To thwart state-initiated anarchy, Nigeria needs a legal framework for vigilantism

Other South East governors flanked their Ebonyi State colleague, Governor David Umahi, as he announced the establishment of a regional security outfit to tackle spiralling insecurity in the old Eastern Region. The quintuplet wanted to use the aura of their personal presence to send the message that forming Ebube Agu is their collective action. They said it will serve as a common platform of state-sponsored vigilantes to fight rising terrorism and criminality in the area. This occurred in a meeting on Sunday that was triggered by the terrorist attack last week on Owerri Correctional Centre and the State Police Command.

Although Governor Okezie Ikpeazu of Abia State won’t admit it in his interview with Channels TV, Ebube Agu was inspired by and will be modelled on Amotekun, the security outfit founded in January 2020 by South West governors. Even the name betrays the mimicry - though this is not necessarily bad. Amotekun means a Leopard or Cheetah in Yoruba, while Agu means Leopard or Lion in Igbo. Governor Ikpeazu said Ebube Agu would be “fully equipped” to match the challenge with which they are confronted. Given the heavy armament – AK47s, machine guns and explosives – the culprits of the Owerri attack used, Governor Ikpeazu’s statement means Ebube Agu would be given militarygrade arms and ammunition as well as transport and communication equipment. In essence, a new regional army has been created.

While Amotekun and Ebebu Agu represent a watershed moment, vigilantism has been rising across our country for some time. Just recently, Niger State announced that it would equip young people with pump-action rifles to fight bandits wreaking havoc in the state. A 30,000-strong “Civilian Joint Task Force” has been operating in Borno State and some parts of the North East since 2013, while ad hoc community vigilante groups have been active in one form or the other for years in the North West and North Central. These groups used to be ran locally by affected communities and carried only basic weapons like bows and arrows, machetes and Dane guns. But, as the threat evolved, they found support from local and state governments, who pay them stipends, and they have become more sophisticated.

These developments are worth noting, because our laws on armed vigilante groups are abundantly clear: They are illegal by several counts. Firstly, the organisations themselves are not envisaged by our constitution, which establishes such institutions as the army and the police as our law-andorder agents. Secondly, members of vigilante groups are private citizens, who are forbidden by our laws from bearing firearms of any kind except when authorised by the President or, for personal firearms, by the Inspector General of Police at the direction of the President. Thirdly, vigilantes mostly act as the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner: those they attack, some of whom may be innocent, are denied due process of law, which is not only illegal, but barbaric. It is jungle justice, which is no justice at all. The legal status of vigilante groups doesn’t get better when a governor or even a group of them supports or establishes them. This is because in our constitution, it is the federal government that has powers over matters of national interest including security, defence and law enforcement. Consequently, all military and paramilitary institutions are federal responsibilities.

Governors have no power to establish a military or paramilitary institution, nor can they grant an individual a license to bear any kind of firearm. In fact, the governor himself has no power to own or control guns unless he obtains a license. Some people are deceived by the common notion that a governor is the “Chief Security Officer” of the state into thinking that governors have a substantive role in law enforcement. This is wrong in law. The only section of the constitution that comes close to giving governors some powers in law enforcement is Section 215. It provides that a governor may give to the Commissioner of Police (COP) of his state such lawful directions with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order within the state. The constitution provides that the COP shall comply with the governor’s directions, but immediately takes that power away by providing that the COP may request that the matter be referred to the President or authorised minister for his directions. In effect, the COP may lawfully disobey the directive of a state governor, if such directive given by the governor does not have the blessing of federal authorities. Thus, governors are mere figureheads when it comes to security.

But let’s face it: the reality across our country today doesn’t support a strict interpretation of the constitution and the law. Compelled by necessity, which they say is the mother of invention, communities and authorities are forced into forming groups to protect themselves. Having failed to discharge the duty imposed on it by the law, the federal government lacks the moral authority to stop this incursion against its powers. This is perhaps why both the presidency and security and intelligence agencies are still reticent on Ebube Agu. The Attorney General and Minister of Justice was very quick in declaring Amotekun unconstitutional and illegal. But South West governors insisted and when they confronted the federal government with its failure, it was forced to eat humble pie. The Vice President even said the federal government would work with Amotekun. The presence of senior police officers at the South East Governors’ meeting and the announcement of Ebube Agu is perhaps an indication that the federal government has resolved to accept vigilantes.

If that is the case, the appropriate next step is the promulgation of a federal legal framework to recognise and regulate vigilantism. This is, in fact, necessary to avoid state-initiated anarchy, clashes between vigilantes and the police, and to forestall human rights abuses. Such a law should define the powers and duties of vigilante members, the qualifications and training required and make provisions for their supervision and discipline. The President should retain his exclusive power in respect of military-grade weapons but should give state governments licences to acquire a specified amount of arms and ammunition, which should be meticulously documented.

To ease this process, northern governors should adapt the Amotekun and Ebube Agu model. While an outfit for the whole of the North would be too big and complicated to manage, one platform in each sub-region would be more effective than the current situation in which each state does its own thing. Each zone has a particular security challenge that cuts across different states. A common platform would ensure a united front and operation across states. It also means pooling resources together with better synergy. In the same vein, the possibility of different states’ vigilantes clashing with one another, wilfully or inadvertently, would be reduced. What is more, this structure will make tracking weapons easier. Furthermore, the Minna model of giving volunteers pump-action guns is essentially a suicide mission as we have seen in the killing about 30 vigilantes a few weeks ago.

Finally, membership of vigilante outfits needs to be thoroughly vetted and regulated. Arming unemployed, uneducated young people as volunteers may be convenient now but it is both unsustainable in the long term and could even be a future security risk. Members should be employed at local or state levels. This will make training, tracking and supervising them easier and reduce the risk of human rights abuses. When our current security challenges are overcome, the members of these vigilante forces can be absorbed into other needed areas as sanitation, infrastructure security and maintenance, forest guard and social work. Regulating vigilantism is an investment in Nigeria’s future and ignoring it to operate arbitrarily is dangerous.