Tag: Security agencies

TWO recent incidents remind Nigerians of the difficult and intractable relationship that exists between security agencies and the civil populace. The first was the February 2 invasion of the Federal Government Girls’ College (FGGC), Calabar by operatives of the Cross River Command of the Department of State Service (DSS), during which some teachers were brutalised for allegedly caning a daughter of a DSS operative. Shots were fired during the invasion and the consequent brutalisation that took place right in the presence of gawking and squirming students and administrators. The DSS at first tried to explain away the invasion. Then it arrogantly mellowed. The second was the brutalisation in Onitsha of a physically challenged man, Chijioke Orakwu, who was accused of unlawfully wearing military camouflage dress. The two soldiers involved in the flogging of the hapless man on wheelchair are being disciplined. The Nigerian Army made no attempt to justify the soldiers’ irresponsible behaviour.

No matter how slow or reluctantly, the DSS will have to come to terms with the gross indiscipline of their operatives. They will ask themselves how easy it was for an operative to mobilise her colleagues in the execution of a private and nefarious objective. They will also ask whether the wasteful and carefree use of arms by the accused operatives accorded with the Service’s rules of engagement. And, finally, they will ask themselves whether the offenders really understand the objectives of the Service and its responsibility to the society. After many years of misadventure and false starts, the army seems better prepared to come to terms with their operational manual. In the Onitsha case, rather than waffle in the face of damning evidence, they quickly made peace with the victim and offered an unreserved apology.

But whether the army makes peace when it does not have a choice, or the DSS eventually comes to terms with the malfeasance of their operatives as protests mount, both attacks are symptomatic of deeper underlying fissures in the Nigerian society, fissures that have been recklessly expanded over the years by errant security agents, their conniving officers, and an indifferent and indecisive political leadership. The army may have made peace with Mr Orakwu, but they must ask themselves whether there is consistency, moderation and proper ethical bearing in their interactions with the civil populace, especially during a misunderstanding; or whether they are even faithful to their own rules of engagement. It took them years to redefine and refine their methods during the Boko Haram war, in fact only after domestic and international human rights watchdogs pilloried them for their brutality and ineffectiveness. And despite their exemplary response to the Onitsha public relations disaster, and their commendable preference for litigation in the Premium Times case, Nigerians still question whether their conversion is not skin deep, especially in view of the indefensible massacre they engineered against the Shiites in Zaria two Decembers ago.

While security agencies can set and enforce rules and standards for their men in uniform, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that Nigeria moves beyond reacting to repeated abuse by security agents is to consciously do something about the problem. The problem is fundamental, and is worsening. Palliatives, such as the army sensibly authorised in Onitsha last week, do not fully address a problem that has become deep-seated and embarrassing. Because security agents confer on themselves privileges neither the law nor the constitution allows them, it has become commonplace for impersonators to carry out atrocious crimes with impunity. If the leadership at federal and state levels subject themselves wholly to the rule of law, and if they show a very healthy respect for the constitution, the incentive for a security agent hiding behind his uniform somewhere to claim and misuse powers he does not have would be low.

Rather than waste resources on a futile effort to reorient Nigerians to embrace fruitless propagandist mantras developed by the government of the day, Nigerian leaders should instead engage in campaigns that promote and defend the rights of citizens and their dignity. This is a tough assignment; but it is inescapable if real and substantial progress is to be made. Former Burkinabe leader understood this sentiment perfectly when he focused on the behaviour of the men in uniform in Burkina Faso. Said he: “When you are bearing arms that can spit fire and death, and when you can receive orders standing to attention in front of a flag, without knowing who will benefit from this order or this arm, you become a potential criminal who’s just waiting to spread terror around you. How many soldiers are going around such and such a country, and bringing grief and desolation without understanding that they are fighting men and women who argue for the same ideals as their own. If they knew! Children of workers who see their parents going on strike against reactionary regimes accept to fight for the reactionary leaders since they joined the army. So a soldier without any political or ideological training is a potential criminal.”

Piecemeal and reactive approach to settling misunderstanding between security agents and the civil populace will not work. It is urgent that the government must embark on inculcating political and ideological training in Nigeria’s security agents. Without this training, without helping them to acquire the relevant political consciousness, security agents will continue to behave despotically and criminally, while the government embarks on useless fire brigade approach to settling the misunderstanding. “Revolutions are brought about by men who think as men of action and act as men of thought,” said former Ghanaian leader Kwame Nkrumah. The crying need of the moment is for Nigeria to produce leaders who can think through the country’s multifarious problems. Sadly, nothing indicates that such men with big minds have arrived.