Connect with us

Opinion

Responsibility to Protect and Zamfara ‘Self-Defence’ Democracy

Published

on

Zamfara State, the hotbed of banditry/ terrorists  in Northwest Nigeria announced last week the deregulation of weapon ownership to willing and mentally healthy individuals to defend themselves against rampaging criminals from within Nigeria and their international collaborators. This ‘self-defence’ call does not only trash the social contract between the government and the citizens which is that the former protects lives and properties while the latter submits their power and obey them, it also queries the willingness of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria to live up to the constitutional oath of defending Nigerians and its territorial integrity from internal insurrection and external aggression.

It is sad that the last seven years have seen more ungoverned spaces in Nigeria taken over by internal and external criminals who wreak havoc and compete over communities to maintain dominance where Nigerians are forced to pay to stay alive. Civilians in these troubled communities also guarantee their own safety by supplying information to criminals because the Nigeria State has been irresponsible to protect them on time. This is sad but only the person who wears the shoe know where it pinches.

While there has been argument for and against such policy direction, this piece presents the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) adopted in 2005 during United Nations World Summit. Just like a father as the head of his household is saddled with the responsibility to provide and shield his family from harm, the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria empowers the State (National or sub-national levels) to protect the citizens and residents within their geographical territories. R2P came into existence when world leadership felt they had been irresponsible in World War 1, World War 2 and the Rwanda Genocide with over 20 million dead from the violence. R2P, according to International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty is “the idea that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe – from mass murder and rape, from starvation – but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states”. With different forms of violence and insecurities facing Nigeria, has Nigeria with its federal security architecture demonstrated the responsibility to protect her citizens from banditry, terrorism, kidnapping, cattle rustling among others? The realities on ground today answer in the negative. What can be responsible for the irresponsibility of Nigeria to protect her people?

Responsibility to protect rests on three pillars. One, it is the responsibility of a state to protect her citizens; two, the wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist individual states in meeting that responsibility; three, if a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate collective action, in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter. States in the southwest demonstrated it by setting up Amotekun but because the approval resides with federal agency, the caliber of weapons approved for their use is insufficient in fighting the violent criminals they were set up to check. Criminals use Ak 47 without taking approval from government and they use it wickedly but legally backed security outfits cannot. Why is their politicization of Nigeria’s National security? Responsibility to protect rests on three responsibilities: responsibility to prevent (there must be political WILL to check transnational criminals from moving into Nigeria, poverty, unemployment and disarticulated youth population must be attended to); responsibility to react (how did Zamfara, Nigeria and other states react to the criminality of terrorists, criminal herders? With kid gloves?); and responsibility to rebuild (states must rebuild after every military intervention but at what cost to the national budget?).

While crimes are local, Nigeria sustains centralized approach to security against contemporary evolution of crimes. Some Governors like Nasir El-rufai have made a case for international support and mercenaries but the approval will have to come from “almighty” federal government whose body language has been one of unwillingness. We also have to clearly define the type of international support we are calling for going by our experience with the procurement of Super Tucano attack aircraft and the control imposed by the seller on how to use and not to use it. We have to decide to protect Nigeria. No external help will do that for us without taking other things in return.

Apart from the cost of acquiring arms, it is dangerous to empower poor populace with weapons because it may become their meal tickets like the bandits and the terrorists. Sadly, there is no structure in place to do weapon control and tracking with the weapon audit revelation that 178,459 firearms could not be accounted for by the Nigerian police.

I have had the rare privilege of speaking with those who labour day and night to protect Nigeria and Nigerians. I mean those in the Armed Forces, Police, Nigerian Civil Defense Corps, Correction Service, Immigration, Nigeria Customs service, the Department of State Service among others on why it is difficult to end terrorism, banditry among others. I typically ask them whether they lack capacity or are just unwilling to end the insecurity? Their responses point not to lack of capacity even with the weapons they have but to lack of political will to end it. Those who have been at the frontline spoke about “orders from above” which renders them incapacitated from advancing to conquer. Some told me about how their “oga at the top” instructs them to “defend and not attack”. How do you record victory if your instruction is only to wait to be attacked (sometimes killed) and the only thing you can do is to defend? Robert Greene in the 33 Laws of Power says wipe out your enemies totally. Our men are capable, majority are willing but without directives from “above”, nothing will happen. Does this explain why Kaduna that has the presence of Military formations gets attacked by Bandits at will with no superior counter force from the federal government who controls and issues orders? What happens is the lamentation of Governor Nasir El-rufai about how security agencies know the location of the attackers but he does not understand why they fail to take them out.    

