Akeredolu Flay’s Award Of Pipeline Surveillance Contract To Private Individual

By Ayodele Oni

Chairman, Southern Governors’ Forum and Ondo State Governor, Rotimi Akeredolu has called for a thorough scrutiny of Nigeria’s security architecture, especially those put in its charge.

Aketi, as being fondly called, frowned at the award of controversial pipelines surveillance contract to a private security outfit.

There has been outrage over the award of a contract to a private company, owned by a former Niger Delta militant, Government Ekpemupolo also known as Tompolo, to secure oil pipeline in the Niger/Delta axis of Nigeria.

Governor Akeredolu, in a statement he personally signed that it is  shocking that the Federal Government awarded the contract to such a security outfit.

The Governor pointed out that “it is safe to conclude that the Federal Government has, impliedly, permitted non state actors to bear heavy assault weapons while denying same privilege to the States, the federating units.”

According to him,  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 NNPC had explained why the Federal Government awarded the controversial pipelines surveillance contract to a former Niger Delta agitator, Government Ekpemupolo also known as Tompolo.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) Mele Kyari stated that it was not the first time that individuals within the Niger Delta region were awarded a contract for pipeline surveillance, noting that the contract was for the interest of the people.

He said it was his belief that the Federal Government has taken the right decision to hire private contractors to man its oil pipeline network nationwide.

Kyari argued that although the security agencies are doing their part, end-to-end pipeline surveillance would require the involvement of private entities and community stakeholders.

However, Akeredolu in a statement titled WHO ACTUALLY NEEDS WEAPON? said: “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 organisations.

“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 non state actors to bear heavy assault weapons while denying same privilege to the States, the federating units.

“The award of contract to private organisations to protect vandalisation of pipelines raise 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.”