Weeks back, I asked on this page: Who really secures Nigeria’s pipeline infrastructure? It was because all the major government security agencies and privately-owned security outfits, at least six in total, claimed responsibility for securing the same oil pipelines in the same locations. Here, I ask: Who secures Nigeria’s power infrastructure? The latest move by the Minister of Power, Joseph Tegbe, spurs the question as well as other issues that I shall call attention to here. Tegbe assumed office recently and, concerned by the rampant vandalisation of power infrastructure across the nation, he approached the police. This has generated public debate over whether it’s the police or the Civil Defence Corps he should have approached.Ordinarily, the police are the ones the minister should go to, except that, for some years, the security structure and the functions of the different security agencies have become convoluted. Many of what should traditionally be police jobs have been parcelled out to other security outfits, such that one wonders what the police have left. The Nigeria Police Act, 2020, contains police functions. These include preventing and detecting crimes, preserving public peace, maintaining law and order, securing communities, and safeguarding the lives and properties of all persons within the country. And remarkably, the police still retain in their book the function of regulating and managing traffic flow to guarantee safety for both motorists and pedestrians. I’m certain the reader understands why I make this last observation.On its part, Civil Defence Corps, a Federal Government paramilitary agency, is guided by the NSCDC Act No. 2 of 2003, as amended in 2007. In it, Civil Defence is mandated to carry out some functions, of which I shall mention only two that I think the reader might find intriguing. One, they’re to protect critical national assets including public infrastructure, strategic installations such as power stations, oil and gas pipelines, telecommunications, water resources, railways, and other key facilities. Two, Civil Defence is to protect educational institutions. The intriguing part is that the police can also be invited to attend to the two stated functions of the Civil Defence, and the invitation will be perfectly sensible, legitimate, and legal. In fact, the police once performed the two functions before some people created a private security outfit called Civil Defence and convinced the FG to adopt it as another agency outside the police.At the time, the main benefits mentioned in favour of creating Civil Defence were the last two functions already stated. Now, Tegbe thinks they can’t handle it. The proliferation of paramilitary agencies is something I’ve never supported. I believe in increasing the police manpower, improving technology, welfare, as well as their intelligence gathering prowess, and I’ve been stating this for over a decade on this page. For years, I called attention to the fact that the backdoor through which the Civil Defence crept in to do the police job was how another private entity that called itself Peace Corps wanted to creep in. Sometimes, their members called me and made vituperative comments – these were the people who wanted to create another hierarchy of generals. They can say theirs, but other Nigerians must not say theirs regarding what is happening in their own country.We know any new paramilitary entities would only end up sitting in air-conditioned offices, post their boys to comfortable locations in towns and cities, while the work they claimed they wanted to do wouldn’t be done in the end. It’s a pattern we’re used to seeing. I knew from the outset that what Tegbe noticed, which made him approach the police, would happen. I had observed that the challenges in the manner uniformed outfits operated would not have their solution in the creation of new agencies. Reason? The challenge here is systemic; it’s attitudinal, it’s about the security architecture, it’s about how the existing security formations are wired to operate, and it’s about orientation that’s wrong. One such orientation is the popular claim that creating these security outfits will create jobs for Nigerians. It’s only in Nigeria that I hear this kind of argument when we talk about security.There is no systematic study of what the problem is security-wise, what is needed, where it’s needed, and how to solve the identified problems. Essentially, there’s no data. Just recruit boys and put them in uniform. That’s our idea of providing security. And the outcome is clear, as many of these security outfits, after they are created, don’t do the jobs they are created for. The fact that the power minister shuns civil defence but turns to the police points to this. Meanwhile, the Minister of Mines, Dele Alake, has taken action that calls attention to the same issue. He forms mining marshals that reports say are doing a good job. Nonetheless, I have a different understanding of the situation. I think the approach is at a cost to the system. There’s a cost to the security system when Ministers who’re not in the security sector are the ones who have to spur security personnel to carry out their lawful duties. Something is fundamentally wrong.Related NewsFULL LIST: IG deploys new CPs to eight states, other police formationsPolice recover stolen vehicle in Gombe, arrest suspectPolice rescue abducted teenager, begin manhunt for kidnappers in OyoInstitutions that are run right do their job without being pushed by any external entities. The current approach is not sustainable. More than that, this is an intervention that is a disruption. Once the enthusiastic ministers behind it are no longer in seat, the arrangement will collapse. Such interventions that the power ministry, Mines, or any other ministry embarks on, though well-intentioned, amount to cutting out a special unit from the main body of the security agencies that the selected operatives belong to. The ministers from other minitries involved then fund the logistics of these operatives, pay them special allowances as well, and watch over them all the time, thus taking the attention of such ministers away from their core mandate. As for the security agencies concerned, the morale of other staff members drops; there’s jealousy between those left behind and those who’re getting special allowances and other privileges under other ministries.The heads of the security agencies concerned, too, are somewhat cut off from having operational