on the basis of political exigency rather than competence and merit must to give way for the type of vision Obasanjo nurses to flourish.

    But the processes to it have to be more far-reaching and radical than gathering and aggregating people under a coalition with no clearly defined objectives on how they intend to take over power. A third force should offer more attraction than the current equivocation the coalition represents. The third force or coalition should champion the restructuring of the country.  Restructuring will substantially address the issues Obasanjo raised.

     

  • Show of force

    Unprovoked attack on journalists inside their Umuahia secretariat, Abia State by soldiers of ‘Operation Python Dance’ and the heightened tension sequel to their deployment underscore most poignantly, some of the potent dangers in the exercise.

    Soldiers, ostensibly on a show of force, stormed the secretariat of journalists beating them up and smashing their working equipments including phones and I-pads. They claimed they saw some of them taking pictures of their convoy.

    But we are told it is a show of force. And when you display force in public, is there still anything to hide? If the display of force is for the public to see the readiness of the military to confront any threat to public peace, what difference does it make if such information is further made available to others outside the vicinity of the action by the media? We raise this to highlight the incongruity of the soldiers’ action and the dangers in the current posturing of the military campaign in the South-east.

    Good enough, the army apologized for the excesses of their men even before the September 15 advertised date for the commencement of the exercise. Given that the so-called operation python dance was billed to commence on September 15, what campaigns were the soldiers involved in skirmishes penultimate Sunday at Nnamdi Kanu’s country home and those that attacked journalists last Tuesday prosecuting?

    It is vital for this riddle to be resolved for the public to really appreciate what is really going on in the South-east. Was the action of the military well ahead of the planned Operation Python Dance part of it or a precursor of what to expect? The army has to provide answer to this given conflicting accounts of what transpired at the home of Kanu on that Sunday. The army denied attacking or killing anybody. It claimed suspected IPOB militants blocked the road against troops of 145 Battalion on a show of force along FMC-World Bank Road, Umuahia; insisting they would not pass and started pelting stones. Troops according to them, fired shots in the air to disperse the crowd.

    But the account of the state police commissioner ran thus “what happened was that the military was parading a new armoured carrier and passed through Kanu’s residence. It was while they were passing that some people threw some stones and other things at them”.

    However, video clips on the incident showed a military tank and other vehicles at the residence of Kanu moving back and forth. Several gunshots boomed at the background while some youth, presumably IPOB members with sticks and stones hauled some pebbles at the military tank. A young man seen with deep wound on his leg soaked in blood was being assisted by some youth who claimed he was shot by the army.

    It was not clear whether the shooting preceded the hauling of pebbles or the vice versa. But what seemed apparent was that the skirmish took place in front of the residence of the IPOB leader. And prior to this, there was tranquillity within the area.

    When the military launched the first version of this exercise between November and December last year, it said the objective was to tackle armed robbery, kidnapping, violent crimes, herdsmen-farmers’ clashes and violent agitations. But this time, the word violent was dropped from agitations, thus conveying the impression that even lawful and legitimate agitations were some of the targets of the operation.

    Little wonder the current conduct of the soldiers and public apprehension at the sight of the armada amassed in the South-east. Many have questioned the propriety of deploying sophisticated military arms and ammunition to fight the societal ills for which the military sought to justify the operation. There have also been opinions that our laws do not permit the use of the military for functions that ordinarily should be the statutory responsibility of the police.

    Issues have also been raised as to whether the President has the powers to deploy the military in such a massive way without the approval of the Senate. Even in the case of the Boko Haram insurgents that were clearly waging a military warfare against the Nigerian government, former President Jonathan got the approval of the Senate before declaring the partial state of emergency that enabled him to deploy troops to that area.

    So why are extant rules of organized conduct being observed in their breach even on issues of non violent agitations for self-determination that are still within the competences of the police force? We raise this question because the posturing of the military in the current exercise is loaded with frightening prospects of rupturing peace and escalating tension and clashes between the soldiers and the civil populace.

    Given the temperament of the military as we have seen in the unprovoked attack on journalists, there is everything to expect the situation will degenerate if they continue to show force the way they are going about it. Already, allegations of killings, inhuman treatment, abuse of human rights and scant regard for rules of engagement have been traded. Ethnic clashes and reprisal attacks have also been reported in Rivers, Kaduna and Plateau with Abia and Plateau states declaring dusk to dawn curfew.

