- This is what security vote is
Many Nigerians are miffed by some of the strange things that have become the norm in our constitutional democracy. One of such is the so-called security vote. By its definition, a security vote is money which designated chief executives receive and don’t account for. This constitutional aberration has become so rampant that even some extra-ministerial agencies have joined the presidency, governors, heads of legislative assemblies and other departments of government to receive monies not accounted for as security vote. A report by Transparency International (TI) shows that this anomaly is costing the federal and state exchequer a whopping N241 billion per annum.
We have no idea why and when this conduct incongruous to the philosophy of public service started. But regardless, we call on the present administration to join forces with relevant anti-graft agencies of government to end this illegality. The beneficiaries must know that even though it has been entrenched by successive administrations, the conduct is unlawful. By the provisions of our constitution, and other extant laws, a public servant is under obligation to account for any money received. To allow otherwise is an aberration, and that has proved a cesspit for corrupt practices.
As stated by TI’s Director for Defence and Security, Katherin Dixon: “The security vote is one of the most durable forms of corruption operating in Nigeria today.” She went further: “Yet instead of addressing its many urgent threats, the ever-increasing use of security votes is providing corrupt officials with an easy-to-use and entirely hidden slush fund.” The report, which was unveiled last week in Abuja, by the Executive Director of Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Musa, reminded Nigerians that these security votes are more than the combined budget of the Nigerian Army, Nigerian Air Force and the Nigerian Navy.
Because these sums of monies have no line items for their use, the decision about what sum to cream off as security vote has always been at the whims and caprices of the beneficiaries, often acting in common concert to give a semblance of normalcy. So you see governors across the country laying claim to a dubious entitlement of a certain sum as security vote, from the meagre state resources. You also hear about persons appointed as ministers, commissioners, and heads of ministerial and extra-ministerial agencies being entitled to huge sums as security vote. This grave constitutional infraction has continued to percolate down the ladder because even the presidency partakes.
Perhaps, if the President summons the political will to stop this anomaly, it will be one of his best legacies. We note that in some instances, to justify this aberration, there is also the strange inclusion of line items that have little or no connection to security so as to justify the unlawful conducts of public officials. The conclusion by CISLAC that “today, security votes are budgetary black boxes that are ripe for abuse by politicians seeking re-election or officials looking to run for political office,” is substantially correct.
Even states that have real security emergency can do better than operating black boxes of slush cash for all manner of untoward act. In its comparative report, the Nigerian expenditure is reputed to be three times the United States security assistance since 2012 and 15 times the United Kingdom counter-terrorism support for 2016-2020. This is in a country whose Gross Domestic Product is insignificant, when compared to the two countries.
We commend CISLAC for its report: “Camouflaged Cash: How security votes fuel corruption in Nigeria,” and urge other civil society organisations as well as all Nigerians to join forces with it to ensure a stop to this real corrupt practices.
