GOV GANDUJE VIOLATED EMIR SANUSI’S RIGHTS

Security, I repeat.

There is neither absolute liberty, nor absolute freedom. The concept of Social Contract between the citizenry and the government, is not cased within the framework of legal rules. There is nowhere this doctrine of social contract is more relevant in the modern world, than in the area of state security.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica talks about the underlying philosophy of framers such as the 17th and 18th centuries Englishmen, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. “What distinguished these theories of political obligation from other doctrines of the period, was their attempt to justify and delimit political authority on the grounds of individual self-interest and rational consent. By comparing the advantages of organised government with the disadvantages of the state of nature, they showed why and under what conditions government is useful, and ought therefore, to be accepted by all reasonable people as a voluntary obligation”.

Security/Security Risk

In effect, the individual is compelled to comply with

fundamental social rules within the State. It is the obligation of the State to provide security for the citizenry, although some may argue, within the bounds of the laws. That raises the question at the heart of governance. What happens if a citizen is deemed a “Security Risk”? What if his freedom and liberty could potentially compromise the security of the generality of the public? Note that, a security risk individual does not imply that a crime has been committed, that might warrant a legal process. What, in this scenario is the political and social obligation of government and governance?

To banish political elements is neither novel in Nigeria, nor in other parts of the world. The case of Awolowo in Western Nigeria and other traditional rulers in the past are lingering examples, as most people are well aware. It is the same concept of security that places emergency powers in various governments, to declare wars against external and internal dangers to the State when it is called for, without recourse to their parliaments.

Finally, banishment is one of the tools governments all over the world, use to deal with security risks. It is a political and social security tool, that has no bearing with legality.

“WHAT HAPPENS IF A CITIZEN IS DEEMED A “SECURITY RISK”? WHAT IF HIS FREEDOM AND LIBERTY COULD POTENTIALLY COMPROMISE THE SECURITY OF THE GENERALITY OF THE PUBLIC? NOTE THAT, A SECURITY RISK INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT IMPLY THAT A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED, THAT MIGHT WARRANT A LEGAL PROCESS”