    Unless the overall objective is to escalate tension and find excuse for what the army knows best, utmost caution and restraint must be applied in the on-going campaign. It is very delighting the army apologized to journalists attacked by their men with a promise to replace their damaged equipment and punish the offenders. The way things stand, the deployment of troops in the South-east and the conduct of the soldiers have escalated tension and suspicion among the distinct groups that hitherto co-habited resulting to attacks and counter attacks.

    A situation that has compelled law-abiding citizens to nurse genuine fears on the safety of their lives leaves a sour taste in the mouth. The right thing to do in the circumstance is for the soldiers to be withdrawn immediately to enable the police being deployed to the states to maintain the peace.

    The operation has also been queried given what appears its very selective nature. Armed robbery, kidnapping and sundry crimes for which reasons the deployment has been rationalized, are by no means on top of the scale in the South-east. Neither is agitation for self-determination or threats of it limited to that zone. Constant killings, despoliation of communities and raping of women in their farms for which armed Fulani herdsmen are notorious, especially around the North-central have not attracted this manner of military deployment. Yet, they operate with the sophistication of well organized insurgents. This has given cause for suspicion of bias.

    Even then, military checkpoints have since remained a regular feature at the entry and exit points of states in the south-east zone. It would appear the body language of the government is that the new phase of Operation Python Dance is primarily targeted at those agitating for self-determination especially the group led by Kanu. The army has reacted to video clips depicting soldiers dehumanizing IPOB members in the most chilling manner with a promise to investigate the report. It calls for independent investigations.

    Former President Obasanjo had at a recent workshop on “preventing violent extremism” attributed the escalation of the Boko Haram insurgency to a disproportionate use of the ‘stick’ rather than ‘carrot’. And in an interview with the BBC last week, he said Boko Haram started from a position of gross underdevelopment and youth frustration and as such, we must be treating the disease and not the symptom. Buhari should find answers to the objective conditions that propel these agitations and address them rather than muzzle and drive dissent underground.

  • The case for states Police Force

    The case for states Police Force

    The following article by me on the issue of the creation of states police force was first published in this paper in August, 2012. Now that retired General Ibrahim Babangida has made an astonishing ‘Pauline’ conversion in support of the long standing agitation for such a police force, it is being published again, without any amendments, to reinforce the argument for the creation of states police force.

    There is a growing demand in the country for the creation of states police force. It is one of the major controversial issues in the current debate on the review of the 1999 Constitution. The state governors are divided over the issue. While most of the Northern PDP governors are opposed to the idea of a state police, their Southern counterparts, particularly the ACN governors in the South West, are in favour of the proposal. The dispute is not about corruption in the Police, or its professional ineptitude. Rather, it is about the powerful role of the Police in future elections in the country. Both the ruling and opposition parties are already thinking of the critical 2015 elections and beyond, when the role of the Nigeria Police will become even more crucial and decisive.  An impartial and non-partisan police is crucial to free and fair elections. The political party that rules the country will control the Police. But the opposition parties do not believe that the Nigeria Police, under the control of the federal government, can be trusted to conduct free and fair elections in the country.

    The idea of a state police was first raised at the Lancaster House Independence talks in 1959 in London, when the Action Group, the ruling party in the former Western Region, demanded the creation of a regional police in the independence constitution. The party had become dissatisfied with the partisan role of the Nigeria Police in Nigeria’s politics and elections. Specifically, it had serious doubts that the Nigeria Police, under the control of a hostile federal government, could be relied upon to be politically impartial in enforcing law and order in Nigeria, and in ensuring free and fair elections in the country. But the federal government, led by the NPC and the NCNC coalition, that had control of the federal police, opposed the demand for regional police. With the active support of the British colonial government, the idea of a regional police was rejected at the conference. The Nigeria Police had inherited the traditions of the colonial police which was often used to smash political agitations in the colony. The Action Group found itself a lone voice crying in the political wilderness. The AG feared that the federal police would, in future, be used by the ruling party at the centre as a political instrument for intimidating the opposition parties and for rigging elections in the country. Its fears were real and proved justified later, shortly after independence in 1960.

    Before independence, most enlightened and educated Nigerians were not in support of a regional police force, which they equated with the notorious and hated old Native Authority police all over Nigeria, but particularly in the North, where it was used as an instrument of oppression against the people and the main opposition parties. It was assumed by the educated Nigerian elite that a sole federal police would be in a better position to enforce the right of free association and guarantee free and fair elections in Nigeria. But these enlightened views and assumptions soon proved unrealistic in the context of Nigerian politics in which, soon after independence, the Nigeria Police became increasingly involved in partisan politics and tended to support the ruling Party. For the NPC and the NCNC, the main coalition partners in the federal government, control of the Nigeria Police was vital if they were to maintain their dominant electoral position in the country. Under their joint control the single Nigeria Police Force could easily be used to advance their electoral interests.

