Controversial Peace Corps bill: Matters arising

President Muhammadu Buhari last week declined his assent on the
bill establishing Peace Corps of Nigeria earlier passed by the
National Assembly. In the reasons adduced by the Presidency for
withholding assent as required by law, apart from the financial
implications, the bill has overlapping responsibilities of existing
security agencies.

The conflict has generated hullabaloo in the society with the
executive and legislature drawing a battle line. Funny enough, the
episode developed at a time countless innocent citizens either by
politically-motivated or communal crises have been massacred as
animals by unknown gunmen. A cursory look at the evil and
sophisticated weapons being used by the perpetrators of the heinous
crimes leaves many to believe that the attacks may not be
completely isolated from the security agencies, and therefore, a
need on the Federal Government to be cautious in empowering and
equipping any group of people with arms.

Without a doubt, the legislative powers of the federation
pursuant to Section 4(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria as amended are vested in the National Assembly.
And by the provision of Section 58(5), the National Assembly is
clothed with unfettered powers to override the President on bills
with two-thirds majority votes. But sensibly, could the latter be
liberally invoked without first considering the whys and wherefores
of the President’s knockback? To start with, the Navy, for example,
is vested with the duty of providing security at the seashores; the
Air Force on the airspace; the Army at the territorial borders
whilst the police handle internal security in the society. This
therefore connotes division of labour with clear-cut jurisdictions
and responsibilities distinct from one another for security of
lives and property pursuant to Section 14(2)(b) of the
Constitution. By this arrangement, all the security agencies
identify clearly their respective primary operations zone which
therefore eliminates unnecessary squabbles. Though in exceptional
cases, there may be joint operations as directed by the President
who doubles as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

At the moment, the police already are complemented by the
Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps alongside the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission and Department of State Services.
The Federal Government stringently carved out financial crimes from
the duties of the police for the EFCC as a specialised agency
albeit both agencies operate with coordinate jurisdictions. On the
other hand, the DSS complements the police in providing security to
high-ranking government officials and other intelligence issues.
This is sufficiently convincing that there are many agencies
sharing responsibilities already with the police; sadly, the police
remain under-funded and short-staffed. Arguably, proliferation of
agencies is no remedy to security of lives and property but
efficient coordination and funding which aligned with the
President’s explanations.

Incidentally, the Peace Corps bill aimed at establishing the
organisation to perform the same duties delineated for the police
was rejected by the executive arm, which will be held liable if
their services are compromised. The questions begging for answers
to the promoters of the bill are; first, are the ins and outs
adduced by the President weighty enough for the bill to be
rejected? Second, what responsibilities would the proposed agency
be assigned with since grassroots and internal security is the duty
of the police, and third, will the legislature coordinate their
operations if established and fund the agency from its mind-blowing
budgets? Above all, is it proficient to establish a security agency
without necessary planning and funding knowing that a security
agency that is redundant will likely take advantage of uniforms and
arms at its disposal to do more harm than good to the society?
Arising from these, duplication of security agencies without
clearly spelt-out duties is unconsciously calling for a
catastrophe. At most, the interested applicants could seek for
recruitments in the existing organised agencies rather than
sporadically set up parallel organisations with overlapping duties
which will create unnecessary disasters in no distant time. Again,
if the proposed body is not targeted as a political tool for the
forthcoming elections, why the sudden pressure when it could run as
voluntary organisation until there are a necessity, adequate
resources and mechanism in place.

In sum, a new security organisation to be controlled by the
Presidency should logically come through executive bills after a
thorough consideration of the prerequisites, necessaries, funding
and coordination. The DSS and the EFCC are productive on account of
holistic planning prior to their establishment. Thus, an agency
proposed to exist under the executive arm cannot suitably be a
product of private sponsored bills. Undeniably, employment is a
fundamental issue in any society but the principal objective of
security agencies is not employment driven. It is perilous to
empower a group with arms without proper coordination, control and
training as the helpless society will certainly bear the
repercussions. At this point, the appropriate legislative action is
to deliberate extensively on the two cogent explanations by the
President instead of absurdly gathering signatures as laws that are
impracticable will inevitably retire in the wastebaskets.
Generally, the legislature cannot arbitrarily foist a body on the
executive without consensus, otherwise, it amounts to an abuse of
legislative powers. Thus, to override the President should always
be the last resort and strictly after extensive consultations with
certainty of mischief.

