In the meantime, some senior lawyers have called for the scrapping of security votes to state governors, saying there can be no justification for it amidst upsurge in insecurity across the country Speaking on the issue, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Seyi Sowemimo, emphasised the need for accountability of how public funds are being expended.

Sowemimo said: “Every public fund is capable of being accounted for. It’s the same source of money that was given to security agencies and somehow the governors are enjoying immunity from accounting for how security votes are being spent.

“Whatever is neccesary to be done to ensure that public funds are properly spent is something that I would endorse. I don’t even know how this whole idea of security votes started. Besides, I don’t think the spending of security votes was an issue before now.

It actually became an issue owing to the high level of insecurity across the country and people started questioning how security votes are being expended by the governors”. In his submissions, a former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Professor Chidi Odinkalu, stressed the need for Nigerians to hold their leaders accountable through the courts and the ballot box.

“It’s quite telling that State Houses of Assembly, which are meant to exercise oversight, have largely failed to question these expenditures. Security is too important to be left to discretionary spending. Governors must explain why they collect billions for security, yet people are slaughtered daily in communities like those in Benue, Plateau, Kaduna and Zamfara.

“Citizens should mount pressure on their state assemblies to enact laws that clearly define what constitutes legitimate security expenditure, how it is to be spent, and how governors are to be held accountable”, Odinkalu said. Speaking in same vein, a law teacher, Dr Fassy Yusuf, also emphasised the need for state governors to account for how security votes are spent, saying it is a public fund.

Yusuf said: “I sincerely associate myself with the demand by SERAP that governors should account for the way and manner security votes are being spent. It is not the governors’ personal money, but the people’s money and as such it cannot be spent arbitrarily.

“There have been cases in the past where security votes were spent recklessly. Besides, the Constitution enjoins the media to hold government accountable for people. It is also expedient that people should know how public funds are being expended.

“This is because the society shouid not allow reckless spending of money. And of course, the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act empowers everyone to demand for documents regarding accountability. So, SERAP’s request is legal and constitutional because it will allow for accountability, probity and accountability in public expenditure”.

In his views, a rights activist, Kabir Akingbolu, described security vote as an artificial creation of politicians, saying it is not supported by any law.

“The first question to ask is this; Is there anything like security vote under our law? Does the Constitution make any provision for it? I say it without any fear of contradiction that there is no law that support the collection of security votes by state governors.

These governors collect salaries, emoluments, estacodes and several allowances and as such where does the issue of security votes arises? “The State Houses of Assembly never approved security vote and when there are calls for accountability on how these funds are spent, the anti-graft agencies are no where to be find. This is quite unfortunate.

Security vote is illegal and should be scrapped. Security vote is inimical to progress and alien to our law. It is just an artificial creation of the politicians”, Akingbolu said. On his part, the Convener, Criminal Justice Network of Nigeria, Nathaniel Ngwu, questioned the rationale behind the sharing and spending of security vote in secrecy.

He said: “Of course, it sounds absurd that a country being governed by the rule of law as stipulated by the constitution is engaged in enabling corruption and illegal distribution of the nation’s wealth in the guise of security votes.

“In the first instance, why would sharing and spending of security votes ever be shrouded in secrecy? If the budgets are tenaciously drafted, debated and procured subject to public account, why would the security votes be in a secret. “It is obvious that there are many that missed the eyes which should be replayed.

My position is not just that the governors should account, but such distribution of fund should be stopped. All distribution of funds should legitimately gone through budgeting proceedings for proper accounting. “Assuming without conceding, that such funds are necessary to curb insecurity in the respective states, it should be properly budgeted to ensure impactful usage”.

Speaking on the issue, a constitutional and public interest lawyer, Dr. Abdul Mahmud, noted that SERAP’s petition to state governors demanding transparency on the spending of security votes is both timely and necessary.

“In a country grappling with escalating insecurity, such as the recent massacre in Benue and the persistent violence across states of the federation, it is unacceptable that billions are expended under opaque budgetary lines without public scrutiny”, Mahmud said.

He added: “Security votes, while ostensibly meant to enhance public safety, have too often functioned as slush funds that are largely unaccounted for and abused. Citizens have the right to know whether these funds are being used to protect them or merely to enrich political office holders.

“Broadly speaking, SERAP’s call for accountability speaks to the deeper crisis of governance in Nigeria, where impunity has become institutionalised. If democracy is to be meaningful, public funds, especially those allocated for life-anddeath matters like security, must be transparently managed. “SERAP’s intervention challenges the culture of secrecy and recklessness that surrounds public finance in Nigeria’s federal system.

It is a clarion call for citizens to demand answers and for governors to remember that accountability is not optional; it is a constitutional and moral obligation”. In his submissions, a rights advocate, Inibehe Effiong, noted that, “SERAP’s petition highlights the urgent need for fiscal reforms and a more robust application of the Freedom of Information Act at the sub-national level.

“Security votes are one of the biggest obstacles to fiscal discipline in Nigeria. When you give a governor hundreds of millions every month for ‘security’ without clear guidelines or oversight, you have legalized mismanagement.

SERAP’s intervention is welcomed because it puts governors on notice that they cannot keep spending public funds like personal pocket money. “While the FOI Act has been underutilized at state level, strategic litigation can compel compliance. Civil society groups and the media should keep the conversation alive so that governors do not treat SERAP’s petition with disdain”

In his views, a senior lawyer, Onesimus Ruya, noted that the Benue massacre cited by SERAP underscores the tragic irony of massive security allocations coexisting with deepening insecurity. “When you compare the scale of insecurity with the volume of funds allocated as security votes, you find a shocking disconnect.

If these funds are truly being spent on intelligence gathering, security logistics and community policing, why are we seeing more violent attacks, more IDPs, and an overwhelmed police force?” “While security votes may have been justified during the military era or in volatile times, they now serve more as a loophole for reckless spending.

Meanwhile, while the principle of accountability is laudable, national security is a sensitive area. Governors might argue that full disclosure of security spending could jeopardize ongoing operations or expose strategic vulnerabilities. SERAP would then have to prove that such disclosure will not compromise security, which is not an easy task.

“Instead of blanket demands for full disclosure, SERAP could push for an institutionalized system where independent audit panels, possibly including trusted civil society representatives, can review security expenditures confidentially, but report irregularities publicly.

“Trust is lacking between leaders and citizens. When people are hungry, displaced and insecure, yet they see billions spent without explanation, it breeds anger and cynicism. The solution is not just in petitioning governors, but in pushing for a constitutional amendment that either abolishes security votes or strictly regulates them.

“State Assemblies must step up their constitutional role of oversight by demanding quarterly expenditure reports from governors and local government chairmen”. On her part, a senior lawyer, Adaora Obiechinna, submitted that states need legislation that defines what qualifies as security expenditure. “You cannot run a democracy with ‘off-budget’ funds.

Security votes should be integrated into the normal budgetary process and subjected to the same procurement rules as other expenditures. This is the only way to prevent abuse. “Civil society groups should work with reform-minded lawmakers to sponsor security sector governance bills that will institutionalize accountability measures.

“SERAP’s petition should mark the beginning of broader advocacy for fiscal federalism and transparency. Petitions alone will not solve this problem. The fight should extend to the judiciary. Civil society must litigate to expand the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to state governments that have not domesticated it. Where state FOI laws exist, they must be tested.

This is the only way to dismantle the wall of secrecy surrounding security votes. “Accountability cannot be left to the goodwill of any governor. There are previous court victories secured by SERAP against federal agencies. Similar success is possible at the state level”.