There is nothing novel in what Zamfara government just pronounced. People in terror zones have always reacted in three ways: they flee from such places once they see that the state is unable to protect them. Some submit to the authority of bandits and terrorists and kidnappers agreeing to abide with the terms for their safety and the third category of responders are those who deploy self-help. When citizens cry of insecurity and they do not see the appropriate response from government, they enter self-defense mode and begin jungle justice. Government must take charge. Our insecurity is caused mainly by Nigerians with external collaborators. I salute our security men and women working hard to defend Nigeria despite poor welfare system and terrible conditions of service. I ask, can those who themselves are not secured secure others? Can those who arm thugs for political gains withdraw the arms from their cronies after elections? Is there a possibility of reworking the ECOWAS protocol on free movement of persons which is partly compromising the security of our country? The United States of America will not compromise her people. She will go to any country to defend her people and that is why Americans love their country. Rather than pronouncing a policy which will not work for poor civilians in Zamfara, the State government should join in amplifying the calls for State police. If Zamfara has its police system, it will not need to wait for the Inspector General to deploy one tactical squad located in Abuja to work and return to Abuja. We may seek external collaborations but I doubt if those who sell weapons will be happy for conflict to end. Our service Chiefs should depoliticize security and stand to defend the Constitution. Nigeria is what they swore to defend not political office holders. Our men are ready to defend Nigeria if they are given the ‘lawful order from above’. We can’t run gun-democracy and escalate the present state of insecurity by arming civilians. States should support State policing. States geographically contiguous in northwest and northeast need to harmonize security policies to avoid trans-territorial backlashes. Our security agencies must collaborate to achieve national security. In the interim, we must empower and restructure policing. We need to recruit more men because we lose our frontline fighters daily. We must take care of the families of fallen gallant security men and women so that their children will not carry arms against the country in future. We need to invest in technology and reduce moles in our security outfits. We created the problems and we only can decide when it should end. Nigerians must defend Nigeria!

 

Dr Tade, a criminologist wrote via dotad2003@yahoo.com

Comments

Opinion

Beyond the Blackboard: How Akinde Aremu is Reshaping Federal Polytechnic Ilaro

Published

on

Dr. Akinde Aremu

In a world that is increasingly dependent on sound financial expertise and innovative management practices, illuminating figures are crucial for the academic and professional growth of a nation. One such figure is Dr. Akinde Mukail Aremu, the esteemed Rector of the Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro in Ogun State. With an impressive academic background and a commitment to excellence in education, Dr. Akinde is not just shaping the minds of future financial leaders; he is also positioning the institution at the forefront of Nigeria’s educational landscape.

A Legacy of Academic Excellence

Dr. Akinde’s academic journey is nothing short of remarkable. With multiple degrees—a Bachelor’s and Master’s in Economics, a Master’s in Finance, and a PhD in Finance—his expertise spans across vital fields like Financial Management, Business Finance, and Financial Accounting. His position as the Chief Lecturer in the School of Management Studies at the Federal Polytechnic is a testament to his commitment and passion for education. Dr. Akinde’s rich academic fabric is woven with numerous publications in reputable journals, exploring key issues from stock market performance to the complexities of financial reporting standards in Nigeria.

His research interests primarily lie in finance and financial analyses, where he tirelessly seeks to address pertinent economic questions, providing insights that resonate deeply within the Nigerian financial landscape. His studies not only contribute to academic discourse but also guide policy-making in the financial realm, fostering a better understanding of economic development in Nigeria.

Championing Innovative Pedagogy

As a dedicated educator, Dr. Akinde has consistently advocated for modern pedagogical methods that inspire creativity and critical thinking among students. His teaching areas encompass crucial subjects that equip students with the financial acumen needed in today’s dynamic economic environment. By incorporating practical examples and real-life scenarios into his curriculum, he ensures that students are not just passive recipients of knowledge but active participants in their learning journey. His hands-on approach is fostering a generation of finance professionals ready to tackle the challenges of the industry head-on.

