The Presidency has shifted responsibility for the rising wave of insecurity across the country to state governors, citing poor utilisation of security votes and inadequate support to federal security agencies.
Presidential Adviser on Policy Communication, Daniel Bwala, made the remarks during an appearance on TVC’s Beyond the Headlines programme on Monday, amid growing public concern over violent attacks in Plateau, Benue, Enugu, and other states.
“What we are finding, very sadly, is that there are some states where the governors give N20m to the SSS, N20m to the police, and N20m to the army as monthly allocation for fighting insecurity. And you hear their security vote is between N1bn, N2bn and N3bn. Where are we going?” Bwala queried.
He maintained that the solution to Nigeria’s security challenges lies not necessarily in the creation of state police, but in the effective deployment of existing resources and structures by state leaders.
“There are people who still believe, within the present framework of the security architecture of the state, that we can deal with insecurity if we understand what it takes to do that,” he said.
Bwala emphasised that states already have access to federal security agencies like the police, DSS, military, and paramilitary outfits, and that governors also possess constitutional rights to establish quasi-paramilitary formations.
“For example, a governor who gets more than N2bn to N3bn as security vote can decide to take only N1bn to buy equipment such as drones, vehicles and everything that is needed to do surveillance and fight security,” he said.
“That governor can give adequate infrastructure to help federal agents in their states… because crime in Nigeria is so dynamic; we’re hearing that the criminal elements even use drones. How can undemocratic elements use a sophisticated system of surveillance that the state does not have?” he added.
The presidential spokesman criticised what he described as tokenism by governors, urging them to take more responsibility in mobilising and equipping security outfits within their jurisdiction.
“Within the framework of what we have now, governors can deploy this security vote in its proper context. Take, for example, you go to every local government and create a local government vigilante. Go to the wards. Just the same way in politics, we have the polling unit, the ward, and the local government,” he suggested.
According to him, a layered vigilance system could enhance intelligence gathering and improve response to threats across communities.
“If you create that kind of system of vigilance and vanguard, some of the people might be there to provide intelligence. Some will be there to make sure that they serve at the front line in dealing with these insurgents, believe me, we will achieve substantially,” he said.
Bwala also took aim at repeated claims by governors that they lack the authority to command federal forces.
“But we have always fed this lame excuse where governors will say, ‘I don’t have the capacity to do anything because I’m not the Chief Security Officer of my state,’” he said.
He added, “By the time you create a state police now, a governor who says he’s struggling to pay salaries, you want to create another police system for him to pay them or to work with them free of charge?
“Do you know what it means for a state to run a security outfit like a police system. It is no joke. Do we have the budget at the moment to sustain that?
“Now, I’m not suggesting that we don’t need it. But what I’m saying is we don’t have to wait for it before we can safeguard lives,” he said.