Umegboro, public affairs analyst, wrote in from Abuja
via umegborocarl@gmail.com (0705-710-1974 SMS only)

President Muhammadu Buhari last week declined his assent on the
bill establishing Peace Corps of Nigeria earlier passed by the
National Assembly. In the reasons adduced by the Presidency for
withholding assent as required by law, apart from the financial
implications, the bill has overlapping responsibilities of existing
security agencies.

The conflict has generated hullabaloo in the society with the
executive and legislature drawing a battle line. Funny enough, the
episode developed at a time countless innocent citizens either by
politically-motivated or communal crises have been massacred as
animals by unknown gunmen. A cursory look at the evil and
sophisticated weapons being used by the perpetrators of the heinous
crimes leaves many to believe that the attacks may not be
completely isolated from the security agencies, and therefore, a
need on the Federal Government to be cautious in empowering and
equipping any group of people with arms.

Without a doubt, the legislative powers of the federation
pursuant to Section 4(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria as amended are vested in the National Assembly.
And by the provision of Section 58(5), the National Assembly is
clothed with unfettered powers to override the President on bills
with two-thirds majority votes. But sensibly, could the latter be
liberally invoked without first considering the whys and wherefores
of the President’s knockback? To start with, the Navy, for example,
is vested with the duty of providing security at the seashores; the
Air Force on the airspace; the Army at the territorial borders
whilst the police handle internal security in the society. This
therefore connotes division of labour with clear-cut jurisdictions
and responsibilities distinct from one another for security of
lives and property pursuant to Section 14(2)(b) of the
Constitution. By this arrangement, all the security agencies
identify clearly their respective primary operations zone which
therefore eliminates unnecessary squabbles. Though in exceptional
cases, there may be joint operations as directed by the President
who doubles as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

At the moment, the police already are complemented by the
Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps alongside the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission and Department of State Services.
The Federal Government stringently carved out financial crimes from
the duties of the police for the EFCC as a specialised agency
albeit both agencies operate with coordinate jurisdictions. On the
other hand, the DSS complements the police in providing security to
high-ranking government officials and other intelligence issues.
This is sufficiently convincing that there are many agencies
sharing responsibilities already with the police; sadly, the police
remain under-funded and short-staffed. Arguably, proliferation of
agencies is no remedy to security of lives and property but
efficient coordination and funding which aligned with the
President’s explanations.

Incidentally, the Peace Corps bill aimed at establishing the
organisation to perform the same duties delineated for the police
was rejected by the executive arm, which will be held liable if
their services are compromised. The questions begging for answers
to the promoters of the bill are; first, are the ins and outs
adduced by the President weighty enough for the bill to be
rejected? Second, what responsibilities would the proposed agency
be assigned with since grassroots and internal security is the duty
of the police, and third, will the legislature coordinate their
operations if established and fund the agency from its mind-blowing
budgets? Above all, is it proficient to establish a security agency
without necessary planning and funding knowing that a security
agency that is redundant will likely take advantage of uniforms and
arms at its disposal to do more harm than good to the society?
Arising from these, duplication of security agencies without
clearly spelt-out duties is unconsciously calling for a
catastrophe. At most, the interested applicants could seek for
recruitments in the existing organised agencies rather than
sporadically set up parallel organisations with overlapping duties
which will create unnecessary disasters in no distant time. Again,
if the proposed body is not targeted as a political tool for the
forthcoming elections, why the sudden pressure when it could run as
voluntary organisation until there are a necessity, adequate
resources and mechanism in place.

In sum, a new security organisation to be controlled by the
Presidency should logically come through executive bills after a
thorough consideration of the prerequisites, necessaries, funding
and coordination. The DSS and the EFCC are productive on account of
holistic planning prior to their establishment. Thus, an agency
proposed to exist under the executive arm cannot suitably be a
product of private sponsored bills. Undeniably, employment is a
fundamental issue in any society but the principal objective of
security agencies is not employment driven. It is perilous to
empower a group with arms without proper coordination, control and
training as the helpless society will certainly bear the
repercussions. At this point, the appropriate legislative action is
to deliberate extensively on the two cogent explanations by the
President instead of absurdly gathering signatures as laws that are
impracticable will inevitably retire in the wastebaskets.
Generally, the legislature cannot arbitrarily foist a body on the
executive without consensus, otherwise, it amounts to an abuse of
legislative powers. Thus, to override the President should always
be the last resort and strictly after extensive consultations with
certainty of mischief.

Umegboro, public affairs analyst, wrote in from Abuja
via umegborocarl@gmail.com (0705-710-1974 SMS only)