KANU, IGBOHO AND RISING INSECURITY

The Nigerian government recently announced the arrest of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Days later, the home of Sunday Igboho, a Yoruba rights activist was raided by operatives of the DSS. Both of them are seen as individuals fighting to curb the spate of rising insecurity in their regions, hence, the rise in the support they get. However, the fact that both individuals and their organisations continue to stockpile weapons in the process of achieving their aims make them dangerous in the long run.

Individuals like Igboho and Kanu with their organisations are classified as non-state actors as they are organisations not funded or regulated by state laws. Non-state actors have been a source of concern for many countries with deteriorating security situations especially when they start to possess and enhance the proliferation of small arms and light weapons. In this situation, Igboho and Kanu should be a source of concern.

Possession of arms by non-state actors is a symptom of deteriorating national security structures.

Since non- state actors cannot acquire and bear arms legally, they resort to illegal acquisition through means such as diversion of state stockpiles, trafficking, black markets and local production. These means of weapon acquisition in reality has no monopoly, hence, weapons can get to the hands of anyone. A society that therefore makes the acquisition of arms by non-state actors easy is walking on a keg of gunpowder. A 2017 Oxfam report on the human cost of arms proliferation in Africa which analyzed events in seven African countries confirms that a continual proliferation of arms comes at a huge human cost in most cases, creating a rise further in insecurity. As IPOB and others get arms illegally, so do armed robbers, street thugs, etc., also have access to the arms. These, therefore, increase armed robbery, street gang violence and other violent crimes which are not in any way related to the agendas of the main non-state actors.

Nigerians have continually lamented and protested various cases of police brutality. However, this is only possible because there is a rule of engagement set for state security forces, hence, any action taken outside the scope of the rules of engagement can be declared as wrong. This is not the case with non-state actors. At a point in time, we will need to ask ourselves, who determines the rules of engagement of IPOB and Oduduwa Republic fighters? Bright Ogundare, brightogundare@gmail.com