On state governors and control of the police

‘ While some state governors use their security votes to empower the police and other security agencies and provide them with all the logistics and equipment needed to adequately protect the state, others simply pocket the money

Given the pervasive insecurity in Nigeria and the failure of the current security apparatuses in the country, there has been growing calls for the decentralisation of the police. In fact, some geo-political regions have taken it a step further by setting up vigilante or quasi- police outfits that would later form the fulcrum of a future state or regional police force. In fact, the failure of the current security set up in the country has given a free pass to state governors who, though, chief security officers of their states, could afford to do nothing and just blame the federal government for all security failures in their states. The ready excuse is that they do not control the police and are helpless in swiftly responding to threats.

While this argument carries a lot of weight, especially since the 1979 and 1999 constitutions stripped state governors of the powers to appoint and expressly control commissioners of police, a nuanced reading of the constitution and established practices since 1999 shows a different picture altogether. Governors are indeed the chief security officers of their states and they have the powers and the wherewithal to mobilise security agencies to provide allround security in their states.

In Nigeria, all the 36 state governors receive monthly security votes running into hundreds of millions or sometimes, billions of Naira, which are unappropriated, unaudited and unaccounted for. The security votes allocated to states vary based on the level of security required by the individual states and are for funding security services within such states. The governors dispense the funds purely based on their discretions and are not accountable to anyone on how they use the funds. So, while some state governors use their security votes to empower the police and other security agencies and provide them with all the logistics and equipment needed to adequately protect the state, others simply pocket the money and leave the police to operate on logistics provided by the police and federal authorities.

For example, Lagos state had been responsible for the provision of logistics, mobility, communications, kitting etc for the security agencies. In 2007, it went a step further to set up a security trust fund where the state, private sector and individuals contribute to providing standard security cover for Lagos. The results since 2007 have been obvious. Equally, the Anambra state governor uses his security vote to mobilise police, army and navy personnel to provide 24 hours security all round the state – and those familiar with the security situation in Anambra before 2014 know the difference the governor has made in ensuring security of lives and property. These security agencies, although controlled by the federal government, take orders and report directly to the governor who mobilised them.

So, it is not for nothing that state governors are called Chief Security Officers of their states. They must not set up state police to be in charge of security in their states. In fact, to confirm this assertion, in 2018, the 36 state governors tabled a fresh demand for a raise in the ‘security votes’ allocation they draw from the federation account to be better able to tackle the escalating violence at all levels of the society.

So when the governor of Benue state, Samuel Ortom, for instance, comes to national television to rant about the Fulani cattle herders killing his people and the federal government not doing anything to stop the killings, instead of everyone celebrating his courage for speaking up, a good question he should be asked is: “what exactly are you doing with your security vote?”

There are several army and air force formations in Makurdi, the Benue state capital. What has the governor done to mobilise them to patrol the vulnerable areas and prevent attacks by the rampaging killers? Nothing! Well, a governor that could not pay teachers for a whole calendar year will not even be thinking of providing the logistics and mobilisation for these dormant security apparatuses in his state to prevent the killings.

Besides, the 1999 constitution (as amended) provided for a Nigerian Police Council made up of the President, state governors, Chairman of the Police Service Commission, and the Inspector- General of Police. The constitution also defined the powers of the council as that of “the organisation and administration of the Nigeria Police Force and all other matters relating thereto...” and “the general supervision of the Nigeria Police Force”

Crucially, the constitution expressly provided that the Nigerian Police Council is to advise the President on the appointment and dismissal of the Inspector General of Police. It is not on record that the Nigerian Police Council met between 1999 and 2018, nor did it ever advise ( whatever that means) the president on the appointment and dismissal of the IGP. The only meeting of the council on record held on May 23 2019, “convened by Mr Buhari [only] to consider the confirmation of the acting Inspector General of the Police, Mohammed Adamu, as a substantive IGP.”

Succeeding Presidents since 1999 have continued to contravene the provision of the constitution in the appointment and dismissal of the IGP and the general supervision of the police. But even more despicable is the actions of the state governors ( members of the council) who have allowed such illegality to continue. Not one of them, since 1999, has challenged the illegal appointment or dismissal of IGPS by the president. Apparently, they do not care. They are content to allow the president to do all the appointments and control, and then turn round to blame the federal government for insecurity while pocketing their security votes.