Elevating the Institution to New Heights

Under Dr. Akinde’s leadership, the Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro, is experiencing a renaissance. His vision for the institution is clear: to provide quality education that meets the benchmark of global standards. His strategic initiatives have led to the establishment of innovative programs that align with market needs, ensuring that graduates are not only employable but also ready to lead. His emphasis on human capital investment and sustainable economic strategies positions the institution as a beacon of hope for Nigeria’s future.

Furthermore, Dr. Akinde’s efforts extend beyond the classroom. His participation in international conferences and collaboration with academic institutions worldwide has spotlighted the Federal Polytechnic on a global stage. By fostering partnerships and exchanging knowledge with global thought leaders, he is silencing the cynics and proving that Nigerian institutions can compete on an international level.

A Voice for Change and Development

Beyond academia, Dr. Akinde is a vocal advocate for fiscal responsibility and policy reform in Nigeria. His extensive research publications reflect a commitment to dissecting the intricacies of Nigeria’s financial landscape, addressing critical issues ranging from foreign direct investment to the implications of tourism development on economic growth. His work sheds light on the pivotal role that education and informed fiscal practices play in Nigeria’s quest for economic revival.

Dr. Akinde understands that his role transcends academia; he is a mentor, an innovator, and a change-maker. His unwavering dedication to equipping the next generation of leaders with the skills and knowledge they need to thrive in an increasingly complex world is evident in every initiative he undertakes.

In conclusion, Dr. Akinde Mukail Aremu’s leadership at the Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro is redefining the educational landscape of Nigeria. His commitment to academic excellence, innovative pedagogy, and social responsibility serves as an inspiration for students and educators alike. As he continues to shape the future of financial education in Nigeria, there is little doubt that Dr. Akinde is not just preparing students for jobs—he is preparing them to become the architects of the nation’s economic future. In a rapidly evolving global economy, his vision and leadership will undoubtedly leave an indelible mark on the educational sector and beyond.

 

Continue Reading

Opinion

El-Rufai’s SDP Gambit: A Political ‘Harakiri’ | By Adeniyi Olowofela

Published

on

Former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai, is a restless and courageous politician. However, he ought to have learned political patience from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who spent years building a viable political alternative to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) when its stalwarts boasted that they would rule Nigeria for 64 years.

Cleverly, Tinubu abandoned the Alliance for Democracy (AD) to establish another political platform, the Action Congress (AC), which later metamorphosed into the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN).

In collaboration with other political groups—including the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) and some elements of the PDP—the All Progressives Congress (APC) was born, with El-Rufai as one of its foundation members. Ultimately, the APC wrestled power from the PDP, truncating its 64-year dominance plan.

For El-Rufai to abandon the APC now is nothing short of political suicide, as Tinubu is strategically positioned to secure a second term with an array of both seen and unseen political foot soldiers.

The Social Democratic Party (SDP), as a political entity, effectively died with the late Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola. Any attempt to resurrect it is an exercise in futility.

For the sake of argument, let’s consider a hypothetical scenario: Suppose another southern politician is fielded in 2027 and wins the election. Even if he signs an agreement to serve only one term, political realities could shift, and he may seek another four years.

If anyone doubts this, they should ask former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan. The simple implication of this is that President Tinubu remains the best candidate for northern politicians seeking a power shift back to the North in 2031—at which point El-Rufai could have been one of the credible northern contenders for the presidency.

When Ebenezer Babatope (Ebino Topsy), a staunch Awoist, chose to serve in General Sani Abacha’s regime, he later reflected on his decision, saying: “I have eaten the forbidden fruit, and it will haunt me till the end of my life.”

By abandoning the APC for another political party, El-Rufai has also eaten the forbidden fruit. Only time will tell if it will haunt him or not.

However, for some of the political leaders already contacted from the South West, supporting any party against President Tinubu would be akin to Judas Iscariot’s betrayal—a reputation no serious South West politician would want to bear.

