Security votes remain secret in Nigeria as insecurity worsens

Over the years, whatever has been heard about the real amount being appropriated to state governors in Nigeria for security has remained guesswork.

Some Nigerians, even those in the corridors of power, have described security votes as a humongous amount of money that is spent by governors unaccounted for.

Someone told BusinessDay that “security vote is like a bottomless pit in terms of hugeness.”

According to Wikipedia, “security vote in Nigeria is a monthly allowance that is allocated to the 36 states within the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the sole purpose of funding security services within such states.”

It further stated that “The monthly fund runs into billions of naira and vary based on the level of security required by the individual state.”

It rightly noted that the security vote has not been widely accepted by citizens, as most have claimed that such funds are being abused by the state governments because how the funds are disbursed is not accountable to any agency.

On December 14, 2017, the plan by the Nigerian government to release $1billion from the excess crude oil account to fight Boko Haram was the most read news on global wire services.

A particular wire service warned that Nigeria should rather save for the rainy day, and instead divert to the insurgency fight, the security vote of the 36 states governors that are uncounted for.

It seemed Nigeria did not heed that warning, instead, more funds are being allocated as security vote, despite that they are opaque, corruption-prone funding widely used by Nigerian officials, especially governors.

Read Also: Makinde inaugurates Zonal Peace Security Committee

The intrigue is that the amount allocated as security vote for both governors and the presidency has always been shredded in secrecy.

Governors hardly disclose the amount, and the anti-graft agency seems to overlook that direction when probing past governors.

According to Transparency International, Nigeria allocates an estimated N241.2 billion (about $670 million) to security votes annually.

The international governance and rights watchdog decried Nigeria’s annual allocation to security votes, saying that it is more than the Nigerian Army‘s annual budget, 70 percent more than the Nigerian Police Force annual budget, and far higher than the United States of America and United Kingdom’s security assistance to Nigeria.

Since 2012, the US has spent $68.6 million in security assistance to Nigeria, while the UK has given over $53.5 million (£40 million) in counterterrorism support to Nigeria from 2016 to 2020.

Despite the increasing allocations to security vote, insecurity is getting worse and governors are crying for help, an ugly situation that is daily raising questions on the need for security vote when those who manage the funds cannot deploy it in providing security for, at least, themselves and their families.

The sad reality is that the funds would have aided developmental projects if they were rightly deployed than going into the private pockets of the governors, who draw from it at will, and without giving details of their expenditure, or accounting for the remaining if any.

Many are aggrieved that nothing can stop the governors from drawing from the budget when it has never served its purpose, as the source is also culpable, hence several calls for the scrapping of the votes.

At the 2019 Quarterly Policy Dialogue organised by the Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria (ACAN), the training arm of the ICPC, legality and constitutionality of security votes featured prominently.

Bolaji Owasanoye, a professor and chairman of Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC), said Nigeria needed to have parameters for appropriating and accounting for security vote without jeopardising national security.

Owasanoye further said this was necessary because accountability was crucial to diminishing corruption which is important to national security and development.

“In other words, the permission of appropriation for security vote has ironically pushed up rather than diminish insecurity.

“This is because the money that should ordinarily be available for social and economic development is appropriated as security vote and used discretionarily. Furthermore, there is the erroneous impression that security votes are not to be accounted for,” he said.

But at the ACAN event, Kayode Fayemi, Ekiti State governor, had defended security votes, adding that its abolition would breed chaos in the polity, instead of curbing corruption as is being widely believed.

“Governments all over the world have security votes, but they may not call it the same name as ours for obvious reasons, government business may not necessarily be all in the public glare,” Fayemi said.

Mike Adama, a public affairs analyst, and aggrieved taxpayer decried that apart from the governors, the presidency also gets security votes.

Since 2016, the number of security votes tucked into the federal budget has been increasing from 30, to over 190 in 2018, and more today.

Adama argued that if the security vote is increasing with a corresponding safety and peace across the states, nobody will raise issues or call for the scrapping, as accountability is out of it because Nigerians are yet to start holding their leaders accountable for their actions and funds expended while in office.

In the same vein, Bulus Yahaya, a capital market operator, noted that the security votes, which are unaccounted for are tax payers’ money, and government should justify the expenditure, and if it cannot point to an improvement in security, the vote should be scrapped.

“It is funny that the Federal Government is giving huge amount to governors as security vote. But who is securing who? Is security not from the federal, why give funds to governors, who cannot buy arms, or effectively control the police in their domain?” he asked.

But Dolapo Fadahunsi, a constitutional lawyer and security expert, noted that the governors are handicapped by the laws, which make both internal and external security in Nigeria, a prerogative of the Federal Government.

“Presently, the commissioner for police in a state is not answerable to the governor, rather to the inspector general of police, who takes instructions from the presidency that appointed him. The governors cannot buy arms and his security is determined and put in place by the federal agencies. So, the security votes cannot be used for the real needs of the governors, who end up pocketing them,” Fadahunsi said.

He thinks that security vote will be rightly deployed if the laws allow state police controlled by a sitting governor, who now sets up, funds and supervises the activities of the state police.

“Are we not practising federalism, Nigeria should emulate the United States of America where state police work in collaboration with federal security agents such as FBI, CIA among others. Let’s allow state police and give governors opportunity to appropriately spend the security votes they receive,” the security expert said.

Recall that Samuel Ortom, governor of Benue State, has been calling on the Federal Government to allow his people carry arms to defend themselves against killer herdsmen and gunmen. In his argument, the outspoken governor decried that it was wrong to disarm his people, while killer herdsmen and bandits keep ransacking villages, killing innocent people with their own guns.