Security vote, which is enjoyed by the president and state governors, has been enmeshed in crisis in recent times. Ministries, Departments and Agencies, MDAs, of government also enjoy the perk. Protagonists and antagonists have of recent been examining its merits and the demerits as well as its constitutionality. RAZAQ BAMIDELE, in this analysis, tries to weigh in on the issue.
Security vote is a monthly allowance that is allocated to the 36 states for the sole purpose of funding security services in those states.
The monthly fund runs into billions of naira and vary based on the level of security required by the individual state. For instance, states like Rivers that faces security threats, such as pipeline vandalism and kidnapping, receives one of the largest security vote’s funds in the country.
Security votes have not been widely accepted by many Nigerians, as most have claimed that such funds are being abused by governments, because how the funds are disbursed and utilised is not accountable to any agency. The state governments are advised to use their discretion in ways and how to spend the funds, according to Wikipedia.
Going by the submission that level of security in individual state can influence what goes to which state, it is also a fact that the advent of the dreaded insurgents, the Boko Haram, may have given credence to the need for such fund to combat the insurgents as well as other security challenges across the country.
As controversial as the fund is, during the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan, all the 36 governors, who converged in Abuja used the opportunity to play Oliver Twist by calling for the creation of special intervention fund to augment the monthly security vote because it was believed that some seriously affected states were gravely over stretched.
The criticism and condemnation trailing the vote is believed to be borne out of the suspicion that the fund is corruption in disguise.
This was adequately captured in an article; ‘Security Votes in Nigeria: Disguising Stealing from The Public Purse’, jointly written by Obiamaka Egbo, Ifeoma Nwakoby, Josaphat Onwumere and Chubuike Uche.
Extract from the article reads: “The practice of misappropriating and stealing huge sums of public money under the guise of enhancing national security has come under increasing scrutiny in Nigeria. This article investigates the history and practice of the use of so-called security votes, and shows how the ambiguity and secrecy associated with the concept of national security has helped institutionalise unaccountable governance at all levels of government. Tracing the use and abuse of security votes from the military regime to the present democratic era, this article argues that the misappropriation of security votes has expanded in recent years.”
READ ALSO:We didn’t arrest Chido Onumah, says DSS
Although, the exact amount may not be known, several investigations have revealed that huge amount of money is involved which is neither audited nor appropriated.
It was reported that Legit.ng investigations put security votes by some governors at N500 million monthly. “It means that N500 million every month as security vote, by the end of each year, a state governor would have succeeded in diverting N6 billion of public funds, with citizens of the 36 states, excluding the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, losing N210 billion annually to their chief executives. According to that estimate, governors who serve two terms are likely to pocket a whopping N48 billion as security vote during their tenures.”
The report quoted Alhaji Balarabe Musa, the former governor of the old Kaduna State, who told said that when he served as governor, the amount for security vote was a paltry N100,000, which he said was accounted for.
Balarabe Musa explained that before the military came to power in 1966, the amount to be earmarked as security funds was voted for, and that the difference between then and now is that the money was accounted for, though not made public.
According to him, if the money is approved by the legislators, then it is legal and constitutional, explaining that this was the case when he was governor. He said security votes as they are practised in present day Nigeria, are nothing but fraud and stealing of public funds through unaccountable means.
He noted that the trend goes to show how bad the Nigerian system is where such an outrageous amount can be wasted by presidents and governors at the expense of the people who elected them.
Nelson Ekujumi, Executive Director, Centre for Rights and Grassroots Initiative, CRGI, also told Legit.ng that if governors get N500 million as monthly security votes, one is left to wonder what the president would be getting, since the burden of national security still rests on his shoulders.
“Again, it borders on transparency and accountability. It is evil of some sorts for governors to be diverting this huge fund when they have not been able to pay workers’ salaries; and are asking workers to take pay cut. They are asking workers to suffer more when they themselves are not ready to let go some of their privileges. This is against the essence of democracy,” he said.
Ekujumi said that if President Muhammadu Buhari really wants to fight corruption, this is where the real issue is.
Dele Adesina, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, and a senior partner at Adesina and Co, also told Legit.ng in an interview that he had read the 1999 constitution over and over again and had yet to see any section authorising the security votes.
He explained that some years ago, the Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka had lamented that Nigeria was the only country in the world where money is given to presidents or heads of state and governors, which is unaccounted for.
According to him, the time has come for Nigerians to demand the stoppage of security vote, since there is no insurrection in the country apart from the northeast and recently in the Niger Delta.
Toeing the same line, Transparency International Defence & Security also recommended a legislation outlawing security votes at the federal, state and local levels.
A ban on the use of security votes, according to the agency, should be accompanied by legislation specifying budgeting procedures and criteria for security expenditures to meet international best practices, incorporate oversight mechanisms, transparency standards and strictly defined conditions for the use of contingency funds or ‘black budgets’.
Also speaking in the same vein, the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, CISLAC, urged President Buhari to work towards stopping allocation of security votes to state governors during his second term in office.
CISLAC Executive Director, Mr. Auwal Rafsanjani made this submission in Abuja at a media parley tagged “Setting the Anti-corruption Agenda for the Incoming Administration.”
Rafsanjani insisted that, the call became imperative because, according to him, state governors routinely claim not to be in charge of the security apparatus in their states while they receive huge sums as security votes, saying, this begs for an explanation.
“CISLAC and other civil society groups have been consistent in proposing immediate solutions which is to ban senseless security votes, which accounts in total for around N241.2 billion.
“This is a sum that exceeds 70 per cent of the annual budget of the Nigeria Police Force.
“As the president begins his second tenure, there is the need to make defence budgets more accessible for public scrutiny,” Rafsanjani said.
