Group defends Tinubu’s Homeland Security appointment, faults critics

A civic advocacy group, the Centre for Humanitarian and Homeland Advancement, has defended President Bola Tinubu’s appointment of retired Major General Adeyinka Famadewa as Special Adviser on Homeland Security, saying criticisms of the move misunderstand the realities of modern security management.

The group was reacting to comments by Femi Otubanjo, who reportedly described the appointment as unnecessary and a sign of failure by the administration in tackling insecurity.

In a statement issued on Friday, Maurice Ayobami, the Centre’s Executive Director, said the creation of the office was a strategic response to Nigeria’s changing security threats, not evidence of institutional weakness.

According to him, security challenges have become more complex, decentralised, and technology-driven, forcing governments worldwide to constantly review and strengthen their coordination systems.

Ayobami said the Tinubu administration was responding to threats such as terrorism, banditry, cybercrime, organised cross-border crime, attacks on critical infrastructure, and intelligence coordination gaps.

“To interpret the appointment of a Special Adviser on Homeland Security as an admission of failure is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of contemporary security management,” Ayobami said.

“Serious governments evolve. Serious administrations review their structures, identify emerging gaps, and create mechanisms capable of improving coordination, intelligence integration, and rapid strategic response. That is exactly what this administration has done.”

He argued that countries across the world continue to redesign their homeland security systems as threats evolve, adding that Nigeria cannot afford to rely on rigid institutional structures while security risks continue to change.

The Centre also rejected claims that the new office duplicates existing security agencies, insisting that the role is mainly advisory and coordinating in nature.

“The attempt to frame this appointment as a power struggle within the security architecture is both inaccurate and unnecessarily alarmist,” Ayobami said.

“The Special Adviser on Homeland Security is not being appointed to command military formations or override existing agencies. The role is strategic and advisory, aimed at deepening intelligence coordination, improving homeland risk assessment, and strengthening synergy among critical institutions.”

The group further described Famadewa as an experienced security professional with deep institutional knowledge.

According to the statement, the retired general played a major role in developing Nigeria’s intelligence coordination system during his time at the Office of the National Security Adviser, particularly through the establishment of the Intelligence Fusion Centre.

“Major General Famadewa is not an experimental choice. He is a tested security professional with decades of operational and strategic experience,” Ayobami said.

“At a time when security threats are becoming more interconnected and multidimensional, it is only logical for the administration to bring in individuals with deep institutional memory and proven coordination expertise.”

The Centre also said Nigeria’s security problems cannot be reduced to the appointment of a single adviser, noting that the challenges stem from long-standing structural issues, including porous borders, arms proliferation, socio-economic pressures, and regional instability.

Ayobami maintained that the Tinubu administration should instead be credited for exploring new approaches to security management.

“No responsible government confronted with evolving threats would continue operating with static frameworks,” he said.

“What the President has done is demonstrate strategic flexibility and administrative courage by strengthening the homeland security coordination process.”

The group urged Nigerians to assess the appointment within the broader context of national security reform rather than through political considerations.

It added that tackling insecurity requires stronger institutions, policy innovation, and constructive engagement rather than politicising every reform initiative introduced by government.