control over their men. Professionalism is compromised.Leaderships of MDAs that are determined to achieve their mandate utilise the few selected uniformed men to get their work done and move on, praising their wins. And many of us praise their wins, too, at least for the efforts they make where most other MDAs make none. When one thinks it through, however, it becomes clear that this approach to governance is a short-cut. It lacks depth. For it’s not rooted beyond the zeal of the leadership of the concerned MDAs to get things done, and it never extends beyond a political tenure. Also, it cannot have outcomes that have depth, nothing lasting in the long run. Nothing in any transactional approach such as this can have lasting positive impacts both for the security agencies involved and the MDAs that are cherry-picking among and within the personnel of the security agencies.The approach only hides the real problems whereby security agencies aren’t what they should be structurally and operationally. We can’t frontally confront the identified systemic challenges if we continue with this transactional cherry-picking style. As things stand, security at the local level has failed such that criminals kidnap and kill our citizens at will. Regarding oil pipelines, incidences of oil theft continue to be reported. Mines are looted in many parts of the country, and foreigners are involved. Forest resources, including timber, are looted and exported. Now, vandalism of power infrastructure and other public facilities has prompted the Minister of Power to seek special protection from the police, a move that has sparked debate over which security agency should be in charge.It’s what happens when a system is dysfunctional. The report out there is that Tegbe knows Civil Defence should be in charge of power infrastructure. As he feels they aren’t doing their job, he goes to the police. What this means is that what was once taken to Civil Defence because the police were said not to have done it well is being returned to the same police. This back-and-forth approach to governance doesn’t work anywhere. It can’t work here. The fundamental problems that led to it should be addressed. The MDAs and security agencies involved cannot handle this on their own. For there’s a political decision to be taken which includes, among others, restructuring, repositioning, and retooling the nation’s security architecture. We all wait for that decision. Ordinarily, the police are the ones the minister should go to, except that, for some years, the security structure and the functions of the different security agencies have become convoluted. Many of what should traditionally be police jobs have been parcelled out to other security outfits, such that one wonders what the police have left. The Nigeria Police Act, 2020, contains police functions. These include preventing and detecting crimes, preserving public peace, maintaining law and order, securing communities, and safeguarding the lives and properties of all persons within the country. And remarkably, the police still retain in their book the function of regulating and managing traffic flow to guarantee safety for both motorists and pedestrians. I’m certain the reader understands why I make this last observation.On its part, Civil Defence Corps, a Federal Government paramilitary agency, is guided by the NSCDC Act No. 2 of 2003, as amended in 2007. In it, Civil Defence is mandated to carry out some functions, of which I shall mention only two that I think the reader might find intriguing. One, they’re to protect critical national assets including public infrastructure, strategic installations such as power stations, oil and gas pipelines, telecommunications, water resources, railways, and other key facilities. Two, Civil Defence is to protect educational institutions. The intriguing part is that the police can also be invited to attend to the two stated functions of the Civil Defence, and the invitation will be perfectly sensible, legitimate, and legal. In fact, the police once performed the two functions before some people created a private security outfit called Civil Defence and convinced the FG to adopt it as another agency outside the police.At the time, the main benefits mentioned in favour of creating Civil Defence were the last two functions already stated. Now, Tegbe thinks they can’t handle it. The proliferation of paramilitary agencies is something I’ve never supported. I believe in increasing the police manpower, improving technology, welfare, as well as their intelligence gathering prowess, and I’ve been stating this for over a decade on this page. For years, I called attention to the fact that the backdoor through which the Civil Defence crept in to do the police job was how another private entity that called itself Peace Corps wanted to creep in. Sometimes, their members called me and made vituperative comments – these were the people who wanted to create another hierarchy of generals. They can say theirs, but other Nigerians must not say theirs regarding what is happening in their own country.We know any new paramilitary entities would only end up sitting in air-conditioned offices, post their boys to comfortable locations in towns and cities, while the work they claimed they wanted to do wouldn’t be done in the end. It’s a pattern we’re used to seeing. I knew from the outset that what Tegbe noticed, which made him approach the police, would happen. I had observed that the challenges in the manner uniformed outfits operated would not have their solution in the creation of new agencies. Reason? The challenge here is systemic; it’s attitudinal, it’s about the security architecture, it’s about how the existing security formations are wired to operate, and it’s about orientation that’s wrong. One such orientation is the popular claim that creating these security outfits will create jobs for Nigerians. It’s only in Nigeria that I hear this kind of argument when we talk about security.There is no systematic study of what the problem is security-wise, what is needed, where it’s needed, and how to solve the identified problems. Essentially, there’s no data. Just recruit boys and put them in uniform. That’s our idea of providing security. And the outcome is clear, as many of these security outfits, after they are created, don’t do the jobs they are created for. The fact that the power minister shuns civil defence but turns to the police points to this. Meanwhile, the Minister of Mines, Dele Alake, has taken action that calls attention to the same issue. He forms mining marshals that reports say are doing a good job. Nonetheless, I have a different understanding of the situation. I think the approach is at a cost to the system. There’s a cost to the security system when Ministers who’re not in the security sector are the ones who have to spur security personnel to carry out their lawful duties. Something is fundamentally wrong.Related NewsFULL LIST: IG deploys new CPs to eight states, other police formationsPolice recover stolen vehicle in Gombe, arrest suspectPolice rescue abducted teenager, begin manhunt for kidnappers in OyoInstitutions that are run right do their job without being pushed by any external entities. The current approach is not sustainable. More than that, this is an intervention that is a disruption. Once the enthusiastic ministers behind it are no longer in seat, the arrangement will collapse. Such interventions that the power ministry, Mines, or any other ministry embarks on, though well-intentioned, amount to cutting out a special unit from the main body of the security agencies that the selected operatives belong to. The ministers from other minitries involved then fund the logistics of these operatives, pay them special allowances as well, and watch over them all the time, thus taking the attention of such ministers away from their core mandate. As for the security agencies concerned, the morale of other staff members drops; there’s jealousy between those left behind and those who’re getting special allowances and other privileges under other ministries.The heads of the security agencies concerned, too, are somewhat cut off from having operational control over their men. Professionalism is compromised.Leaderships of MDAs that are determined to achieve their mandate utilise the few selected uniformed men to get their work done and move on, praising their wins. And many of us praise their wins, too, at least for the efforts they make where most other MDAs make none. When one thinks it through, however, it becomes clear that this approach to governance is a short-cut. It lacks depth. For it’s not rooted beyond the zeal of the leadership of the concerned MDAs to get things done, and it never extends beyond a political tenure. Also, it cannot have outcomes that have depth, nothing lasting in the long run. Nothing in any transactional approach such as this can have lasting positive impacts both for the security agencies involved and the MDAs that are cherry-picking among and within the personnel of the security agencies.The approach only hides the real problems whereby security agencies aren’t what they should be structurally and operationally. We can’t frontally confront the identified systemic challenges if we continue with this transactional cherry-picking style. As things stand, security at the local level has failed such that criminals kidnap and kill our citizens at will. Regarding oil pipelines, incidences of oil theft continue to be reported. Mines are looted in many parts of the country, and foreigners are involved. Forest resources, including timber, are looted and exported. Now, vandalism of power infrastructure and other public facilities has prompted the Minister of Power to seek special protection from the police, a move that has sparked debate over which security agency should be in charge.It’s what happens when a system is dysfunctional. The report out there is that Tegbe knows Civil Defence should be in charge of power infrastructure. As he feels they aren’t doing their job, he goes to the police. What this means is that what was once taken to Civil Defence because the police were said not to have done it well is being returned to the same police. This back-and-forth approach to governance doesn’t work anywhere. It can’t work here. The fundamental problems that led to it should be addressed. The MDAs and security agencies involved cannot handle this on their own. For there’s a political decision to be taken which includes, among others, restructuring, repositioning, and retooling the nation’s security architecture. We all wait for that decision. On its part, Civil Defence Corps, a Federal Government paramilitary agency, is guided by the NSCDC Act No. 2 of 2003, as amended in 2007. In it, Civil Defence is mandated to carry out some functions, of which I shall mention only two that I think the reader might find intriguing. One, they’re to protect critical national assets including public infrastructure, strategic installations such as power stations, oil and gas pipelines, telecommunications, water resources, railways, and other key facilities. Two, Civil Defence is to protect educational institutions. The intriguing part is that the police can also be invited to attend to the two stated functions of the Civil Defence, and the invitation will be perfectly sensible, legitimate, and legal. In fact, the police once performed the two functions before some people created a private security outfit called Civil Defence and convinced the FG to adopt it as another agency outside the police.At the time, the main benefits mentioned in favour of creating Civil Defence were the last two functions already stated. Now, Tegbe thinks they can’t handle it. The proliferation of paramilitary agencies is something I’ve never supported. I believe in increasing the police manpower, improving technology, welfare, as well as their intelligence gathering prowess, and I’ve been stating this for over a decade on this page. For years, I called attention to the fact that the backdoor through which the Civil Defence crept in to do the police job was how another private entity that called itself Peace Corps wanted to creep in. Sometimes, their members called me and made vituperative comments – these were the people who wanted to create another hierarchy of generals. They can say theirs, but other Nigerians must not say theirs regarding what is happening in their own country.We know any new paramilitary entities would only end up sitting in air-conditioned offices, post their boys to comfortable locations in towns and cities, while the work they claimed they wanted to do wouldn’t be done in the end. It’s a pattern we’re used to seeing. I knew from the outset that what Tegbe noticed, which made him approach the police, would happen. I had observed that the challenges in the manner uniformed outfits operated would not have their solution in the creation of new agencies. Reason? The challenge here is systemic; it’s attitudinal, it’s about the security architecture, it’s about how the existing security formations are wired to operate, and it’s about orientation that’s wrong. One such orientation is the popular claim that creating these security outfits will create jobs for Nigerians. It’s only in Nigeria that I hear this kind of argument when we talk about security.There is no systematic study of what the problem is security-wise, what is needed, where it’s needed, and how to solve the identified problems. Essentially, there’s no data. Just recruit boys and put them in uniform. That’s our idea of providing security. And the outcome is clear, as many of these security outfits, after they are created, don’t do the jobs they are created for. The fact that the power minister shuns civil defence but turns to the police points to this. Meanwhile, the Minister of Mines, Dele Alake, has taken action that calls attention to the same issue. He forms mining marshals that reports say are doing a good job. Nonetheless, I have a different understanding of the situation. I think the approach is at a cost to the system. There’s a cost to the security system when Ministers who’re not in the security sector are the ones who have to spur security personnel to carry out their lawful duties. Something is fundamentally wrong.Related NewsFULL LIST: IG deploys new CPs to eight states, other police formationsPolice recover stolen vehicle in Gombe, arrest suspectPolice rescue abducted teenager, begin manhunt for kidnappers in OyoInstitutions that are run right do their job without being pushed by any external entities. The current approach is not sustainable. More than that, this is an intervention that is a disruption. Once the enthusiastic ministers behind it are no longer in seat, the arrangement will collapse. Such interventions that the power ministry, Mines, or any other ministry embarks on, though well-intentioned, amount to cutting out a special unit from the main body of the security agencies that the selected operatives belong to. The ministers from other minitries involved then fund the logistics of these operatives, pay them special allowances as well, and watch over them all the time, thus taking the attention of such ministers away from their core mandate. As for the security agencies concerned, the morale of other staff members drops; there’s jealousy between those left behind and those who’re getting special allowances and other privileges under other ministries.The heads of the security agencies concerned, too, are somewhat cut off from having operational control over their men. Professionalism is compromised.Leaderships of MDAs that are determined to achieve their mandate utilise the few selected uniformed men to get their work done and move on, praising their wins. And many of us praise their wins, too, at least for the efforts they make where most other MDAs make none. When one thinks it through, however, it becomes clear that this approach to governance is a short-cut. It lacks depth. For it’s not rooted beyond the zeal of the leadership of the concerned MDAs to get things done, and it never extends beyond a political tenure. Also, it cannot have outcomes that have depth, nothing lasting in the long run. Nothing in any transactional approach such as this can have lasting positive impacts both for the security agencies involved and the MDAs that are cherry-picking among and within the personnel of the security agencies.The approach only hides the real problems whereby security agencies aren’t what they should be structurally and operationally. We can’t frontally confront the identified systemic challenges if we continue with this transactional cherry-picking style. As things stand, security at the local level has failed such that criminals kidnap and kill our citizens at will. Regarding oil pipelines, incidences of oil theft continue to be reported. Mines are looted in many parts of the country, and foreigners are involved. Forest resources, including timber, are looted and exported. Now, vandalism of power infrastructure and other public facilities has prompted the Minister of Power to seek special protection from the police, a move that has sparked debate over which security agency should be in charge.It’s what happens when a system is dysfunctional. The report out there is that Tegbe knows Civil Defence should be in charge of power infrastructure. As he feels they aren’t doing their job, he goes to the police. What this means is that what was once taken to Civil Defence because the police were said not to have done it well is being returned to the same police. This back-and-forth approach to governance doesn’t work anywhere. It can’t work here. The fundamental problems that led to it should be addressed. The MDAs and security agencies involved cannot handle this on their own. For there’s a political decision to be taken which includes, among others, restructuring, repositioning, and retooling the nation’s security architecture. We all wait for that decision. At the time, the main benefits mentioned in favour of creating Civil Defence were the last two functions already stated. Now, Tegbe thinks they can’t handle it. The proliferation of paramilitary agencies is something I’ve never supported. I believe in increasing the police manpower, improving technology, welfare, as well as their intelligence gathering prowess, and I’ve been stating this for over a decade on this page. For years, I called attention to the fact that the backdoor through which the Civil Defence crept in to do the police job was how another private entity that called itself Peace Corps wanted to creep in. Sometimes, their members called me and made vituperative comments – these were the people who wanted to create another hierarchy of generals. They can say theirs, but other Nigerians must not say theirs regarding what is happening in their own country.We know any new paramilitary entities would only end up sitting in air-conditioned offices, post their boys to comfortable locations in towns and cities, while the work they claimed they wanted to do wouldn’t be done in the end. It’s a pattern we’re used to seeing. I knew from the outset that what Tegbe noticed, which made him approach the police, would happen. I had observed that the challenges in the manner uniformed outfits operated would not have their solution in the creation of new agencies. Reason? The challenge here is systemic; it’s attitudinal, it’s about the security architecture, it’s about how the existing security formations are wired to operate, and it’s about orientation that’s wrong. One such orientation is the popular claim that creating these security outfits will create jobs for Nigerians. It’s only in Nigeria that I hear this kind of argument when we talk about security.There is no systematic study of what the problem is security-wise, what is needed, where it’s needed, and how to solve the identified problems. Essentially, there’s no data. Just recruit boys and put them in uniform. That’s our idea of providing security. And the outcome is clear, as many of these security outfits, after they are created, don’t do the jobs they are created for. The fact that the power minister shuns civil defence but turns to the police points to this. Meanwhile, the Minister of Mines, Dele Alake, has taken action that calls attention to the same issue. He forms mining marshals that reports say are doing a good job. Nonetheless, I have a different understanding of the situation. I think the approach is at a cost to the system. There’s a cost to the security system when Ministers who’re not in the security sector are the ones who have to spur security personnel to carry out their lawful duties. Something is fundamentally wrong.Related NewsFULL LIST: IG deploys new CPs to eight states, other police formationsPolice recover stolen vehicle in Gombe, arrest suspectPolice rescue abducted teenager, begin manhunt for kidnappers in OyoInstitutions that are run right do their job without being pushed by any external entities. The current approach is not sustainable. More than that, this is an intervention that is a disruption. Once the enthusiastic ministers behind it are no longer in seat, the arrangement will collapse. Such interventions that the power ministry, Mines, or any other ministry embarks on, though well-intentioned, amount to cutting out a special unit from the main body of the security agencies that the selected operatives belong to. The ministers from other minitries involved then fund the logistics of these operatives, pay them special allowances as well, and watch over them all the time, thus taking the attention of such ministers away from their core mandate. As for the security agencies concerned, the morale of other staff members drops; there’s jealousy between those left behind and those who’re getting special allowances and other privileges under other ministries.The heads of the security agencies concerned, too, are somewhat cut off from having operational control over their men. Professionalism is compromised.Leaderships of MDAs that are determined to achieve their mandate utilise the few selected uniformed men to get their work done and move on, praising their wins. And many of us praise their wins, too, at least for the efforts they make where most other MDAs make none. When one thinks it through, however, it becomes clear that this approach to governance is a short-cut. It lacks depth. For it’s not rooted beyond the zeal of the leadership of the concerned MDAs to get things done, and it never extends beyond a political tenure. Also, it cannot have outcomes that have depth, nothing lasting in the long run. Nothing in any transactional approach such as this can have lasting positive impacts both for the security agencies involved and the MDAs that are cherry-picking among and within the personnel of the security agencies.The approach only hides the real problems whereby security agencies aren’t what they should be structurally and operationally. We can’t frontally confront the identified systemic challenges if we continue with this transactional cherry-picking style. As things stand, security at the local level has failed such that criminals kidnap and kill our citizens at will. Regarding oil pipelines, incidences of oil theft continue to be reported. Mines are looted in many parts of the country, and foreigners are involved. Forest resources, including timber, are looted and exported. Now, vandalism of power infrastructure and other public facilities has prompted the Minister of Power to seek special protection from the police, a move that has sparked debate over which security agency should be in charge.It’s what happens when a system is dysfunctional. The report out there is that Tegbe knows Civil Defence should be in charge of power infrastructure. As he feels they aren’t doing their job, he goes to the police. What this means is that what was once taken to Civil Defence because the police were said not to have done it well is being returned to the same police. This back-and-forth approach to governance doesn’t work anywhere. It can’t work here. The fundamental problems that led to it should be addressed. The MDAs and security agencies involved cannot handle this on their own. For there’s a political decision to be taken which includes, among others, restructuring, repositioning, and retooling the nation’s security architecture. We all wait for that decision. We know any new paramilitary entities would only end up sitting in air-conditioned offices, post their boys to comfortable locations in towns and cities, while the work they claimed they wanted to do wouldn’t be done in the end. It’s a pattern we’re used to seeing. I knew from the outset that what Tegbe noticed, which made him approach the police, would happen. I had observed that the challenges in the manner uniformed outfits operated would not have their solution in the creation of new agencies. Reason? The challenge here is systemic; it’s attitudinal, it’s about the security architecture, it’s about how the existing security formations are wired to operate, and it’s about orientation that’s wrong. One such orientation is the popular claim that creating these security outfits will create jobs for Nigerians. It’s only in Nigeria that I hear this kind of argument when we talk about security.There is no systematic study of what the problem is security-wise, what is needed, where it’s needed, and how to solve the identified problems. Essentially, there’s no data. Just recruit boys and put them in uniform. That’s our idea of providing security. And the outcome is clear, as many of these security outfits, after they are created, don’t do the jobs they are created for. The fact that the power minister shuns civil defence but turns to the police points to this. Meanwhile, the Minister of Mines, Dele Alake, has taken action that calls attention to the same issue. He forms mining marshals that reports say are doing a good job. Nonetheless, I have a different understanding of the situation. I think the approach is at a cost to the system. There’s a cost to the security system when Ministers who’re not in the security sector are the ones who have to spur security personnel to carry out their lawful duties. Something is fundamentally wrong.Related NewsFULL LIST: IG deploys new CPs to eight states, other police formationsPolice recover stolen vehicle in Gombe, arrest suspectPolice rescue abducted teenager, begin manhunt for kidnappers in OyoInstitutions that are run right do their job without being pushed by any external entities. The current approach is not sustainable. More than that, this is an intervention that is a disruption. Once the enthusiastic ministers behind it are no longer in seat, the arrangement will collapse. Such interventions that the power ministry, Mines, or any other ministry embarks on, though well-intentioned, amount to cutting out a special unit from the main body of the security agencies that the selected operatives belong to. The ministers from other minitries involved then fund the logistics of these operatives, pay them special allowances as well, and watch over them all the time, thus taking the attention of such ministers away from their core mandate. As for the security agencies concerned, the morale of other staff members drops; there’s jealousy between those left behind and those who’re getting special allowances and other privileges under other ministries.The heads of the security agencies concerned, too, are somewhat cut off from having operational control over their men. Professionalism is compromised.Leaderships of MDAs that are determined to achieve their mandate utilise the few selected uniformed men to get their work done and move on, praising their wins. And many of us praise their wins, too, at least for the efforts they make where most other MDAs make none. When one thinks it through, however, it becomes clear that this approach to governance is a short-cut. It lacks depth. For it’s not rooted beyond the zeal of the leadership of the concerned MDAs to get things done, and it never extends beyond a political tenure. Also, it cannot have outcomes that have depth, nothing lasting in the long run. Nothing in any transactional approach such as this can have lasting positive impacts both for the security agencies involved and the MDAs that are cherry-picking among and within the personnel of the security agencies.The approach only hides the real problems whereby security agencies aren’t what they should be structurally and operationally. We can’t frontally confront the identified systemic challenges if we continue with this transactional cherry-picking style. As things stand, security at the local level has failed such that criminals kidnap and kill our citizens at will. Regarding oil pipelines, incidences of oil theft continue to be reported. Mines are looted in many parts of the country, and foreigners are involved. Forest resources, including timber, are looted and exported. Now, vandalism of power infrastructure and other public facilities has prompted the Minister of Power to seek special protection from the police, a move that has sparked debate over which security agency should be in charge.It’s what happens when a system is dysfunctional. The report out there is that Tegbe knows Civil Defence should be in charge of power infrastructure. As he feels they aren’t doing their job, he goes to the police. What this means is that what was once taken to Civil Defence because the police were said not to have done it well is being returned to the same police. This back-and-forth approach to governance doesn’t work anywhere. It can’t work here. The fundamental problems that led to it should be addressed. The MDAs and security agencies involved cannot handle this on their own. For there’s a political decision to be taken which includes, among others, restructuring, repositioning, and retooling the nation’s security architecture. We all wait for that decision. There is no systematic study of what the problem is security-wise, what is needed, where it’s needed, and how to solve the identified problems. Essentially, there’s no data. Just recruit boys and put them in uniform. That’s our idea of providing security. And the outcome is clear, as many of these security outfits, after they are created, don’t do the jobs they are created for. The fact that the power minister shuns civil defence but turns to the police points to this. Meanwhile, the Minister of Mines, Dele Alake, has taken action that calls attention to the same issue. He forms mining marshals that reports say are doing a good job. Nonetheless, I have a different understanding of the situation. I think the approach is at a cost to the system. There’s a cost to the security system when Ministers who’re not in the security sector are the ones who have to spur security personnel to carry out their lawful duties. Something is fundamentally wrong.Related NewsFULL LIST: IG deploys new CPs to eight states, other police formationsPolice recover stolen vehicle in Gombe, arrest suspectPolice rescue abducted teenager, begin manhunt for kidnappers in OyoInstitutions that are run right do their job without being pushed by any external entities. The current approach is not sustainable. More than that, this is an intervention that is a disruption. Once the enthusiastic ministers behind it are no longer in seat, the arrangement will collapse. Such interventions that the power ministry, Mines, or any other ministry embarks on, though well-intentioned, amount to cutting out a special unit from the main body of the security agencies that the selected operatives belong to. The ministers from other minitries involved then fund the logistics of these operatives, pay them special allowances as well, and watch over them all the time, thus taking the attention of such ministers away from their core mandate. As for the security agencies concerned, the morale of other staff members drops; there’s jealousy between those left behind and those who’re getting special allowances and other privileges under other ministries.The heads of the security agencies concerned, too, are somewhat cut off from having operational control over their men. Professionalism is compromised.Leaderships of MDAs that are determined to achieve their mandate utilise the few selected uniformed men to get their work done and move on, praising their wins. And many of us praise their wins, too, at least for the efforts they make where most other MDAs make none. When one thinks it through, however, it becomes clear that this approach to governance is a short-cut. It lacks depth. For it’s not rooted beyond the zeal of the leadership of the concerned MDAs to get things done, and it never extends beyond a political tenure. Also, it cannot have outcomes that have depth, nothing lasting in the long run. Nothing in any transactional approach such as this can have lasting positive impacts both for the security agencies involved and the MDAs that are cherry-picking among and within the personnel of the security agencies.The approach only hides the real problems whereby security agencies aren’t what they should be structurally and operationally. We can’t frontally confront the identified systemic challenges if we continue with this transactional cherry-picking style. As things stand, security at the local level has failed such that criminals kidnap and kill our citizens at will. Regarding oil pipelines, incidences of oil theft continue to be reported. Mines are looted in many parts of the country, and foreigners are involved. Forest resources, including timber, are looted and exported. Now, vandalism of power infrastructure and other public facilities has prompted the Minister of Power to seek special protection from the police, a move that has sparked debate over which security agency should be in charge.It’s what happens when a system is dysfunctional. The report out there is that Tegbe knows Civil Defence should be in charge of power infrastructure. As he feels they aren’t doing their job, he goes to the police. What this means is that what was once taken to Civil Defence because the police were said not to have done it well is being returned to the same police. This back-and-forth approach to governance doesn’t work anywhere. It can’t work here. The fundamental problems that led to it should be addressed. The MDAs and security agencies involved cannot handle this on their own. For there’s a political decision to be taken which includes, among others, restructuring, repositioning, and retooling the nation’s security architecture. We all wait for that decision. Institutions that are run right do their job without being pushed by any external entities. The current approach is not sustainable. More than that, this is an intervention that is a disruption. Once the enthusiastic ministers behind it are no longer in seat, the arrangement will collapse. Such interventions that the power ministry, Mines, or any other ministry embarks on, though well-intentioned, amount to cutting out a special unit from the main body of the security agencies that the selected operatives belong to. The ministers from other minitries involved then fund the logistics of these operatives, pay them special allowances as well, and watch over them all the time, thus taking the attention of such ministers away from their core mandate. As for the security agencies concerned, the morale of other staff members drops; there’s jealousy between those left behind and those who’re getting special allowances and other privileges under other ministries.The heads of the security agencies concerned, too, are somewhat cut off from having operational control over their men. Professionalism is compromised.Leaderships of MDAs that are determined to achieve their mandate utilise the few selected uniformed men to get their work done and move on, praising their wins. And many of us praise their wins, too, at least for the efforts they make where most other MDAs make none. When one thinks it through, however, it becomes clear that this approach to governance is a short-cut. It lacks depth. For it’s not rooted beyond the zeal of the leadership of the concerned MDAs to get things done, and it never extends beyond a political tenure. Also, it cannot have outcomes that have depth, nothing lasting in the long run. Nothing in any transactional approach such as this can have lasting positive impacts both for the security agencies involved and the MDAs that are cherry-picking among and within the personnel of the security agencies.The approach only hides the real problems whereby security agencies aren’t what they should be structurally and operationally. We can’t frontally confront the identified systemic challenges if we continue with this transactional cherry-picking style. As things stand, security at the local level has failed such that criminals kidnap and kill our citizens at will. Regarding oil pipelines, incidences of oil theft continue to be reported. Mines are looted in many parts of the country, and foreigners are involved. Forest resources, including timber, are looted and exported. Now, vandalism of power infrastructure and other public facilities has prompted the Minister of Power to seek special protection from the police, a move that has sparked debate over which security agency should be in charge.It’s what happens when a system is dysfunctional. The report out there is that Tegbe knows Civil Defence should be in charge of power infrastructure. As he feels they aren’t doing their job, he goes to the police. What this means is that what was once taken to Civil Defence because the police were said not to have done it well is being returned to the same police. This back-and-forth approach to governance doesn’t work anywhere. It can’t work here. The fundamental problems that led to it should be addressed. The MDAs and security agencies involved cannot handle this on their own. For there’s a political decision to be taken which includes, among others, restructuring, repositioning, and retooling the nation’s security architecture. We all wait for that decision. The heads of the security agencies concerned, too, are somewhat cut off from having operational control over their men. Professionalism is compromised.Leaderships of MDAs that are determined to achieve their mandate utilise the few selected uniformed men to get their work done and move on, praising their wins. And many of us praise their wins, too, at least for the efforts they make where most other MDAs make none. When one thinks it through, however, it becomes clear that this approach to governance is a short-cut. It lacks depth. For it’s not rooted beyond the zeal of the leadership of the concerned MDAs to get things done, and it never extends beyond a political tenure. Also, it cannot have outcomes that have depth, nothing lasting in the long run. Nothing in any transactional approach such as this can have lasting positive impacts both for the security agencies involved and the MDAs that are cherry-picking among and within the personnel of the security agencies.The approach only hides the real problems whereby security agencies aren’t what they should be structurally and operationally. We can’t frontally confront the identified systemic challenges if we continue with this transactional cherry-picking style. As things stand, security at the local level has failed such that criminals kidnap and kill our citizens at will. Regarding oil pipelines, incidences of oil theft continue to be reported. Mines are looted in many parts of the country, and foreigners are involved. Forest resources, including timber, are looted and exported. Now, vandalism of power infrastructure and other public facilities has prompted the Minister of Power to seek special protection from the police, a move that has sparked debate over which security agency should be in charge.It’s what happens when a system is dysfunctional. The report out there is that Tegbe knows Civil Defence should be in charge of power infrastructure. As he feels they aren’t doing their job, he goes to the police. What this means is that what was once taken to Civil Defence because the police were said not to have done it well is being returned to the same police. This back-and-forth approach to governance doesn’t work anywhere. It can’t work here. The fundamental problems that led to it should be addressed. The MDAs and security agencies involved cannot handle this on their own. For there’s a political decision to be taken which includes, among others, restructuring, repositioning, and retooling the nation’s security architecture. We all wait for that decision. Leaderships of MDAs that are determined to achieve their mandate utilise the few selected uniformed men to get their work done and move on, praising their wins. And many of us praise their wins, too, at least for the efforts they make where most other MDAs make none. When one thinks it through, however, it becomes clear that this approach to governance is a short-cut. It lacks depth. For it’s not rooted beyond the zeal of the leadership of the concerned MDAs to get things done, and it never extends beyond a political tenure. Also, it cannot have outcomes that have depth, nothing lasting in the long run. Nothing in any transactional approach such as this can have lasting positive impacts both for the security agencies involved and the MDAs that are cherry-picking among and within the personnel of the security agencies.The approach only hides the real problems whereby security agencies aren’t what they should be structurally and operationally. We can’t frontally confront the identified systemic challenges if we continue with this transactional cherry-picking style. As things stand, security at the local level has failed such that criminals kidnap and kill our citizens at will. Regarding oil pipelines, incidences of oil theft continue to be reported. Mines are looted in many parts of the country, and foreigners are involved. Forest resources, including timber, are looted and exported. Now, vandalism of power infrastructure and other public facilities has prompted the Minister of Power to seek special protection from the police, a move that has sparked debate over which security agency should be in charge.It’s what happens when a system is dysfunctional. The report out there is that Tegbe knows Civil Defence should be in charge of power infrastructure. As he feels they aren’t doing their job, he goes to the police. What this means is that what was once taken to Civil Defence because the police were said not to have done it well is being returned to the same police. This back-and-forth approach to governance doesn’t work anywhere. It can’t work here. The fundamental problems that led to it should be addressed. The MDAs and security agencies involved cannot handle this on their own. For there’s a political decision to be taken which includes, among others, restructuring, repositioning, and retooling the nation’s security architecture. We all wait for that decision. The approach only hides the real problems whereby security agencies aren’t what they should be structurally and operationally. We can’t frontally confront the identified systemic challenges if we continue with this transactional cherry-picking style. As things stand, security at the local level has failed such that criminals kidnap and kill our citizens at will. Regarding oil pipelines, incidences of oil theft continue to be reported. Mines are looted in many parts of the country, and foreigners are involved. Forest resources, including timber, are looted and exported. Now, vandalism of power infrastructure and other public facilities has prompted the Minister of Power to seek special protection from the police, a move that has sparked debate over which security agency should be in charge.It’s what happens when a system is dysfunctional. The report out there is that Tegbe knows Civil Defence should be in charge of power infrastructure. As he feels they aren’t doing their job, he goes to the police. What this means is that what was once taken to Civil Defence because the police were said not to have done it well is being returned to the same police. This back-and-forth approach to governance doesn’t work anywhere. It can’t work here. The fundamental problems that led to it should be addressed. The MDAs and security agencies involved cannot handle this on their own. For there’s a political decision to be taken which includes, among others, restructuring, repositioning, and retooling the nation’s security architecture. We all wait for that decision. It’s what happens when a system is dysfunctional. The report out there is that Tegbe knows Civil Defence should be in charge of power infrastructure. As he feels they aren’t doing their job, he goes to the police. What this means is that what was once taken to Civil Defence because the police were said not to have done it well is being returned to the same police. This back-and-forth approach to governance doesn’t work anywhere. It can’t work here. The fundamental problems that led to it should be addressed. The MDAs and security agencies involved cannot handle this on their own. For there’s a political decision to be taken which includes, among others, restructuring, repositioning, and retooling the nation’s security architecture. We all wait for that decision.