The executive director said that corruption in the defence and security sector contributes significantly to the human despair and economic stagnation across Nigeria.
“These were recommendations articulated and received from a wide range of stakeholders working across the anti-corruption issue raising concerns as to the usefulness and genuineness of the motive of having security votes in place,” he said.
Rafsanjani said that the next phase of Buhari’s corruption fight should be anchored on clear anti-corruption strategy, active involvement of citizens among others.
He said that the fight should prioritise prevention and sanction to win back public support.
Comrade Debo Adeniran, a human rights activist and the Executive Chairman, Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership, CACOL, however has a different view as to whether security vote should be outlawed or not.
Although, Adeniran frowns at the misuse of the fund, but he is of the view that something drastic that would make the fund relevant would do the magic.
He said: “The so called security votes is like providing ‘meal tickets’ to the governments at all levels, when they are not properly used for its primary objectives.
“Howbeit, CACOL, as an anti-corruption organisation, does not support the calls for outright cancellation of the security votes since experience has shown that some unanticipated threats to security do occur from time to time at the local level, like the spate of kidnapping by supposed herdsmen, etc.
“This is why the calls for it to be appropriated for and audited at the end of every year is more auspicious and acceptable; because the funds are being abused by the state governments. Also, how the funds are disbursed is not accountable to any agency.
“The state governments are advised to use their discretion in ways on how to spend the funds after they have been appropriated for by their respective legislative arm, ditto for other levels of government in the country.
“It is undemocratic and very shameful for such humongous amounts to be expropriated on the excuse of ‘security’ when majority of Nigerian graduates have no jobs to do and most states still refuse to pay N30,000 as minimum wage.”
According to him, any major economic threat is as a result of poverty that is ravaging the people, and there is no way a nation contributes to the development of the citizens, in terms of job creation, improvement in the standard of living, providing adequate facilities, infrastructural development and other social amenities that there won’t be a reduction in security threat in the society.
This, he said, is why some countries have what is called, ‘food security’ as a cardinal focus of government. But when a government is not doing the needful, there will be more threat to the society.
Adeniran lamented that, some states collect huge sums of money annually as security votes.
He said: “Imo State collects N333.333 million monthly (N4 billion annually), Enugu State, N600 million (N7.2 billion annually), Akwa Ibom State, N1.8 billion (N21.6billion annually), Edo State, N900 million (N10.8 billion annually), Delta State, N2 billion (N24 billion annually), Lagos State, N17.149 billion annually.”
Of all the states, the activist said, only Lagos State seems to provide a modicum of justification by providing a measure of assistance to the kitting of the Nigerian Police in the areas of provision of cars, bulletproof vests, weaponry, etc., to complement whatever the Federal Government is doing in that area.
The Chief of Army Staff, COAS, Lt. Gen Tukur Buratai, recently queried the use of the vote by governors just as he described it as unconstitutional.
The COAS spoke at the Headquarters of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission on the issue of security vote, where he insisted that the fund should always be audited.
The occasion was the second quarterly anti-corruption policy dialogue on accountability for security vote, with the theme ‘National Security: The Accountability Imperative’, organised by the ICPC Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria.
According to Buratai, serious criticism trailing the security vote is borne out of alleged corruption with the suspicion that the governors take advantage of the immunity clause in the Constitution that protect them from being checked while in office until after the expiration of their tenures.
The COAS is of the strong conviction that the vote should be subjected to auditing and anything short of that is wrong, quoting a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, Robert Clarke, as saying that “security vote is unconstitutional.”
He further noted that security vote is not a defence vote that is meant to tackle security, saying there is funding for the Ministry of Defence, the Armed Forces, the Police as well as for other security agencies.
“But if security vote is made constitutional and proper guidelines spelt out on how it should be utilised, I think that this issue would be laid to rest,” Buratai submitted.
READ ALSO:59 Independence: There’s hope for Nigeria to emerge among greatest nations, says Sanwo-Olu
But Ekiti State Governor, Dr. John Kayode Fayemi, who also doubles as the Chairman, Nigeria Governors Forum, NGF, at the same event, defended the security vote vehemently, saying that the allegations that the vote is unconstitutional and illegal were an “incorrect narrative.”
The governor, who was the guest speaker at the occasion, countered the COAS by saying that, the autocratic nature of the military regimes and the supreme powers vested in the leaders of such governments provided a fertile ground for the development of security vote abuse.
Fayemi, who is of the strong belief that the abolition of security votes is inimical to the country’s development, argued that its abolition would breed chaos in the polity, pointing out that, instead of curbing corruption as being widely believed, development would be retarded as there cannot be development without security.
Fayemi argued that security vote is necessary because governors spend a large chunk of the vote on maintenance of security agencies in their domains, just as he demanded for devolution of powers to the federating units for them to have control of security architecture in their domains.
“In a crisis situation, resorting to bureaucratic process or procedure may worsen the situation. It requires prompt actions or measures to get it resolved. On such an occasion, the governor as the Chief Security Officer may have to take an urgent action. This is why the sustenance of security vote is inevitable,” Fayemi noted.
The NGF chairman also added that many state governors also use their security vote to provide funding to federal security agencies operating in their states, reminding that people do not bother about how kidnapped victims’ release is secured, as police and soldiers would not agree that ransoms are paid.
Fayemi therefore blamed the secrecy in the allocation and abuse of security vote over time on the long reign and dominance of the military in Nigeria’s political life.
Chairman of ICPC, Prof. Bolaji Owasanoye, also agreed that with the admission that Ministries, Departments and Agencies, MDAs, being given security vote, it suggested that something is wrong with the parameters for determining who is entitled to the funds