Do we really understand what the security votes are for?

The security situation in Nigeria today is worrying. From the issue of rural banditry to cattle rustling and the Boko Haram insurgency and the issue of kidnapping and yahoo boys menace, the list is endless and it is unfortunate that criminal activities also evolving. The reasons for these may not be unconnected with the security […]

The security situation in Nigeria today is worrying. From the issue of rural banditry to cattle rustling and the Boko Haram insurgency and the issue of kidnapping and yahoo boys menace, the list is endless and it is unfortunate that criminal activities also evolving.

The reasons for these may not be unconnected with the security situations in all the parts of Nigeria and which seem to have overwhelmed the security agencies that are charged with protecting and defending the territorial integrity of Nigeria.

Whereas the military and the other security agencies are working round the clock to put an end to the menace, our politicians are busy clamouring for an increase in the security allocation for states. This got me thinking on whether they really understand what the security votes are for.

Security means absence from threat. This threat could come in different forms like threat of poverty and hunger, unemployment, external threat etc. This vote is not to be accounted for as the fund is meant to be used, to remove the threat of insecurity in whatever form.

It beats my imagination on the dearth of knowledge which exists among our ruling elites, on what security votes actually mean and the need to ensure that enlightenment is given, to make people understand what security and its threats mean. This is so as to address the issue on what the security votes should actually be used for.  It is important to mention this as frequently as possible because some of our politicians may choose to be sufferers of selective amnesia.

If this is done and the funds are used according to plan, which is to remove the threat of insecurity caused by restiveness of disgruntled persons, who feel the need to wreak havoc and get their pound of flesh from an ‘unjust’ government, by going all out to unsettle it, there would be relative peace and stability. It would also bridge the widening the gap between the rich and the poor since the basic necessities that make for decent living have been provided and made available for all to use.

We need to remind the elected officials that the provision of basic amenities is a duty of the government and that those who hold the reins of power should first provide the basic amenities which will allow for decent living and which can also remove the security threat caused by the lack of the amenities. If the basic amenities are provided, the average person is kept busy and the issue of insecurity would have been tackled.

 

Mary Ojima Akpa, Abuja.