Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN), the Governor of Ondo State, blasted the Federal Government (FG) on Wednesday for allowing “non-state actors to possess heavy assault weapons but denying the same privilege to the states and federating units” with joint security organizations like the Amotekun Corps.
The head of both the South-West Governors’ Forum and the Southern Governors’ Forum criticized the Federal Government’s choice to hire a private security firm to guard pipelines in the South-South.
The decision to award the contract for the surveillance of pipelines to a company with a financial interest in Government Ekpemupolo, better known as Tompolo, a former leader of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, was described as the right one by the Chief Executive Officer of Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNNPC) Limited, Mele Kyari, on Tuesday.
At the 49th State House Briefing, held at the Presidential Villa in Abuja, Kyari said, “We need private contractors to man the right of way to these pipelines…We don’t have access to that and therefore, we put up a framework where contractors were selected through a tender process for people who can do it, not everyone can do it and Tompolo is just mentioned, we’re dealing with corporate entities.
“He may have interest in the company, we’re not dealing with Tompolo, but we know that he has interests in that company.”
Akeredolu in his statement on Wednesday said state government- possessed security outfits actually need authorization to bear assault rifles and notnon-state actors or private security enterprises.
Akeredolu’s statement which was titled, ‘Who Actually Needs Weapon?’ read, “The news concerning the purported award of pipeline contracts to some individuals and private organisations by the Federal Government has been unsettling.
“More disquieting is the barely disguised hostility displayed against either the idea or the actual establishment of security outfits by some State Governments to fill the widening gaps in the scope of security coverage noticeable nationally.”
The Federal Government, through the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA), has been consistent in its refusal to accede to the request by some States in the Federation to strengthen the complementary initiatives adopted to protect lives and property.
This is done in spite of the knowledge that the very issues which necessitated the creation of these outfits support providing adequate weaponry.
All attempts to persuade the Federal Government to look, critically, into the current security architecture have been rebuffed despite the manifest fundamental defects engendered by over-centralisation.
It is, therefore, shocking to read that the Federal Government has maintained the award of the contract to “protect” the country’s pipeline from vandals to private organisations.
This story, if true, leaves a sour taste in the mouth. The NSA will, obviously, not advise the President to approve the award of a contract of such magnitude if the operators have not displayed sufficient capacity to checkmate the criminal activities of equally powerful groups.
Consequently, it is safe to conclude that the Federal Government has, impliedly, permitted non-state actors to bear heavy assault weapons while denying the same privilege to the States, the federating units.
The award of contracts to private organisations to protect against the vandalisation of pipelines raises fundamental questions about the sincerity of the advisers of the Government on security issues.
The open and seeming enthusiastic embrace of this oddity, despite the constant and consistent avowal of the readiness by the Security Agencies in particular the Navy to contain the pervasive and deepening crises of breaches and threats to lives and property, attracts the charge of insincerity bordering, deplorably, on dubiety.
If the State Governments, which are keenly desirous of protecting their citizens, establish ancillary security outfits and there has been pronounced reluctance, if not outright refusal, to consider permitting them to bear arms for the sole purpose of defence, granting private individuals and or Organisations unfettered access to assault weapons suggests, curiously, deep-seated suspicion and distrust between the Federal Government and the presumed federating units.
The engagement of private organisations to handle serious security challenges reinforces the belief that the whole defence architecture in the country needs an urgent overhaul.
The Federal Government cannot be seen to be playing the Ostrich in this regard.