Stakeholders under the aegis of Civil Society for Peace Security and Development (CSPSD) have rejected vehemently, attempts by certain persons to clandestinely push a Bill for an Act purportedly designed to provide a framework for the appointment of permanent staff of the National Security Adviser (NSA) to enhance institutional memory and effective performance of the responsibilities of the office and other related matters.
Expressing their strong opposition to the Bill in a tersely worded, widely attended world press conference in Abuja, Comrade Obadiah Solomon Ovye, the Co-Convener of Civil Society for Peace, Security and Development (CSPSD) , accused certain dark agents of masterminding the unpopular Bill for their selfish intentions without recourse to its impact on National Security.
According to the press text, “you must have been aware of the plans, many of which are clandestine to impress, cajole, persuade, force and/or intimidate the National Assembly by some dark agents and forces to enact a strange law for the appointment of Staff of the Office of the National Security Adviser and retention of quality and skilled manpower to enhance institutional memory and effective performance of the responsibilities of the Office of the NSA.
“If successful, the NSA may, among others, appoint such number of Staff as he deems necessary and expedient for the proper and efficient performance of the functions of the office under the national security Act or any other law or instrument, centres or programmes established under the office; on such terms and conditions including remuneration, allowances and benefits as may be determined, from time to time by the NSA. This is wrong and must be rejected roundly”.
CSPSD also queried the real intent behind the Bill and raised some pertinent questions to shed light on the illegality and inappropriateness of the Bill, exposing the treachery and the unpatriotic motive behind the Bill.
According to the group, “why is an important Bill as the one seeking to expand the role for NSA not an Executive Bill? Why is it not emanating from the President? Why was such bill not tabled before the National Security and Defence Councils for their inputs before being taken to the National Assembly?
“Why was the public hearing for the bill earlier slated before the end of January, 2024 hurriedly brought back to 30th December, 2023 – a Saturday and without well circulated information for the change in date?
“What has happened to the office of the Permanent Secretary, Special Services Office (PS SSO) designed to administratively coordinate the intelligence community and by implication serve as the institutional memory for national security management? Why then does the NSA plan to operationalise his office with full compliments of permanent staff when such are already seconded by security agencies?”, the group queried.
While accepting that the prerogative to introduce bills rests with members of the legislative body, the group noted that the Bill in contention is shrouded in inadequacies that warrant careful scrutiny and consideration, adding that the implications for National Security are enormous.
“If this retrogressive Bill is enacted, it would give the NSA sweeping powers that would allow it to bypass existing checks and balances and operate with little oversight. It would also create a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a single individual and undermine the principles of democracy and accountability. More disturbing is that the Act when in existence will undermine and weaken the President’s control over security matters”, the statement added.
The group also argued further that the NSA is not and cannot be autonomous, discrediting those selfishly striving to change the status quo and jeopardise the present security architecture of the country as well as desperately usurp the powers of other security agencies.
The text read in part, “the Office of the NSA does not have full autonomy and traditionally relies on staff from support agencies (Army, Navy, Airforce, Police, NIA and DSS) on secondment. This approach has proven effective over the years and fosters a cohesive integrated and collaborative approach. A change could create dual responsibility of oversight and inadvertently lead to a fragmented system and impact adversely on timely coordination of vital security initiatives.
“This insatiable ambition of the NSA and his strategies are no doubt averse to the synergy, coordination and collaborative platforms which the NSA is expected to avail Security agencies. As it stands, the NSA has within it facilities, the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), the National Centre for the Control of Small Arms and Light weapons, a National Cybersecurity Commission and more worrisome, a recently built cell for holding suspects. This is an unacceptable scenario that must be rejected in totality”.
The group ended the press conference by urging Mr. President and all relevant stakeholders and supporters to “oppose the ill- intentioned and ill-conceived bill which is aimed at monopolising the country’s security apparatus at the detriment of our national interest”.