El-Rufai’s departure from the APC to SDP is nothing short of a suicidal political move, reminiscent of Harakiri.

Prof. Adeniyi Olowofela, a former Oyo State Commissioner for Education, Science, and Technology and the Commissioner representing Oyo State at the Federal Character Commission (FCC), sent this piece from Abuja, the nation’s capital.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Akpabio vs. Natasha: Too Many Wrongs Don’t Make A Right

Published

on

For most of last week, Senate President Godswill Akpabio was in the eye of the storm as his traducer, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central, was relentless in getting her voice hear loud and clear.

Though the matter eventually culminated in the suspension of the Kogi senator for six months on Thursday, it is clear that the drama has not ended yet. The whole saga, as we have seen in the last few weeks, smacks many wrongs and few rights. The Senate scored some rights and some wrongs, the same for the Kogi senator. But in apportioning the rights and the wrongs, we have to distinguish between emotions and the rules.

Recall that in July of 2024, Senator Akpabio had compared the conduct of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to that of someone in a nightclub. That statement incensed the Kogi Central senator, the womenfolk, and a number of other senators. Days later, Akpabio, having sensed the mood of the Senate, spoke from his chair and said: “I will not intentionally denigrate any woman and always pray the God will uplift women, Distinguished Senator Natasha, I want to apologise to you.” That was expected of him and by that statement, Akpabio brought some calm into the relationship between him and the Kogi senator, but as we are to discover in the last two weeks, still waters do run fast under the surface.

The latest scene of the drama started with what looked like an innocuous development on the Senate floor. The Senate president, in exercise of the power conferred on him by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Senate Rule book, made adjustments to the seats in the minority wing of the chamber and relocated Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. The excuse was that following the defection of some senators from the minority side, seat adjustments had to be effected. That was within Akpabio’s power. Remember that the Senate Rule book does not only empower the Senate president to allocate seats, but he can also change the seats occasionally. So, Akpabio was right with that action. But perhaps Akpoti-Uduaghan, based on family relationships with the Akpabios, expected that she would have been alerted of the impending seat change. And on getting to the floor of the Senate to discover the seat switch, she got alarmed. Was she right to flare up? No, that is the answer. Apart from the powers of the Senate president to change seats allocated to senators, the rule book also says that every senator must speak from the seat allocated. The implication is that anything a senator says outside the allocated seat will not go into the Senate records. The Senate, or any parliament for that matter, is a regulated environment. The Hansards take records of every word and action made on the floor of the chamber. And so, it is incumbent on every senator to follow the rules.

So, on Thursday, February 20, when Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan raised hell over her seat relocation and engaged Senator Akpabio in a shouting match, she was on the wrong side of the Senate Rule book. No Senator is expected to be unruly. In fact, unruly conduct can be summarily punished by the presiding officer. It is important to note that the rules of the Senate treat the occupier of the chair of Senate President like a golden egg. The President of the Senate is the number three citizen in the country, even though he was elected to represent a constituency like his colleagues. He is first among equals, but the numero uno position comes with a lot of difference.

A legislative expert once told me that the Chair of the President of the Senate must be revered at all times and that infractions to the rules are heavily punished unless the offender shows penitence. The rule says the President of the Senate must be heard in silence; Senators must avoid naming (being called out for unruly conduct); and that any situation that compels the President of the Senate to rise up to hit the gavel in trying to restore order could earn the culprit (any named senator) summary dismissal. Those are the powers of the President of the Senate, which Madam Natasha was trying for size. I think it is important that Senators are taken through inductions on the rules and regulations, whether they got in mid-term or at the beginning of the session.

Rules are very key to operations in a big club like the Senate or the House of Representatives. But as we will later discover on this page, the number of years spent on the floor does not necessarily guarantee a clear understanding of the rules.

