Zamfara: Keeping DSS out of partisan fray

DABBLING in a purely partisan fray, operatives of the Department of State Services reportedly rounded up principal officers of the Zamfara State legislature last month and took them to Abuja, where they were detained. Their only offence was their move to press impeachment charges against the state governor, Abdulaziz Yari. This is an impunity that should not be brooked in a democracy.

The state House of Assembly had listed six alleged impeachable offences against Yari, including the misappropriation of N11 billion bailout; N1 billion agricultural loan from the Central Bank of Nigeria; and “corrupt abuse of local governments’ funds.” The affected lawmakers, who have since been released following a truce with the governor, are the Speaker, Sanusi Rikiji; his deputy, Muhammad Gunmi; the Majority Leader, Isah Abdulmumini, and Chief Whip, Abdullahi Dansadau.

 

What should have been of interest to all observers is the veracity or otherwise of the lawmakers’ allegations. Their intimidation and harassment by the DSS operatives when they did not run foul of any law is condemnable. The Assembly’s Chairman, Committee on Information, Mannir Gidan-Jaja, had earlier demanded their unconditional release.

Under Musa Daura’s leadership, the DSS on many occasions has over-stepped its bounds. Such action is highly unprofessional, provocative and an abuse of office. It beggars belief that the agency ignores the many security challenges begging for attention to embark on missions that are outside its purview. For instance, after 841 days of Chibok girls’ captivity in Boko Haram’s den, there has not been any intelligence from the DSS to help Nigeria locate them.

The constitution clearly outlines the path the executive and legislative arms of government should follow in discharging the checks and balances expected of them on each other; and in seeking redress in the event of any misconduct or overdrive in pursuance of their responsibilities. Certainly, the DSS has no role to play in all of this.

Interference such as was witnessed in the Zamfara State Assembly’s case explains why the legislature generally in Nigeria has been prostrate since 1999, existing only as apron strings of the executive, to the peril of democratic governance in the 36 states of the federation. This is the time for the country to chart a new course. It will serve democracy well if the executive arm is always held to account.

We had thought that it was the desire to wean the DSS of partisanship that made President Muhammadu Buhari to change its leadership on July 1, 2015, four weeks after he assumed office. The clean-up affected its then Director-General, Ita Ekpenyong, and spokesperson, Marilyn Ogar, among others.

Under Ekpenyong, the agency brazenly became a tool of the party in power. It was accused of playing a critical role in the rigging of elections in some states. Its neutrality in the controversial Ekiti State governorship poll in 2014 was questioned during a military enquiry that resulted in the retirement of some Nigerian Army officers.

In one of its most audacious partisan gambles, it invaded the Lagos office of the then opposition All Progressives Congress in November 2014 and carted away computers and vital documents. It also arrested some personnel on the pretext that the party had planned to hack into the data base of the Independent National Electoral Commission in order to clone permanent voter cards for the purpose of rigging the 2015 elections.  However, none of those arrested was tried.

Without question, the DSS excursion into the political arena compromises its integrity and ability to discharge its statutory functions of prevention, detection and investigation of crimes such as threats of espionage, subversion, sabotage, terrorism, economic crimes and separatist agitations. In the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency limits itself to defined statutory functions. It does not arrest American citizens at home. When this has become necessary, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any local police agency steps in to effect the arrest.

There have been security lapses both in the past and present that have called into question the DSS’ competence, or role in ensuring law and order in the society. The jailbreak at its headquarters in Abuja, March 2014, during which 18 detainees were shot dead, was remarkable. Ethnic militias and cult groups such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra, Ombatse, Niger Delta Avengers, Boko Haram and oil pipeline vandals often challenge the authority of the Nigerian state. The felons involved in these security breaches would have been stopped in their tracks in most cases, had the DSS been outstanding in intelligence gathering.

A deeply focused DSS would have nipped in the bud, the ambush and killing of about 100 security personnel by the Ombatse cult group in Nasarawa State, 10 of which were its operatives, in 2013. It was one of the most cold-blooded assaults against security operatives. The service also lost nine of its men last year in Arepo, Ogun State, to pipeline vandals.

Curiously, there is no effective intelligence to assist the country to contain the resurgent security nightmare in the Niger Delta, despite earlier warnings by the militants that they would return to the creeks if their choice – Goodluck Jonathan – lost the 2015 presidential election. The same vacuity has given fillip to Fulani herdsmen’s murderous binge in Benue, Plateau, Taraba, Enugu and other parts of the country.  

But Nigeria’s existential challenges today demand a DSS that is as professionally adept as the M15 in the United Kingdom.