When the news broke out that the governor of Kaduna State, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, had visited the communities of Igabi and Giwa, recently attacked by bandits to tender what is today known as political apology, passersby would have described it otherwise with the conscience of religiosity, while those with hindsight, who understood the nitty-gritty behind what culminated in the massacre of 51 innocent residents of Kaduna State, would not blink an eye before describing the emotion laden apology of the governor as political.
After all, the Kaduna State chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), under Rev. Joseph Hayab, had severally cried out like the chicken that was abandoned unprotected against the raging Eagle. He reinterated the insenscent bandit attacks and kidnapping in those local government areas. Hear, El-Rufai: “I also came to apologise for failure to protect you fully. We are doing our best to minimise such incidents. You should continue to forgive us.”
Nigerian politicians have no conscience. Fifty-one people were massacred in a day, under the watchful eyes of a governor whom the people sacrificed their time to vote into power and whom the Constitution empowered to protect their life and property, a governor that is the chief security of the state. This clearly means that the governor has failed and ought to have resigned. If a governor can be jailed for embezzling the people’s commonwealth, why would a governor not be prosecuted for negligence? I am sure the affected families of Karawa and its neighbourhood in attendance while El-Rufai was speaking would be swearing and cursing him, since they could not touch him.
When these local government areas were first attacked, there was a proposition that security posts and military presence should be effected. The implementation of the proposal is yet to see the light of day. Despite the huge security vote under his watch, all that was carried out was an alledged visit to the enclave of the bandits for negotiation. Even after that, 51 people were mercilessly killed like fowls.
Today, bandits parade the roads and communities in many states of Nigeria like a, untamed colossus. No wonder there is an alignment of regional forces aimed at confronting these unholy bandits who kill, main and destroy for self-glorification.
El-Rufai was merely dancing to the political beat of the moment. As a sharp politician, he envisaged that, by apologizing,he would attract the sympathy of the people, who would see him as a concerned governor. Like most Nigerian politicians, he knows that if he renders one kobo’s worth of apology, he would attract 10 kobo sympathy or encomiums. Away from El-Rufai’s political gymnastics.
In 2003, Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Tafa Balogun, mooted the idea of the Community Policing scheme and selected seven police officers to proceed for a training programme in the United Kingdom. The seven officers were to pilot the scheme. Like every programme, it was jettisoned immediately his successor was appointed. This the bane of policy making in the Nigeria Police, and Nigeria in general. We have a situation where progressive ideas are initiated but later terminated because Mr. A does not appreciate the reason for the policy and so it must die, even if it would serve the institution and the country. The same wrong mentality strangled the novel idea of Sir Mike Okiro, when he initiated the need to have a standing anti-terrorism squad. The men were vigorously trained in lsrael, the United Kingdom and the United States. Unfortunately, the elite squad was disbanded immediately Okiro retired from the police.
Many security analysts and security historians are of the opinion that, had those two policies of Balogun and Okiro been maintained and allowed to prosper, these problems of banditry, kidnapping and Boko Haram terrorism would have been nipped in the bud. They would have been dead on arrival.
Who knows, perhaps the latest resurrection of community policing would go the way of the first initiative when IGP Mohammed Adamu exits office. Security, like governance, should be a continuum. The idea, even when conceived by Mr. A, should not be jestition by Mr. B because they don’t see eye to eye. Building the institution should be paramount, after all, the resources are not from their personal pocket, so, why should an idea that would be beneficial to the institution and the country at large be abandoned for selfish and parochial reasons?
The reintroduction of community policing does not seem practicable in the riotous political-security atmosphere pervading the country today. Adamu has suddenly forgotten that the needful should be done, which is mending the fractured relationship between the police and members of the public. No wonder the people of the six Western states were quick to embrace the regional security outfit introduced by their governors. For instance, the people of Ondo State have not stopped grieving over the death of their football star son alledgedly killed in the hands of a police officer. Today, most Nigerians abhor the sight of policemen, especially those along the highways, in police stations and those on operational duties. Their attitudes are not in comformity with mordern relationships with members of the public.
Last week, a final year university student narrated his humiliating ordeal while visiting a police public relations officer. According to him, “I was kept waiting outside and treated shabbily just because I wanted to see the police public relations officer for a private issue,” he said.
Their uncouth disposition does not correspond with the age-long sing-song that “police is your friend,” with their unwarranted wickedness towards members of the public. Their get-rich-quick mentality, where a Coporal wants to own a car and build a house overnight, is the resurrection of corruption.
The onus is on the IGP to reorientate these policemen and build up a very cordial public relationship between the people and the police. That is when people-oriented policies can germinate in society.
————————————-
APOLOGY
Last week, the Comptroller General of the Immigration service was wrongly addressed at a point as Ibrahim Babandede , instead of Muhammad Babandede. The error is regretted.