N10.02trn security expenditure: Why FG must respond to calls for explanation

Constructive criticism with the architecture of strong opposition is one character of the democratic system. The practicality of such structures is known to be a leverage to put a ruling government on its toes. In this light, the concept of bi-party and multi-party systems have been institutionalised within the political architecture of polities across the world. In essence, the development of democratic system of government had evolutionised with a corresponding need for broad contributory system where elaborate engagement from all sides would be welcomed.

These patterns have led to the institutionalisation of such legal provisions of rights as freedom of speech, expression and association, among other human rights. The structuring of these provisions stand to constitute the foundation of institutionalised formations to call government into account. Hence, the evolution of the democratic government has been accompanied with institutionalised provisions of what will distinguish it from other forms of government where questioning  authorities on their activities is considered misnomer.

The definition of democracy itself as “a government of the people” gives some expression to the need for broad engagement, and as a result, conscious participation. Since the complexity of modern society has brought enlargement of societies which makes it  difficult for all to gather at one place to take decisions, the need to move towards the representative system where the people choose a few persons to take decisions on their behalf has become important. It is therefore expected that the decisions made by these few must bear deep resemblance to the wishes of the greatest number. Hence, where any decision fails to find expression of the people’s interests, then the need to question and call them to order become indisputable. This therefore forms the basis of  freedom of speech, expression, and association, among other related rights instituted in the framework of the democratic system.

It is on this ground that such institutions as political parties and civil society organisations among other human, socio-economic, cultural, and interest formations are founded to chart the course of the society. In Nigeria, the workings of these institutions have been finding some level of expression since the restoration of civil government in 1999. While political parties have over the years played some role in the need to hold the ruling government accountable, it is observable that the consideration of criticisms of opposition parties by the ruling government, is much more considered in the negative light by the latter, than embracing same as a leverage to serve better. Hence, the consideration of constructive criticisms as political antagonism has been a disposition which has not cleared the path to reap the benefits that are inherent in a well structured democratic system. The posture of reducing constructive criticisms to antagonism, therefore has been a culture typical of ruling government in Nigeria, which forms the purview of intolerance to opposition.

Prevailing socio-economic and political mishap in recent times have continued to generate concerns from opposition parties, civil society organisations among other human right groups. Knocks, critical positions, and better still, calls and recommendations have been extended to the ruling government on such recent national albatross as insecurity, economic downturn, and corruption, among others. However, the response of the ruling government appears to be cold towards making sense out of these points of notations.  One recent case which has attracted public interest is the issue of the N10.02trillion allegedly spent on security by the ruling government.

On the part of political party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) had on Tuesday called on President Muhammadu Buhari and the All Progressives Congress (APC) to account for the N10.02trillion alleged to have been spent on security by the ruling party. In a statement signed by its spokesman, Kola Ologbondiyan, the party had said its position is predicated on heightening allegations of diversion of funds meant for security as well as an alert by a pro-transparency organisation, BudgIT on the absence of proper audit on the spending of national security funds from 2015 to 2021. The party had critically averred that such  lacunas are responsible for the worsening of terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, and other forms of violent acts with widespread complaints of lack of adequate combat equipment for  security forces, “for which our gallant soldiers, as well as thousands of our compatriots, are paying with their blood under President Buhari and the APC,” the party had said.

The statement read: “Our party is appalled that the APC and its administration have turned the heightened insecurity in our country which was caused by their incompetence, divisiveness and gross mismanagement of our national diversity, into bloody merchandise for APC leaders. The PDP challenges President Buhari, as the Commander-in-Chief, to speak out on the alleged diversion of security funds under his command. The party also calls on the two chambers of the National Assembly to immediately commence investigation into the spending of the N10.02 trillion. The PDP is further alarmed by the clear scheme by the APC and its administration to frustrate the well-intentioned strategies from the PDP to check the tide of terrorism and banditry in our country.

“Our party rejects the move by the APC to frustrate the establishment of a National Borders Protection Force as suggested by the PDP to check further infiltration by terrorist elements as well as inflow of illegal arms into our Country. The PDP insists that the setting up of a bureaucratic National Centre for Control of Small Arms by the APC administration instead of a pro-active and operational Borders Protection Force that will ensure watertight security at our borders further exposes the lack of commitment by the APC to secure our borders and check the inflow of terrorists and ammunition. Our party asserts that by its outlook and operation, such center cannot check the infiltration of terrorists as well as the flow of firearms into our country. The PDP, therefore, rejects the resort to a sitting room measure in the face of our porous borders and heightened terrorist activities in our country. The PDP consequently urges President Buhari to immediately establish the Borders Protection Force which will draw personnel and equipment from the military and other armed services to man our borders and check activities by terrorists and their backers.”

The need for the ruling government to redirect the guiding orientation of its administration is essential. Remodeling the driving perspectives of running the Government is paramount. It is therefore, imperative for the custodians of the ruling government to give civil considerations to the demands emanating from critical observations with bearing clause on perceived lacuna which remains blurry to the public. Hence, the need for the Government authorities to reel out responsive address to calls on controversial matters is key. Since, the custodians of political authorities were elected to serve the interests of the populace, it is therefore rational and a duty call for them to reel out explanation on all subjects of controversies on which the public demands an enlightenment.

Hence, the need to give clarifications for accountability necessity on how the  commonwealth of the polity is being spent among other controversial national matters, is paramount. Shying away from such responsibility or the posture of reducing such demands for clarification and explanation over controversial matters as the N10.02trillion allegedly spent on security, to political antagonism is non civil. Duty therefore calls on the ruling government to give statistical reports for succinct account of the expenditures to clear all grey areas and as such clear every doubt. Nigerians deserve explanation on how they are being represented. It is therefore imperative for the Government to respond to the populace who have so elected them to serve in proxy.