Insecurity: Group condemns Army ban on use of motorcycles in 7 states

Share the news

ASIS International, a group of Security Professionals, on Monday, condemned Nigerian Army`s recent ban on use of motorcycles in some states in North-West and North-Central parts of the country.

The Army, on May 6, announced the prohibition of use of motorcycles in Kaduna, Kano, Kebbi, Kastina, Sokoto, Zamfara and Niger states.

The measure, under exercise HARBIN KUNAMA 111, according to army authorities, seeks to wipe out banditry, kidnapping and other criminal activities in the states.

Mr Kabir Adamu, Chairman, Federal Capital Territory Chapter of ASIS, who condemned the army’s directive, told News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on Monday in Abuja, that there were measures that would have made more impact than that.

According to him, in our assessment of the measures taken by the army, we believe that it is somewhat foolhardy, in the sense that there are more important measures that probably would be more impacting.

Adamu said that motorcycles were not deadly, but that the guns and other ammunition and weaponry that the bandits had access to constituted danger.

“We would have thought that the army would take measures to prevent access to these weapons as well as the ammunition,’’ he said.

The chairman added that the army ought to have taken measures to stop the sources of funding and arms for the bandits instead of banning use of motorcycles.

“We are not aware if the army had taken any measure to stop the collection of ransom by these bandits because the whole objective of the kidnap-for-ransom is to get money.

“Unless and until this kind of measures are taken before we see the rationale behind the ban on the use of motorcycles,’’ he said.

He said that the ban would bring untold hardship on the communities in the affected states as motorcycle was their primary means of transportation.

“If you take away the use of motorcycles, you are alienating them; in other words, that objective that is very important to winning any military intervention would have been defeated.’’

Adamu said that it would be difficult to win the hearts and minds of the local populace in the area as they would see the measure as punitive.

He recalled that the army had taken such measure in Borno in the past but was not effective.

“It did not stop the bombing; it continued. So, we are not really very convinced that the measure would reduce banditry and kidnap-for-ransom around these states,’’ he said.

On the alarm by the army on alleged plans to scuttle the May 29 inauguration of new administration, Adamu said it was not in army’s place to make such announcement.

The army had raised alarm over plans by some foreign interests and groups within the country to scuttle the May 29 handover.

Adamu said that the office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), the coordinating authority within the Nigerian security architecture, had that responsibility.

“Where the ONSA feels it doesn’t want to make such announcement, the Ministry of Interior, which has the coordinating function for internal security within the country, will do that.

“We also know that the philosophy behind the Nigerian internal security policy is one of deterrent; so, sometimes, security agencies make pronouncements to serve as deterrent for would-be actions.

“Irrespective of what its objective was, our opinion is that it should not have been the army to make that announcement; internal security is not the mandate or purview of the military,’’ he said.

Adamu said that where intelligence was gathered, there should be a repository and that the appropriate agencies to make the announcement should have been the police or Department of State Service (DSS).

He said, “in this case, they should have gone ahead to arrest any individual allegedly attempting to scuttle the May 29 inauguration.

“If the military had any intelligence report, it ought to have made it available to the appropriate internal security that will arrest and take such person to court,’’ he said.

A retired Commissioner of Police who spoke to NAN on condition of anonymity, said that the army wanted to be seen to be working by making such pronouncement.

He said that it was not in the purview of the army to make such announcement where the police was in charge of internal security. (NAN)

Share the news
No tags for this post.