Ondo State Governor and the Chairman of the Southern Governors’ Forum, Rotimi Akeredolu, has criticized the decision of the Nigeria National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Ltd, to award pipeline surveillance contracts to a former Niger Delta militant leader, Mr Government Ekpemupolo popularly known as Tompolo and other private security firms.
Akeredolu made the declaration while reacting to a statement by the Chief Executive Officer of the NNPC, Mallam Mele Kyari, where he tried to justify the N4billion contract to Tompolo and others.
The Federal Government, on Tuesday, said it believes it has taken the right decision to hire private contractors to man its oil pipeline network nationwide. Kyari also argued that although the security agencies were doing their part, end-to-end pipeline surveillance would require the involvement of private entities and community stakeholders. Kyari also clarified that the contract was not awarded to Tompolo as a person but to a company, he has interests in.
However, Akeredolu in an open letter on Wednesday said the Federal Government’s action reinforces the belief that the whole defense architecture in the country needs an urgent overhaul. He argued that the decision by the federal government also implied that it permitted private security outfits “to bear heavy assault weapons while denying the same privilege to the states, the federating units,” to tackle insecurity.
“The Federal Government has been consistent in its refusal to accede to the request by some States in the Federation to strengthen the complementary initiatives adopted to protect lives and property. This is done in spite of the knowledge that the very issues which necessitated the creation of these outfits support providing adequate weaponry. All attempts to persuade the Federal Government to look, critically, into the current security architecture have been rebuffed despite the manifest fundamental defects engendered by over-centralization.
“It is, therefore, shocking to read that the Federal Government has maintained the award of the contract to “protect” the country’s pipeline from vandals to private organizations. This story, if true, leaves a sour taste in the mouth
Read full statements by the Ondo Governor below:
WHO ACTUALLY NEEDS WEAPONS?
The news concerning the purported award of pipeline contracts to some individuals and private organizations by the Federal Government has been unsettling. More disquieting is the barely disguised hostility displayed against either the idea or the actual establishment of security outfits by some State Governments to fill the widening gaps in the scope of security coverage noticeable nationally.
The Federal Government, through the Office of the National Security Adviser, has been consistent in its refusal to accede to the request by some States in the Federation to strengthen the complementary initiatives adopted to protect lives and property. This is done in spite of the knowledge that the very issues which necessitated the creation of these outfits support providing adequate weaponry. All attempts to persuade the Federal Government to look, critically, into the current security architecture have been rebuffed despite the manifest fundamental defects engendered by over-centralization.
It is, therefore, shocking to read that the Federal Government has maintained the award of the contract to “protect” the country’s pipeline from vandals to private organizations. This story, if true, leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
The NSA will, obviously, not advise the President to approve the award of a contract of such magnitude if the operators have not displayed sufficient capacity to checkmate the criminal activities of equally powerful groups. Consequently, it is safe to conclude that the Federal Government has, impliedly, permitted nonstate actors to bear heavy assault weapons while denying the same privilege to the States, the federating units.
The award of contract to private organizations to protect vandalization of pipelines raises fundamental questions on the sincerity of the advisers of the Government on security issues.
The open and seeming enthusiastic embrace of this oddity, despite the constant and consistent avowal of the readiness by the Security Agencies in particular the Navy to contain the pervasive and deepening crises of breaches and threats to lives and property, attracts the charge of insincerity bordering, deplorably, on dubiety.
If the State Governments, which are keenly desirous of protecting their citizens, establish ancillary security outfits and there has been pronounced reluctance, if not outright refusal, to consider permitting them to bear arms for the sole purpose of defence, granting private individuals and or Organisations unfettered access to assault weapons suggests, curiously, deep-seated suspicion and distrust between the Federal Government and the presumed federating units.
The engagement of private organisations to handle serious security challenges reinforces the belief that the whole defence architecture in the country needs an urgent overhaul. The Federal Government cannot be seen to be playing the Ostrich in this regard.
