Human rights lawyer, Mr Femi Falana, SAN, has accused the President Muhammadu Buhari administration of “failing to satisfactorily address the crisis of insecurity in the country, and doing nothing to end the mismanagement of the economy under his watch.”
Falana stated this in a paper titled ‘Good Governance or Misgovernance: The Contract Called Democracy’, and delivered at the 50th anniversary interactive session held by the Abeokuta Club in Abeokuta, Ogun State.
His words: “In spite of the decentralisation of police powers at the centre the Federal Government has continued to kick against the creation of state police service on the ground that it is unconstitutional.
“No doubt, based on the virtual collapse of the security architecture of the neo-colonial state, the Federal Government has grudgingly allowed state government to create state or regional security outfits. But they are not allowed to bear arms.
“The personnel of the regional security outfits who are armed with cutlasses and dane guns are expected to commit suicide by confronting AK 47 bearing terrorists, bandits, kidnappers, herders and robbers.”
The paper reads in part: “In view of the fact that the civilian Joint Task Force operatives are given licences to bear arms and ammunition, I have asked state governments to sue the Federal Government for refusing to grant licences to the personnel of regional security outfits for allowing dangerous criminals to breach the constitutional rights of unarmed citizens to life and dignity.
“Furthermore, it is discriminatory to deny licences to 5,000 state security personnel to bear arms to protect millions of unarmed citizens while a few individuals are granted licences to acquire weapons to protect themselves and their family members.
“Curiously, some state governors have also complained about the refusal of the National Security Adviser to approve the applications for End Users Certificates for importation of Drones to monitor and expose terrorists and kidnappers hiding in the forests.”
“With respect, such sabotage of security ought to be challenged in the Federal High Court as the National Security Adviser has not been conferred with the power by any law to grant or reject the requests of governors to acquire equipment to secure the areas that have been exposed to danger by the Federal Government.”