Email
Print
Share
By Olayinka Adesola, 28 January 2012
analysis
OVERHAUL. Overhaul. Overhaul. That has been the swan song of many commentators, organised labour, opposition political parties, civil society groups, and even faith-based organisations since the Kano massacre by Boko Haram, the Islamist group.
I must confess that the song is not new. Since last year, every successful attack by Boko Haram has always been followed with bullish rhetoric calling for the overhaul of our security agencies.
But unfortunately, these critics of the government and its security agencies always fall short of telling us what they mean by overhauling of the security agencies.
It is very clear that the word as used by these armchair critics is nothing but an euphemism for the resignation or sack of the various security chiefs notably the Inspector-General of Police, Hafiz Ringim and the National Security Adviser, General Owoeye Azazi.
Respected columnist Olatunji Dare, writing in The Nation of Tuesday January 24, 2012, said: ‘In another clime, National Security Adviser General Owoeye Azazi, Police Inspector-General Hafiz Ringim, and the Minister of Police Affairs, Navy Capt. Caleb Olubolade, would have done the decent thing long ago by offering their resignation.
Collectively, they presided over a tragic failure of intelligence and policing.’ Describing the government’s response to the current challenges as “escapist”, Simon Kolawole wrote on the back page of ThisDay of January 22, 2012: ‘I don’t think President Jonathan is interested in sacking anybody. If not, the entire security apparatus would have been overhauled since the country came under heavy bombardment from Boko Haram, especially with the successful attack on police headquarters in Abuja last year’.
If the president thought the sacking of Ringim would calm the media hysteria, he is terribly mistaken.
The Punch front-page headline, ‘Jonathan dumps Ringim, DIGs, spares NSA Azazi’ said it all. These misguided critics would not let up until the NSA and all the service chiefs are fired. The story itself left a sour taste in the mouth.
The Punch wrote, ‘rather than sack all the service chiefs that critics have assailed for the failure of intelligence…Jonathan removed one….The President, however, did not remove the National Security Adviser, Gen Owoeye Azazi, whose coordination of the fight against Boko Haram has also come under criticism.’
This line of thinking is at best, shallow, and at worst, preposterous. It beats my imagination how some people think that removing some people from their privileged positions would solve what is clearly an institutional problem.
Let me ask a few questions: How does sacking the IGP, NSA and service chiefs suddenly result in the creation of modern, professional security architecture for the country?
How does sacking these men change the attitude of the average policeman at the checkpoints on our roads and major highways? How does sacking these men or even all the service chiefs improve the intelligence gathering capacity of our security agencies?
How does it impact on the evidence gathering skills of our law enforcement? How does it help in the acquisition of appropriate technology for our security agencies?
Will it stop our airport security personnel from compromising themselves at the screening point?
Finally, will sacking them mean that Nigerians will suddenly begin to share responsibility in national security?
Now that Ringim has been sacked, will the problems in the police force disappear automatically?
Is the Parry Osayande panel not a tacit admission that the problem is beyond Ringim?
I do not know the former IGP and certainly do not feel qualified to hold brief for him or any of the security chiefs for that matter.
I am just a student of security who wants to see reasoned and mature discourse from all and sundry on the way out of our current security predicament.
It is the sacred responsibility of every commentator, especially opinion moulders and influencers in the media, to ask deep and probing questions, and only after which we should dispassionately proffer credible ideas to move the nation forward.
And if that means axing some people, so be it. My point is we should not rush to conclusions until we have had time to consider and, in the interest of fairness, credit those in authority with some measure of knowledge, wisdom, and discretion.
I tend to think many of those baying for the blood of the security chiefs are just looking for scapegoats to sacrifice for the rot and decay that our law enforcement has been subjected to in decades.
I am for overhauling the security agencies if by that we mean reforming the police, the first line of defence.
The first thing we should urgently do is to take a long, hard look at the filters through which a person becomes a police officer (not policeman).
This is very critical to building an elite police force that will be attractive to young graduates and professionals.
My experience growing up (and I am 49 years old) is that the police only held attraction to school drop outs and job seekers who had no other option but to join the force.
As a matter of fact, most of the school drop outs I knew had already taken a vocation in crime before joining the force. The uniform just gave them the legal cover to continue with their nefarious activities.
As a matter of exigency, the rank and file of the police needs to be thoroughly re-orientated.
It is very disheartening that, in the midst of bombs going off here and there, our police check points still operate as toll gates; the danger this poses is that a vehicle laden with bombs can easily find its way through these check points.
This probably explains why the bomber of the UN house could drive all the way from Kano to Abuja undetected.
Another issue we need to address is the welfare and remuneration of the personnel. It has been said that if you pay peanuts you end up with monkeys.
We expect our law enforcement personnel to lay-down their lives protecting us while they live pauperised lives, and without any form of assurance that their memories will be honoured if they die in the line of duty.
A visit to any of our police stations and barracks will tell the story more vividly, and shows you why the average police officer has little or no self-esteem.
I am for overhauling of the security agencies if that means we should upgrade our security architecture.
This includes acquiring the appropriate technology that will help improve our intelligence gathering capacity and share them across all levels of government, ensure a secure global digital information and communications infrastructure, pursue comprehensive trans-border security, and promote effective incident management.
In addition, we need to move very fast in creating a national database, train our law enforcement on rigorous investigation techniques, plus our cities need to be effectively closed and monitored through the installation of CCTV cameras on our streets, banks, shops, supermarkets, petrol stations, and public places.
I am for overhauling of the security agencies if it means we should recognise the Boko Haram insurgency for what it really is – a war on the Nigerian state and her people.
The response of our security agencies should be dictated by that understanding. After 9/11, it was for good measure that America declared War on Terror.
They made their people realise that they were in a war situation and the Department of Homeland Security took proactive steps to raise the security awareness of every American in a manner that was enabling and reassuring.
In the first quarter of 2011, the Homeland Security replaced the colour-coded Homeland Security Advisory System with the National Terrorism Alert System.
According to information pasted on the website of the department, “each alert provides information to the public about the threat, including, if available, the geographic region, mode of transportation, or critical infrastructure potentially affected by the threat; protective actions being taken by authorities, and steps that individuals and communities can take to protect themselves and their families, and help prevent, mitigate or respond to the threat.” That is a good example to copy.
Let me conclude by quoting two respectable Nigerians who have commented on this matter of overhauling – sorry, sacking the security chiefs. According to former Lagos State Commissioner of Police, Abubakar Tsav, “overhauling will lead to retirement without the officers reaching their prime, and some of them have been trained and ready to do their job.
If you remove them and bring new people, it will take time for them to settle down.
We should rather do things that will generate efficiency than dropping those we have spent money and time to train” (The Guardian September 03, 2011 Emphasis with bold capital letters mine).
In the same edition of the newspaper, Dr. Franca Attoh, a Criminologist at the Department of Sociology, University of Lagos had this to say: ‘This (terrorism) is a long time issue.
‘Unfortunately, Nigeria is a country where immediate result is desired. We know how long it took the American government to get rid of Osama Bin Laden.
‘What the US government did not tell us is that there were several failed operations to get Obama.
‘People were not vilified. The question now is: are we ready to wait and invest in security? By the time we are ready to invest in security, we will begin to reap the benefits.’
Like the old Santana advert says, there is nothing more to add.
Adesola writes from Lagos.
Copyright © 2012 The Moment. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 130 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
Article source: http://allafrica.com/stories/201201301346.html
Andrew Neather