Plateau: Why some governors should refund their security votes

THE NATION

YEMI OKE

By way of introductory background, my personal opinion is that it is illogical to deploy a normal solution to solving an abnormal development. This typifies the recent Plateau killings as well as other criminalities happening in some states in Nigeria.

The most barbaric killing (put frankly, insane murder) of hundreds of Nigerians in Plateau State, or any murder of innocent souls whatsoever anywhere in the country, is a sign of mis-governance, poor/weak leadership or no leadership at all. In a federated political setting like Nigeria, even in a unitary or regional government, a protracted murdering of defenceless persons that lasted from 6pm till around 5am of the next day shows a failure of government in that state. 

We need to urgently begin to re-assess some basic facts and realities as a country:  

The Plateau killing is a clear sign that, as some of us had earlier argued elsewhere, some of the federating states in Nigeria are not viable financially, strategically, functionally, politically, socially, security-wise and from whichever angle you tend to assess them. 

Based on the above, a radical approach by way of constitutional amendment to make for voluntary mergers and de-mergers of some states in Nigeria will create for better efficiency in governance and prudent management of scarce resources. I know this might not be popular because of the needlessly entrenched interest of egotistic political players who prefer to adorn the toga of “His Excellency” or “Senator” or “Honourable” of some bankrupt and unviable federating states.

Assuming voluntary mergers or de-mergers of states proves difficult (though not impossible), failure of security at the level of the states should not be attributable to the federal government but to the chief security officers of the states – the governors.

Constitutionally and legally, protection of lives and properties are the primary bases or reasons for government. Thus, save for war or threat to national peace or security of the federation (defence), state governors should be held responsible for a breach of the peace in their domain. Some of the crisis leading to such killings might not be unconnected with their political imprudence and related factors. Knowing that they’re to be held responsible would make them sit-tight and act fast.

The plausible but lame arguments of some stakeholders have always been that state governors don’t control the police and the armed forces or other law enforcement mechanisms. If this misplaced viewpoint is acceptable, then there should be no basis for the huge or humongous “security votes” of the state governors. The “questionable security votes” are allocated and disbursed to stem the tides of insecurity in their respective domains. It then becomes an unjustifiable spending or allocation if security breaches occur. 

The flip side of the issue is that security votes should be refunded by governors of states where senseless killings are subsequently recorded. Continual allocation and disbursement of “security votes” to governors of such states might be counter-productive. Quite frankly, it might un-intentionally incentivise criminalities unless dire consequences follow breaches, being the essence of such allocation of security votes. Some have even alleged (wrongly or justifiably) that some of those political gladiators “deploy” their security or constituency votes to instigate violent political, religious and/or communal rivalries leading to such senseless killings.

READ THE FULL STORY IN THE NATION