    The fears of the Action Group opposition about the dangers to the regions of a sole federal police were soon justified by the 1959 federal elections in which the federal (Nigerian) Police were used massively, particularly in Northern Nigeria, to prevent the Action Group leaders from holding their political campaigns. The opposition parties were often refused police permits to hold political rallies in the Northern Region. Many opposition candidates were illegally arrested by the police, in breach of the electoral laws, and released only after the elections. Then again in 1962, during the internal crisis of the Action Group, the federal NPC/NCNC coalition government used the Nigeria Police which it controlled to intimidate the Action Group, the ruling party in the Western region, and break up demonstrations of public support for the party in the region. Specifically, the use of the police by the federal government to break up proceedings in the Western Region House of Assembly was plainly illegal and unconstitutional. Claiming falsely that there was a breakdown of law and order in the region, the federal coalition government declared a state of emergency in the region. The AG regional government was eventually turned out of office and the party destroyed. Soon after, most of the AG leaders, including Chief Awolowo, were incarcerated unfairly and subsequently tried and jailed on trumped up charges of treason. The Nigeria Police was used to carry out these unconstitutional and illegal acts by the federal coalition government to destroy the AG regional government.

    This regrettable development increased existing fears regarding the impartiality of the police in Nigerian politics and the use to which it could be put during elections to suppress the opposition. After the long military interlude, the partisan role of the Police in the 1979 federal elections and subsequent elections reinforced the growing feeling, particularly in the South, that the Nigeria Police was being used to rig elections in Nigeria in support of the ruling party. The classic case was that of the former Inspector General of Police, Mr. Adewusi, who, in the 1983 federal elections, announced publicly without any authority, and even before the results of the elections had been announced by the electoral commission, that President Shagari of the NPN had won the elections. He could barely conceal his brazen and ardent support for the ruling party, the NPN, in the elections. He threatened to arrest and detain any opposition leader who challenged the results of the elections which, by all accounts, were massively rigged. His role, as the head of the Police, was clearly partisan and a clear negation of the Constitution. The Nigeria Police had become increasingly corrupt and professionally inept in discharging its statutory functions. It was no longer an independent and neutral national security institution, but an extension of the federal government, controlled by the Northern political elite. Most of the Inspectors General of the Nigeria Police have come from the North. Public confidence in the integrity and professional competence of the Nigeria Police had fallen sharply. Now it was held in contempt by the public.

    There can be little or no doubt that in 2003 and 2007, the Nigeria Police was used by the PDP federal government to rig the elections. The Obasanjo PDP federal government certainly used the police as an instrument for the rigging of the 2003 elections, the ‘do or die’ elections, particularly in the South West where the PDP, except in Lagos, unbelievably swept the polls. This is the background to the present demand for the creation of states police, in addition to the existing federal police, now considered to be highly politicized and inherently incapable of being neutral in handling elections in the country. The truth of the matter is that the Nigerian Police has been made a political instrument of the federal authorities for subverting free and fair elections in the states and the nation. It is no longer trusted by the opposition parties.

    In different circumstances, there is a lot that can be said in favour of a sole federal police in the country. But this is only if the professionalism and political neutrality of the police can be guaranteed. This is by no means the case now. The Nigeria Police are answerable to only the federal authorities. In normal circumstances, the internal security of the nation should remain the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. But even in this case, the state governors are designated as the Chief Security Officers of their states. Obviously, there is an anomaly here as the state governors are not responsible for the police even in their states where the Police Commissioners are answerable only to the Inspector General of Police and, through him, to the Minister of Internal affairs, or the Minister for Police Affairs, a federal agent. In other words, the state governors are assigned responsibility without power. The case of the former governor of Anambra, Dr. Ngige, illustrates the dilemma faced by a state governor who has no control over the police in his state. The fear that the state governors will abuse the state police in the same manner as the federal government has been abusing the federal police is real. But that should not be advanced as a reason for opposing the demand for the creation of states police in Nigeria, a federal state.

