Something that has generated a lot of furore in public discourse in the past few days is the interview granted by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to Arise Television on the 11th day of June, 2021, in which a number of issues were adroitly addressed by the President, whether to the satisfaction of critics or not but certainly to the admiration of a good number of Nigerians who still believe in President Muhammadu Buhari.
In Reuben Abati’s view, the interview proved that Buhari was in charge. My reflection today is essentially about this latest interview from which I have derived some good lessons and points of realization.
One fundamental point that satisfies me is the fact that, after all, the allegation that the President suffers from dementia and the claims that the President is not aware of anything happening around him whenever a calamity befalls Nigeria is an unmitigated falsehood. The man that spoke at that interview did not seem to be someone suffering from dementia, unaware of the happenings around him. Where is the justification from the President for the claims of the I-am-not-aware cliché that had been trending whenever there was a crisis of national importance for which the President had often expressed shock and belated assurance?
However, the aspect that really bothered me most was the one relating to the President’s responses on the issue of insecurity in the country. After listening to the strongman of Nigeria in that interview, particularly the aspect relating to the challenge of insecurity in the country and the role of the governors, I came to the conclusion that each and every Nigerian is on his own in defending and protecting himself. Mr. President has said two governors approached him on the issue and he directed them back home to go and learn from history on the development and use of native policemen, then controlled by the traditional rulers. To Mr. President, these governors are elected to protect their people and must devise means of securing them.
As robust and sound as this contention may seem, it is plagued by several flaws. It would be recalled that, prior to this pronouncement of the President, the Minister of Defence, alongside some governors, like those of Benue, Zamfara and Ondo, had advised Nigerians and their subjects to take up arms, if necessary, in the defence of themselves.
The import of the presidential statement is that the governors should employ whatever means possible in the defence of their people. Let me state that the reasoning of the President, in my view, tallies with the establishment of outfits like Hisbah, Amotekun, Eastern Security Network and Neighborhood Safety Corps in Lagos State in the protection of their subjects. The President’s statement is an open endorsement of such structures, no matter how weak-kneed such contention may be, and the agitations by the so-called “Presidency” (which seems to be different from the President) that claimed that Amotekun and others were illegal may be unknown to the President. Regrettably, however, all these outfits could only confront largely civil and minor attacks. They cannot contain any violent crime like the herdsmen’s invasion and devastation of Igangan that occurred a few days ago, neither can they confront terrorists nor bandits. The best they could do meaningfully would be gathering of intelligence and deploying same to the use of security outfits like the police that are quite better equipped. The efficacy of their initiatives will, therefore, certainly be limited.
In contemporary times, crimes, all over the country, have assumed another dimension of heavy arms combat. The use of weapons by criminals has become the natural part of the criminal activities occurring in many parts of the country. Consequently, it is practically impossible and, in fact, not realistic to expect these unarmed outfits to challenge the activities of the sophisticatedly armed gangs that have been threatening the sovereignty of Nigeria and the peace of the nation. If the governors were to, therefore, do the needful in taming these crimes, they certainly need to arm and train their outfits. By the law of Nigeria today, this is not permissible. In the first instance, “arms, ammunition and explosives” as a legislative item, are under the Exclusive Legislative List of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and it is common knowledge that the states cannot legislate on such an item. Any law made by a state House of Assembly on arms, ammunition and explosives, shall be inconsistent with the Constitution and hence, a nullity.
That is a point known to a Year-2 student of Law and has been so much stated in public discourse that non-lawyers are known to perfunctorily state it in common discourse. No governor or House of Assembly can then dabble into arms and ammunition control and use without infringing on the Constitution. Also, “Defence”, as a legislative item, is Item 17 on the Exclusive Legislative List. “Police and other security services established by law” is Item 45 of the Exclusive Legislative List and it is only the National Assembly that can legislate on it. It is true that a state has the obligation to “make laws for the peace, order and good government of the state or any part thereof”, that is to the extent permitted by the Constitution, which does not, therefore, extend to items contained in the Exclusive Legislative List.
Again, as the law stands today, all the security outfits empowered to bear arms are under the control of Mr. President. Therefore, any attempt by any governor to establish an outfit that is armed would be illegal. Furthermore, under the Firearms Act, “No person shall have in his possession or under his control any firearm…except in accordance with a licence granted by the President acting in his discretion of the Inspector-General of Police”.
It is in the context of this that I consider the invitation to the governors to be dangerous and mischievous. The implication is that anything goes, notwithstanding that the Constitution and the state of the law do not permit them to control arms, ammunition and explosives, without which the current level of crimes cannot be tackled. Is the President saying that the Governors can adopt any suitable measure, regardless of the state of the law?
Is the President outsourcing his constitutional duty and delegating the power to control arms and ammunitions to the governors? This is chaos incorporated. Furthermore, now that Nigerians have been told to defend themselves in whatever way possible, this is another anarchy looming. At the same time, the President gave the shoot-on-sight order against anyone holding AK-47. Does this order apply to any person holding AK-47, which may include such outfits as Neighbourhood Watch, Amotekun, ESN, Hisbah, etc.?
What then happens to those in possession of them to defend themselves as counselled by the minister for defence? The summation of the presidential statement, the minister’s pronouncement and the call by the governors is that Nigerians, going forward, should hold their destinies in their hands. You will agree with me that the import of all the above is that the country is now a jungle. Law and order certainly have broken down. Banditry, terrorism, kidnapping and other vices will now be a joke in the midst of this development.
Leaders, or rulers, of the country, as I always prefer to refer to them, have finally abdicated their responsibilities in contravention of the constitutional provision that mandates them to ensure the security of life and property in the nation. The net effect of the above, however, is that the buck still stops at the President’s table. As if that confusion wass insufficient, the President equally resurrected the controversy around open grazing again.
Prior to his statement about historical grazing routes, virtually all the stakeholders had agreed on the ban of open grazing. In fact, the same Presidency told us, after the Southern Governors’ summit, that the revitalisation of the grazing reserves has been approved by Mr. President in line with the ban on open grazing. Did the President not digest the memorandum before approving same, or is this a case of a summersault? Or could he have totally forgotten that he had approved same? Could this be a case of selective amnesia? Was he misled by the Minister for Agriculture? The President even indicated action to his words in this regard when he said he had directed the Attorney-General to take back the grazing routes that would enable a herdsman to trek with cows from Sokoto to Lagos and from there to Calabar! Again, this is another confusion in the system. Interestingly, no such law permits such contention by the President.
Thus, we are back to square one and the confusion reigns. Immediately after the Presidential interview, we read in the newspapers, the threat by some Fulani criminals that they would invade Delta State if the Governor fails to retract the order banning open grazing! What all the above portrays is lack of deep thinking by our rulers. It also demonstrates lack of coherence in the presidential policies. Lastly, it tends to suggest and lend credence to the speculation that the President is not in charge of state affairs, contrary to the conviction of Reuben Abati. Could the interview by the President be a form of grandstanding that is not in full possession of itself? Can the rulers, therefore, start streamlining their thoughts before divulging them to the people? A leader must be concise, articulate and transparent at all times. The purpose of electing leaders is for them to provide governance and secure our lives and properties and not to create anarchy, leave us to our fate or abandon us to a society akin to William Golding’s Lord of the Flies.
The President needs a guide that is honest and scrupulous in thinking. The kind of legal advice the man seems to have been taking does not seem to portend good for the nation as the utterances we are receiving do not tally with conscientious nation building. May we not have a recourse to personal preservation as the only solution to the prevailing situation.
Comments