Civil Society for Peace, Security and Development (CSPSD), has kicked against the proposed Bill seeking to constitutionally empower office of the National Security Adviser (NSA), to amongst others, permanently appoint staff considered as highly skilled, with the view to enhance institutional memory and effective performance.
Addressing newsmen on Tuesday in Abuja, Co-convener CSPSD, Obadiah Solomon Ovye who questioned the urgency of the proposed bill and hurried move to pass it into law, regretted it was “nothing but a desperate attempt” by the NSA, to not only usurp the powers of the Agencies, but raises questions about the balance of authority and the potential impact on the existing framework.
Ovye while expressing worry that the Bill if enacted would undermine the President, grant the NSA “sweeping powers” to bypass existing checks and balances and operate with little oversight, added that the overarching intentions of the Bill were obviously not in line with the principles of effective governance and transparency.
He said: “This would 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 the President.
“According to the proposed Act, 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.”
Further questioning objective of the Bill, the group asked, “Why is an important Bill as the one seeking an expanded role for the 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?
“Who is seeking to enact the Act on the argument of enhancing an institutional memory and effective performance of the responsibilities of the NSA? We wish to ask: 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 does the NSA wish to become an Agency when Section 4(2) of the National Security Act categorically states that: “The Coordinator on National Security shall be a Principal Staff Officer in the Office of the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces?
“Why does the NSA plan to operationalise his office with full compliments of permanent staff when such are already seconded by security agencies? Will this not enlarge the Budget which the Government is trying to reduce?”
The group noted that, “While the prerogative to introduce bills rests with members of the legislative body, the bill in contention is shrouded in inadequacies that warrant careful scrutiny and consideration.
“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. However, if the NSA’s office were to become independent, the dual responsibility of oversight and coordination could overwhelm the individual in the role.
“This would inadvertently lead to a fragmented system and impact adversely on timely coordinated execution of vital security initiatives with implication for the nation’s ability to respond effectively to emerging threats and challenges.
“Most importantly, the establishment of an independent agency by the NSA to handle security matters introduces the risk of creating a parallel platform. This new agency has the potential to operate independently and could, in effect, wield influence and authority thereby weakening the president’s control over security matters as the new agency could act independently, possibly going against what the president wants.
“Consequently, the proposed bill and urgency to pass it into law is nothing but a desperate attempt by the NSA to not only usurp the powers of the agencies under it, but raises questions about the balance of authority and the potential impact on the existing framework. It also raises concerns about the overarching intentions of the bill which are obviously not in line with the principles of effective governance and transparency.
“This insatiable ambition of the NSA and his strategies are no doubt averse to the synergy, coordination and collaborative platforms which the ONSA is expected to avail Security agencies. His quest to validate the NSA as an institution is duplicative of responsibilities and would rather cost the federal government more resources.”
Speaking further, the group alleged the NSA now has a cell within its premises for holding suspects saying, *From our investigations, it has been revealed that the Office of the NSA, has within its facility, 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.
“How is this obtainable or acceptable in a democratic setting? Even in the United States, the role of the National Security Advisor does not transcend beyond coordination. It therefore begs the question, why the rush to operationalise the Office of the NSA beyond its traditional and constitutional roles. It is not only highly suspicious but ominous and questions the real motives behind such actions.
“The establishment of these units under the NSA not only amount to a direct encroachment on the responsibilities of existing organisation but in the long term, would have potential consequences on the coordination of national security efforts.
“Indisputably, granting the NSA the power to independently recruit permanent personnel is tantamount to opening the door to political patronage and cronyism as well as potentially compromise the integrity of security operations.
“We are, therefore, drawing the attention of Mr President, all relevant stakeholders and supporters of this great country, Nigeria 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. The legislation is harmful and we implore Mr President and patriotic citizens to join hands in standing against it in order to protect the integrity of our country’s security.”