    In the context of Nigerian politics, the case for a state police has become increasingly clear and urgent. With a population of over 150 million, Nigeria is too large to have a single police force. The point has been made repeatedly that Nigeria is currently under policed. This accounts for the sharp increase in Nigeria’s crime rate. There is no country with a comparable size and population that has a single Police Force; not the USA, India, Australia, Switzerland, nor Canada, all of which have federal constitutions. Even Britain, now a quasi-federal state, does not have a single Police Force. Each region, even Metropolis, has its own separate police. At the moment the Nigeria Police is under funded, under equipped and lacking the resources needed to ensure effective internal security in the nation. It is overstretched. It simply cannot cope with the increasing crime rate in the country, not to even talk about effectively tackling the menace of terrorism in the country.

    In addition, the Nigeria Police lacks the required local intelligence to tackle terrorism. Only a state police can fill this gap. A neighbourhood police is the most effective way to gather such intelligence. If the states are allowed to have their own police forces, it will relieve the federal police of its enormous security burdens, and allow the federal government to fund and equip it better. Broadly, the Nigeria Police should have functions similar to those of the FBI in the United States. The time has come for those states that would like to have their own police force to be allowed under the proposed new Constitution to do so. This will reduce the pressure on the federal police force and the high crime rate in the country.

  • Niger Delta crisis should not be settled through force, says Ochicha

    Niger Delta crisis should not be settled through force, says Ochicha

    Mr Odey Ochicha was the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate in Cross River State. He spoke with NICHOLAS KALU in Calabar.

    What can you say about the resurgence of militancy in the Niger Delta region?

    The situation in the Niger Delta should be resolved through dialogue not force. When a child rebels, the father does not crush or kill him. He adopts carrot and stick method because he is his Son whom he loves and cares for. He protects, counsel, guides, encourages and educates him to be a good child.  This is the method I recommend to quell the conflict in the Niger Delta area. I urge our aggrieved brothers in the Niger Delta to stop destroying our oil and gas installations in the area. These facilities belong to us all. There are necessary for our existence and continuous survival as a people and as a nation. They should not be destroyed but protected to achieve the purpose for their establishment. The greatest losers are the people of the area not anybody else.

    What is your take on the agitation by for the creation of a Republic of Biafra?

    The solution to the challenges facing our nation is not to agitate for separation but to have a balanced and fiscal federalism. The former president of the US, Thomas Jefferson championed balanced federalism in America and today, America is the leading nation in the world. Nigeria needs to do the same. All ethnic groups should have a sense of belonging and given its due recognition and respect which I simply described as the double Rs.

    Is it proper for the Federal Government to use brute force against the agitation?

    It is not proper to use force against the agitation for Biafra. Anybody can agitate for anything. But this should be done using civilized approaches as discussion, dialogue and negotiation. For me, it’s better to “jaw jaw” than “war war” as opined by the former Prime Minister of Britain, Winston Churchill.

    What is your opinion of democracy in Nigeria?

    Democracy as defined by the former president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln is government of the people by the people and for the people. It is a government in which the people determine leadership. It affords the people the opportunity to periodically choose who represents them. It offers the people choices and for power to change hands. And it is when power change hands that we witness rapid progress and accelerated development of the country. For me, democracy is growing in Nigeria.

  • Force of size

    Imagine a defence team made up of 99 lawyers, including 32 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN). This curiously large team of defenders was announced at a Lagos High Court in Igbosere on February 16.

    The defendant, Lagos lawyer Ricky Tarfa (SAN), is accused of willfully obstructing two officers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Moses Awolusi and Sanusi Mohammed, from arresting Gnanhoue Sourou and Nazaire Odeste, suspected to have committed economic and financial crimes.  Also, he is alleged to have engaged in improper communication with Justice M. Yunusa of the Federal High Court, Lagos, while the case between the EFCC and two others was pending before the judge.

    But that didn’t make the size of the defence team understandable. The same number of Senior Advocates had reportedly lined up behind Tarfa to file a suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos, demanding N2.5 billion damages for Tarfa’s alleged unlawful arrest and detention.  It looked like a dramatic show of solidarity.

    It wasn’t less dramatic when the size of the defence team attracted attention at Justice Aishat Opesanwo’s court at the commencement of proceedings in a counter case filed by the EFCC.

    Was the intention to intimidate the judge with an army of lawyers, senior and not-so-senior? The trial judge reportedly “bemoaned the number of counsel who were in court for the defendant. She noted that there was no need for such magnitude of support as it amounts to harassment and intimidation of the court.”

    The judge’s observation is thought-provoking. It remains to be seen whether the sheer number of defenders would work in the defendant’s favour. The force of size is not the force of justice.