Well, as we saw it, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan raised hell by protesting the decision of the Senate to relocate her seat. She was out of order, and her colleagues noted the same. With another presiding officer, she could have been suspended right there. But Akpabio didn’t do that. Then, the Kogi Central senator opened another flank, this time, outside of the Senate chamber. She granted an interview to Arise television, claiming that she had been sexually harassed by Akpabio. Here, too, Senator Natasha was on the wrong side of the Senate rules. Yes, she has a right of freedom of speech, but if the right must be meaningfully exercised, she must do so in compliance with the rules of the club she belongs-the Senate. This is expressly so because she is covered by Order 10 of the Senate Rule Book, which permits her to raise issues of privilege without previously notifying the President of the Senate or the presiding officer. The elders and the holy books also say that when you remove the log from the eyes, you show it to the eyes. As a club, the senate detests the washing of its dirty linen in the public. Such conduct led to the suspension of the late Senators Arthur Nzeribe and Joseph Waku, as well as Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, Senator Ali Ndume and even Senator Abdul Ningi in recent past.

Rather than go to the court of public opinion to accuse Akpabio of sexual harassment, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan should have quietly assumed the seat allocated to her, raise her complaints through Order 10 and at the same time tender details of her sexual harassment allegation against Akpabio and seek Senate’s intervention. If she had done that, she would have been on the right side of Senate Rules and had Akpabio by the balls. As much as the Senate rules forbid a senator from submitting a petition he or she personally signed, the Senate does not forbid any lawmaker from raising allegations that affect either their rights or privileges on the floor. Several newspaper editors have been summoned before the Ethics Committee to answer questions of alleged breach of the privilege of senators. I recall that as correspondents in the chamber, senators were always unhappy each time we scooped a story or blow open a report they were about to submit. Such senators didn’t need to write a petition. They would only come to the floor and raise points of order on privilege. Senator Akpoti- Uduaghan failed to do that.

But the conduct of the Senate President and some of the principal officers on Wednesday, March 5, left so much to be desired of the Senate. I was shocked to see Senator Akpabio rule Senator Natasha in order; he also ruled Senator Mohammed Monguno in order as well as Senator Opeyemi Bamidele. How do you have three right rulings on one issue? First, he allowed Senator Natasha to lay a defective petition on the Senate table. That’s expressly out of order. In the days of Senate Presidents David Mark, Bukola Saraki, and Ahmad Lawan, we saw how such scenes were handled. A David Mark would simply ask the senator, ‘Distinguished Senator, please open to Order 40(4) and read’. By the time the senator finished reading the order and seeing the order had negatived his or her motion, he would only be begging to withdraw that motion. That was not the case with Akpabio. And to make matters worse, the clerks at the table were also looking lost. They could not guide the presiding officer in any way. That tells a bit about human resource capacity in the assembly. But then the Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele and the Chief Whip, Mohammed Monguno, who have spent quite a long time in the National Assembly, should know better. Their interventions did more damage to Akpabio’s Senate. Once the President of the Senate had ruled Senator Natasha in order to submit a petition she personally signed, (against the rules of the Senate which forbids such), and the Kogi Central senator had approached the chair and laid the petition on the table, the matter in a way becomes sub judice, to borrow the language of the law. The Senate Rule Book classifies such an action as “Matters Not open to Debate.” So at that point, the matter was no longer open to debate. Since the gavel has been hit and the action has been taken, no senator has the right to reopen the case. It was wrong of Senator Bamidele and Monguno to immediately start to revisit a closed matter, and that’s illegal. It is wrong for Akpabio to allow it.

I recall an incident in the 6th Senate when President Umaru Yar’Adua was bedridden in Saudi Arabia. Some senators moved a motion, seeking the Senate to constitute a panel to visit Saudi and ascertain the health status of the president. Somehow, when the motion was finally passed on a day, Senator Ike Ekweremadu presided, it turned out that the motion only mandated the Federal Executive Council to do the assignment. The original proponents of the motion were enraged, but they were not allowed to reopen the matter. They had to go into lobbying and eventually secured signatures of two-thirds of the Senate to re-table the matter and that paved the way for the adoption of the famous “Doctrine of Necessity.” That’s how serious the matter should be handled, but it was trivialized by Akpabio, the Senate Leader and Senate Whip. That’s on the wrong side of the rule.

Now that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has been suspended, many would say she was being silenced. That is far from the truth. Her suspension was on the basis of what the senate perceived as unruly behavior on the floor. We are yet to hear the details of her sexual harassment allegations, and I believe that she has avenues to ventilate that. Nigerians earnestly await these details, which should be salacious enough to help us cool off some heat.

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending