Can any law restrain Nigerian governors? By Tonnie Iredia

A few authoritative voices are beginning to make the rest of us think again about the state police issue. Until a week or so ago, some of us had no objection to the establishment of state police in Nigeria. Our position was influenced by the unending attacks on citizens particularly in rural communities. We had imagined that state police will bring in more hands into the fight against insecurity as the concept of state police will necessarily make each state see the need to protect its own boundaries.

It is not as if we were unaware of the likelihood of abuse of the concept by governors. Our assumption was that no matter the abuse that may occur along the line, let’s first reduce the tension of insecurity across the nation. Now that experienced analysts like my friend Hakeem Baba Ahmed is highlighting a greater danger that may befall the nation from a misuse of state police by the ruling political class, let’s not hang on rigidly to the federalist ideals without joining to sound a note of warning.

Hakeem spoke some 2 days ago via a national television slot on the need to handle the state police issue differently. He was not against the idea of state police, instead he was worried about the timing. His recommendation that state police in Nigeria should start after the next general election is instructive considering that the elections are only a few months away. It means those who have always believed that state police can be used by the ruling class especially state governors to cause huge political unrest during elections are hugely adamant. The major reason informed minds are getting agitated is because history tells us that governors can ignore laws and rules to meet a particular goal. In other words, even if several provisions are put in the enabling law of state police, governors can  decide to be lawless without consequences.

Opeyemi Bamidele Nigeria’s senate leader thinks differently. He believes that the senate has done enough to dissuade the governors from the type of impunity that worries the public. Only yesterday I was privileged to attend a debate group where people pointed out more than enough executive lawlessness in Nigeria to scare everyone. The example that was reproduced by more than one speaker had to do with the issue of Financial and Local Government Autonomy. It was stated that state governors have continued to defy the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on the subject by refusing to allow the relevant local officials to control their allocations. Another example was the demolition of buildings on the orders of governors without any court order. The conclusion was that our governors are too comfortable to subject themselves to the rule of law.

From what has been said so far, it is obvious that whereas state police as a policy is desirous, no one is sure that the handling of the subject by governors will not derail our democracy. For as long as elections remain a zero-sum game, nothing can stop governors from using any weapon to achieve their goal. What they have done over the years in matters of politics and elections seem to confirm public fears. For example, governors have refused to follow the law which bars electioneering campaigns during governance. If the law says campaigns are not allowed until 150 days before elections, why should anyone start campaigning for another election a day after winning one? In fairness, all politicians, not only governors are guilty of this.

Perhaps no other subject defines impunity by governors better than their defection from one party to another. We all know that in Nigeria there is no provision for independent candidacy at an election. To become a governor a candidate must be sponsored by a political party. Our electoral process recognizes that votes received in an election belong to the party. Yet, because our governors are exceedingly powerful some of them defected to different political parties thereby unilaterally transferring votes which belong to party Y to party Z. Bearing in mind that nothing happened to those who did, what will happen to a governor who abuses the state police? If nothing, can we then say it is safe to have state police before the forthcoming general elections?

The law provides that during the approved period of electioneering campaigns; the media shall offer equal time and opportunity to all political parties. The purpose is to give ample room to candidates to sell their manifestos and indeed explain how they intend to carry out their election promises for the benefit of society. A major advantage of this arrangement is to keep the electorate better positioned to make informed voting decisions. Governors are known to block every opportunity for opposition parties to benefit from the arrangement. It is only the ruling party that can use the public stadium as well as the state media to campaign. How does the National Assembly hope to craft the law to make a governor operate as a statesman to allow his opponents into such public spaces which in any case belong to the public?

On voting day, candidates are not expected to be escorted to polling stations by armed security operatives. In the past the federal police attempted to moderate this but opponents were able to identify several security operatives in ‘mufti.’ Can anyone stop state police officials from the polling stations if the governor directs them to do so?  Will state police officials not be hyperactive at collation centres from where magical figures emanate at night? The likely answer would be that the law would prohibit them from entering. It is probable that such provisions would in fact be made, that is not the issue at stake. The point that worries analysts is that such provisions will be breached and there would be no accountability. Indeed, impunity is more glaring at state level especially at a local government election where the electoral officials would be friends and relations of members of the ruling party.     

If abuses such as those listed above are recorded, not much can be done to a governor who gave room for them to happen. May be the media would check it; but that presupposes that state governors would not use state police to arrest and detain outspoken media professionals and other critics. Let’s recall a few incidents some years back when some state governors especially those of Ebonyi and Cross River States took delight in ensuring the arrest and detention of political opponents and critics including even the media that is constitutionally mandated to hold government accountable to the people. Each time a critic was arrested, the law enforcement agencies would say the report of the critic embarrassed the governor or that aspects of the said report were capable of destabilizing society but at no point were the same agencies interested in scrutinizing the veracity of the reports they acted against.

At a point some governors took advantage of the Cybercrimes Act. Although the Act had in mind serious crimes concerning digital electronic messaging that could undermine national security, politicians at state level immediately domesticated the Act to make it impossible for the state government and its officials to be made the subject of any media investigation. They assumed that since the world had progressed to the digital age of technology any journalist could be held under the Act because everyone now uses computers. So, some states domesticated the law and used it to deal with any political opponent or journalist who criticized government thereby criminalizing political dissent. What this implies is that governors can use several tactics to perfect authoritarianism.

Today’s piece does not suggest that this column has taken sides with persons against state police. As a federation, we must find a way to stop our love for unitary structures. In climes where federalism and democracy are institutionalized, federal officials do not usurp the functions of subnational units. For this reason, Nigeria must mature into using state police and state electoral bodies etc., to perform local functions. There are several benefits such as familiarity with the terrain which could make local officials perform more efficiently than outsiders. At the same time, we must not hurriedly localize into further complications. It is hoped that with a virile civic society many more courageous people will emerge to checkmate governors who adulterate our democracy for their own benefits.

The post Can any law restrain Nigerian governors? By Tonnie Iredia appeared first on Vanguard News.