  • Why plot to take Lagos by force failed, by APC

    Why plot to take Lagos by force failed, by APC

    The Lagos State All Progressives Congress (APC) has said losing the March 28 Presidential election frustrated plans by the rival Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to take Lagos by force.

    A statement by the party’s publicity secretary, Mr. Joe Igbokwe said the then ruling party would have deployed everything in its arsenal, including security agencies and ethnic groups, to dislodge the APC-led government in Lagos if Nigerians had renewed the mandate of former President Goodluck Jonathan.

    “Had the PDP succeeded in stealing the Presidency on March 28, it would have used the Army, Police, DSS (Department of State Service), Civil Defence, Oodua People’s Congress, a section of Afenifere, and anything it could lay its hands on to ‘steal’ Lagos by force.

    Igbokwe was reacting to last week’s ruling by the Supreme Court in an appeal by Jimi Agbaje (PDP) in which Governor Akinwunmi Ambode was declared winner.

    He said the people’s resilience to free themselves from 16 years of oppression and the decision of Lagosians not to embrace a party that had been rejected frustrated the plans of the PDP in the state.

    According to him, the ruling from the highest court confirmed that Lagosians voted for the APC, even as he assured them that the party would not let them down.

    The statement reads: “The apex court’s verdict has proved beyond reasonable doubt that our candidate, Mr. Akinwunmi Ambode won the election fair and square, defeating Mr. Jimi Agbaje of PDP with more 160, 000 votes.

    “We thank God for giving us victory both at the national and state level in spite of brazen impunity and injustice, intimidation, harassment, oppression, suppression, repression, political recklessness and abuse of power.”

    “The resounding victory from the apex court tells us in no uncertain terms that Lagosians have not forgotten how Alliance for Democracy, Action Congress, Action Congress of Nigeria and now the All Progressives Congress, transformed Lagos in the last 16 years and made it the fastest growing cosmopolitan city-state in Africa, the largest economy in Africa with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of more than $135 billion.

    “Lagosians have not forgotten how the progressive party cleaned up Lagos and made it a livable city. They have not forgotten how our party made Lagos a safe haven for business activities. They have not forgotten how we built the most formidable security architecture to protect lives and property of residents.

    “The Supreme Court’s verdict is yet another call to duty and we know that Governor Ambode possesses the required skills, training, experience, character, discipline and the energy to consolidate the gains of the past 16 years.”

    “The APC-led government in Lagos will not lower the bar of leadership but will continue to show the way forward for other states. Lagos will continue to provide the template for development; Lagos will continue to be a pacesetter, the harbinger of progress, the leading light and power house of ideas in years to come.”

  • IG: ban on fireworks still in force

    IG: ban on fireworks still in force

    THE Inspector-General of Police (I-G), Mr. Solomon Arase, has warned that the ban on the use of fireworks is still in force.

    He gave the warning yesterday in a statement by the Force spokesperson, Acting Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Olabisi Kolawole, in Abuja.

    “It has come to the knowledge of the Nigeria Police Force that some Nigerians have started using fireworks and firecrackers in anticipation of the yuletide celebrations,” he said.

    He said the security situation in parts of the country did not warrant the use of fireworks or knock-outs.

    Arase added that the warning became crucial as there were reports that hoodlums were now using fireworks to confuse Nigerians to carry out their nefarious activities.

     

  • Pension cash changes come into force

    The shake-up is one of the coalition government’s biggest reforms, allowing people who have saved for a pension to do what they want with their money.

    It means people who are retiring no longer have to buy an annuity to provide a fixed, regular income.

    The changes were announced by Chancellor George Osborne in his March 2014 Budget.

    Until now those who were retiring could cash in up to 25 per cent of their pension pot as a tax-free lump sum.

    They then had two options: reinvest their pension pot – or keep their current investments – and take an income from their funds as they needed. The second option open to them was to take out an annuity, which provided a fixed, regular income in their retirement.

    The changes that have now come into force mean those due to retire now can do whatever they like with 100% of their pension pot, for example invest in property, although crucially they will still only receive the first 25% tax free.

    The reforms have been welcomed in principle, but pensions experts have raised concerns about how they will operate in practice.

    Many pension companies have said they are not yet ready to allow people to cash in their pensions because it brings extra costs to schemes as well as risk.

    More than half of workplace pension schemes are still undecided about whether to offer access to the new freedoms, and 15% say they definitely will not, according to pension consultants Xafinity.