A Review of the Amotekun Bill and Regulatory Recommendations for Similar Outfits -By Olaniyi A. Oladele

Blood is thicker than water, but the levels of insecurity in Nigeria have made both flow in similar ways. In response, different means of strengthening the nation’s security have been touted, and we possibly have a solution- regional security networks, as heralded by the advent of Amotekun, a security initiative of the governors of the South West of Nigeria. As much as the idea of regional security personnel sounds appealing- especially with the prospect of deploying security intelligence to peculiar problems, the possible outcomes are also worrisome. Managing insecurity with a mismanaged security force will lead to a further descent into chaos. The security system, therefore, needs strong policies that are effectively implemented.

A Western Security Network will inspire similar establishments in other regions, as reminiscent of the first republic. Amotekun, as well as the laws guiding it, might serve as a guideline. Nigeria must, therefore, get it right with Amotekun, or face unwanted consequences. In this piece, I shall make a review of the proposed Amotekun Bill (which has been signed into law in Ekiti State and is being reviewed in other states) and as well make suggestions for regulating the operations of other regional security networks that may arise.

First, the bill repeats the clause ‘…other states, including but not limited to Ekiti, Lagos, Ondo, Osun and Oyo States’ in many places. On paper, this appears ideal, as it proposes collaboration with similar agencies. In reality, however, especially when the Nigerian political environment is considered, this raises many issues and questions. A comprehensive framework is required to stipulate the jurisdictional limits of each regional security outfit, grounds for collaboration, and allowances that might be made for another security outfit to operate beyond its regional boundaries. It is essential to describe the limits and boundaries for the exercise of power. This would address the fear that such outfits can threaten Nigeria’s integrity, as well as prevent jurisdiction based conflicts between these outfits.

Section 19 of the bill stipulates criteria for enlistment into the corp . One of the requirements is that the person must have been ‘educated up to at least the primary school leaving certificate level’. It is expected that someone with primary school education is literate, but in light of different levels of intelligence and the despicably poor educational standard, a primary school leaver might be unable to read. The bill, therefore, has to list literacy in the criteria and a passable understanding of the English language. The fact that the outfits are region-based should not obscure the fact that the corp. members have to make records and also converse with non-indigenes in their operations. The standard of literacy will help them to better comprehend the law and be teachable during orientation and continuous learning programs. Also, members of regional security should be screened against tribal profiling. Tribal profiling poses a huge threat to the operation of any regional security outfits, as it could even be an incendiary to inter-tribal conflicts.

The bill includes a quite controversial clause, with Section 40 providing that ‘a member of the … Amotekun Corps is hereby excluded from liability …for any lawful act done in the course of duty’. The term ‘lawful act’ is quite nebulous to extinguish culpability for the actions of security personnel, especially when armed. Not only does it fall short of international regulations, but it could also be an umbrella for the abuse of human rights in a country where brutality by security personnel is prevalent. The bill empowers corp. member to perform several duties and the crux is not whether a corp. member did something legal within his powers, but whether he did so appropriately. Even Section 341 of the Police Act renders every police officer personally liable for any misuse of power, and the Nigerian Police Force Order on firearms provides that an officer can be charged to court for illicit use of firearms. Another instance is the provision of Section 242 of the United States Code which renders police officers liable for criminal actions, a fact that becomes more relevant with the understanding that the United States is prominent for its state policing. This section of the bill should be reviewed because it could engender brutality. The standard of reasonability should be introduced, so an officer would not be liable for lawful acts done only in reasonable circumstances.

Furthermore, a corp. member would be liable for every act that is contrary to the principle of legality (following the law), necessity (not restrictive of anyone’s rights beyond necessity), proportionality (not affect human rights in a way that is beyond the aim) and accountability (to appropriate bodies and personnel).

Furthermore, regional security networks should be subject to high standards of accountability to the judiciary, the public, government at different levels and more. Regional security outfits should keep records of its activities, its use of firearms, its arrest and many more, which should be reviewed by a national security review body to prevent misuse of such outfits as instruments of politics or oppression.

The government should also promote independent investigations into the activities of the outfits, especially when excessive use of force is evident.

Also, the recruitment process should be transparent and fair, and as well open to diversity regardless of tribe. They should be given training in public relations, human rights, negotiations, election policing and other aspects of security intelligence. The police should constantly review the activities and training of these outfits to integrate them into the security system for more efficiency.

The state security will only be a step in the right direction if properly regulated and monitored if not, it would simply be compounding our security woes in an attempt to solve it.