The recent impasse or what many security observers would describe as a face-off between the Police Service Commission (PSC) and the Nigeria Police is snowballing into a thorough security issue. Like this writer pointed to earlier, the future and quality of recruits may be affected.
The question being put forward is: At what stage did the police leadership realise that it had the constitutional power to carry out the exercise? Many believe that, since the PSC had been carrying the police along by delegating some of its powers to the police and permitting it to partially exercise its instrument of delegation (IOD) to recruit, it should not be construed to mean that the IOD cannot be withdrawn, like a man who permitted his friend to occupy the boys’ quarters of his building while he was away. The ownership of the boys’ quarters cannot be forfeited unlawfully.
If the PSC headed by a retired Inspector General of Police can extend such gestures to the police in its activities, one wonders why the sudden disconnect and offish attitude of the police. Could this be a transition from the former IGP Kpotum ldris who set the police back administratively and operationally? I hope not.
An establishment like the PSC was created by law for specific purpose of helping to carry out oversight with the constitutional responsibility to appoint, promote and exercise disciplinary control on officers and men. “It is to subordinate the police as a civil authority.” Over the years, the commission has been known to be at the forefront of every police recruitment exercise, by involving the police at every stage.
The first time a President would pass uncomplimentary comment that was terse was the first time the police was permitted to use the PSC IOD: The public was informed of how “robbers and hooligans” were being recruited. It was the presidential verdict on police recruitment that informed the immediate review of the IOD, with a view to jointly carry out the exercise with the police.
Since then, there has been cordiality and unity of purpose. All the past heads of the PSC had been retired top police officers, except Chief Simeon Okeke, who was a civilian. The question is, if the present stand of the police leadership is in concert with his predecessors, how come none of them raised any eyebrow? After all, many were law graduates. Also, would the present IGP Mr. Mohammed Adamu, upturn the law setting up the PSC, if, after his tenure, he is appointed chairman of the PSC after Alhaji MK Smith? Would he still hold firm to his belief that the police should flout the laws of the country, instead of helping to uphold and strengthen them?
Or would he jettison this radical stand and embrace the status quo? Naturally, the food you don’t like, you should definitely not serve any other person.
On November 23, 1957, the British colonial secretary constituted a commission and appointed an armed old chum, Harry Willinks, and other erudite administrators in what was known as the Willinks Commission that would critically look into the many ethnic problems and security issues in Nigeria. Among its recommendations were the setting up of a unified police, a central prison system, and a civilian supervisory body for the police, adding that the police should be under federal control.
There is no police institution in the world that is devoid of supervision. If not, they would be a lord to themselves. There is wisdom in ensuring that a body is set up constitutionally to appoint, promote and discipline officers and men like the PSC has done with the Deputy Inspector General of Police in charge of training for an unofficial leakage of the yet to be ratified soft copy of the compiled list of candidates for police recruitment.
When it is not the police in combat with the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, then it is with the army or members of the public. The police should be concerned about its image and professionalism. Must it be heard that the same police that is supposed to be the instrument to enforce the law of the land has turned to be the law-breaker?
But the story becomes more critical when constitutional intricacy is involved. Deep issues of what is referred to as “constitutional mandate.” Indeed, no institution is expected to carelessly wish away its constitutional mandate, no matter the premise. It is like the President wishing away his constitutional power and mandate to either of the two other executive arms of government. That is why there is clear separation of power as enunciated in the Constitution.
The reason for the face-off between the two “elephants” is simply who controls the recrutment of new intakes into the Nigeria Police. Secondly, it may not be far from corruption, ethnicity and power tussle.
This impasse hardly reared its ugly head in the past because wisdom prevailed, and understanding of the knotty issues helped to straighten every crooked path.
(Concluded)
Amnesty for bandits may boomerang (1)
Bandits are robbers with a different dastardly mission. Some are specifically on a robbery spree, while others are outright kidnappers. It is, therefore, foolhardy to pardon them just because former President Umaru Yar’Adua granted the Niger Delta militants presidential pardon.
Come to think of it, banditry is not militancy. While bandits are robbers masquerading as kidnappers, the Niger Delta militants were focused and purposeful in their actions. Simply, the militants were fighting for a cause they obviously believed in (though wrongly). They never killed any person. Even when they were kidnapping oil workers for ransom, they hardly killed them. It is not the same story with the bandits who have often killed their vicitms on the flimsy excuse of non-payment of ransom.
So, this new narrative from some northern governors that the bandits operating in their states, who have killed and destroyed life and property should be embraced and shown the olive branch like royal prodigal sons sounds strange and ill-adviced.
(To be continued)