Faruk saga: On the diatribe among security agencies

Like an evil wind, the Faruk saga blew off everyone, including government and its agencies that have since engaged in series of image laundering, self-evaluation and appraisals, adjustment in security network and morality crusade among others. However, what is of essence here, is the name calling and the trading of blames by the nation’s security […]

Like an evil wind, the Faruk saga blew off everyone, including government and its agencies that have since engaged in series of image laundering, self-evaluation and appraisals, adjustment in security network and morality crusade among others.

However, what is of essence here, is the name calling and the trading of blames by the nation’s security agencies over the phenomenal but mud-splashing action of the young lad, Mutallab. The question of which agency failed to do this and that in the face of a critical security matter like this to my mind is unnecessary.

The security agencies are, by law, established to perform specific security roles that would aggregately bring about the overall safety of the nation’s and the nation state on one hand and on the other ensure the protection of same against internal and external attacks.

Therefore, at a time like this, what is expedient is the level of cooperation and networking of the agencies to attain the ultimate goal or target which is the provision of a totally secured and peaceful enclave for the people and, by extension, sustain the sovereignty of the country.

At this juncture, a pip into the specific roles of some of the security agencies like the police, State Security Service (SSS) National Intelligence Agency (NIA) and probably the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) will suffice in this discourse.

NIGERIA POLICE FORCE (NPF): What metamorphosed into the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), being the oldest of other security operatives in the country today was conceived in April 1896, when the British Consul in Lagos obtained permission from its principal in London to establish a Consular Guard comprised of 30 men.

The body underwent stages of metamorphosis until April 1, 1930 when the southern and Northern police were merged to form the present Nigeria Police Force (NPF) with the headquarters in Lagos. Nigeria assumed overall leadership of the NPF in 1964 when the late Louis Orok Edet was appointed the first indigenous Inspector-General of police.

The primary role of the police, among others, is to protect the citizens, maintain peace and to enforce the law and order at all time. The return to democracy from the military rule in May, 1999 ushered in a new political environment and broadened the responsibility of the force.  The new political environment, indeed, necessitated a paradigm shift in the mode of basic policing and approach to enforcement of the law and order in accordance with the tenet of the new democratic environment.

STATE SECURITY SERVICES (SSS): In June 1986, the then military president, Ibrahim Babangida issued Decree19 to dissolve the existing National Security Organisation (NSO) and restructured the Nigeria’s security services into three separate entities under the supervision of the Office of the Coordinator of the national security.  By this arrangement, the SSS is responsible for domestic intelligence. It is primarily the federal government law enforcement agency of Nigeria and it is responsible for internal policing. The SSS is one of the three successors of the NSO.

The mission of the SSS is protect and defend the Federal Republic of Nigeria against domestic threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of Nigeria and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to both federal and state law enforcement organs.

NATIONAL INTELIGENCE AGENCY (NIA): National Intelligence Agency is the Nigerian government division saddled with the responsibility of overseeing foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence operations.  The  Decree 19 that established the body on June 5, 1986 was replaced with what is now known as Cap. 278 of the Laws of the Federation. This followed the return to democratic rule and the adoption of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) is assigned responsibility for military intelligence.

At the centre of the name calling and the trading of blames by the security agencies is the media reports that Faruk’s father, Abdul Mutallab reported his son’s activities to the Nigerian security agencies.

But what is not clear to many people is whether Mutallab lodged a formal complaint about his son’s terrorist inclination to the security operatives, and to which of the security agencies was the complaint actually lodged, and in what form (written or verbal).

This confusion that is making tongues to wag at the moment had arisen because none of the agencies could lay claim to any formal report by Mutallab on his son’s terrorist tendencies to enable the operatives place Faruk on watch list.

If Mutallab did make formal complaint, was it to the SSS, Police or the NIA. The confusion would not have arisen if there was any formal letter or report to any of the agencies. The current diatribe is unnecessary. Perhaps, if the security chiefs meet and review their operations the way Americans have done it would be easy to know who did not do what and correct whateever security lapse or gap that might have existed.

Why are Nigerian security agencies trading blames when the American did not find information on Faruk made available to its embassy cogent to deny him American visa or put him on the red list of the FBI as a potential terrorist.

It is, indeed, worrisome that major security agents like SSS and the NIA are bringing issues of national importance to the public glare, stirring anxiety in the polity at a time that the wisest thing to do was for the government security agencies to be closely knitted to stir the course of smooth governance and to restore public confidence in the security apparatus of the nation.

Nzeibe wrote in from Abuja.