Prince Adewole Adebayo, presidential candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in the 2023 general elections, has called on the Federal Government to take more proactive and preventive steps in addressing security challenges across Nigeria. In this interview with OLADIPUPO AWOJOBI the lawyer-turned-politician spoke on the recent killings in Benue State, President Bola Tinubu’s visit to the state, and what must be done to bring lasting peace to troubled communities. He also highlighted the need for a coordinated national response to make Nigeria safe for all. Excerpts:
You were reported to have said that the President’s visit to Benue where he held a town hall meeting was grossly sickening. Some people will say isn’t that a little harsh given the fact that the president had little or no control over some of the things that happened?
My sympathy to the government and people of Benue State again and the same thing with the almost forgotten people of Bokkos and other places in Plateau State and many parts of the country where this massacre, killings, kidnappings, and banditry go on and on.
What is clear is that the President cannot say he did not know or has no control over the state. He is the governor-general of every state in Nigeria. So, he’s the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces and these things that are happening in many parts of the country, especially Benue and Plateau, are things which are supposed to be the daily features in his security reports that he receives; that’s why he’s the commander-in-chief.
When I said control, I wasn’t talking about security.
It does appear that your criticism bordered around what some have termed the fanfare that accompanied the president’s visit. That was what I was referring to…
Okay what I see is a general pattern where the President politicises everything. If he’s going to commission a road, there’s always this cartoonish aspect that has to do with singing and all of that.
He goes to the National Assembly in a country where people are suffering and say that he’s making some efforts but those efforts have not yielded significant results yet and people feel these things. When he goes there, they sing these various anthems that they wax all the time. Now they’ve not gone one step beyond reason by going to a place of mourning, a place of massacre where even during the civil war it would be newsworthy if 200 lives were lost at one time. Going to such a place is a sombre occasion and he’s in charge of all the people who followed him there and what you get there is like another political rally and that sombreness is not there. Some of the theatres they were doing there; with the chief of defence staff giving the president a salute, are the things they should have done in the situation room. The President, I think, should have gone there as a chief mourner and the language should have been sober and the responses should have been better controlled. He should have made sure that under any circumstance, he got to the venue of the attack, Yelwata, and ensure that he sees the people. You cannot say as Commander-in-Chief that there is no part of the country that’s unreachable by you. People are living there and you leave them there and you’re responsible for their welfare. I think, as a whole, the notion that by merely going there is enough sacrifice, is not true. Some of the commentaries and his own reaction to it did not do anything to suggest to the people that his priorities are with those who have been killed.
Which of the reactions are you talking about now?
The general atmosphere, including even the speech he made; the content of it and all that.
Is it at the venue or the speech he initially made?
In that hall which looks like a banquet. The whole setting is not the setting you would find for mourning. Even the effort they put into it, the whole staging of it is not sympathetic enough and is not appropriate enough. It did not show that the President understands that the visit is meant to address all these similar issues because, God forbid, and I will pray it doesn’t happen; if it happens elsewhere is he going to carry the same theatre to the place? So when you go on an occasion like that, you set the tone. You let the people know that you understand the situation.
You have to clearly identify and indicate some solutions to them even if you don’t give all of it and the whole business looks like this is a place of mass death and the head of the family is here. If you play that tape again a hundred times, you will not have that feeling at all.
Starting from the moment the President landed in Benue, how do you think he should have handled it to appear that he is being sympathetic because the truth is when people have died in this sort of situation it’s very difficult in many ways for you to actually meet the expectations of everyone?
The basic thing is that you should realise that those people died because of you, because you are the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
You are the one running the police, running the armed forces. If you had done your duty, the people working for you in uniform and out of uniform had done their duty, that thing would not have happened. So, the first thing you do is to take responsibility. And then you let your protocol people know that I’m going to this event. I’m going only with people, who are relevant to security and the local people there. And as we are going, make sure that you give me sufficient briefing about the families who were lost, their names.
I am not the commander-in-chief yet, but I have the names, family by family, which family lost how many people. I have some names and the President should have verified those, select members of these families. I’ve been bereaved before. I know how I will conduct myself if I lost members of my own family.
I will not go there with the fanfare. I will interact with them. I will get information.
How did it happen? You talk to the people; they will see you interacting with the victims and the survivors yourself. And then you indicate, and then the leaders who are there, they would be made to know that the President is not coming here as a politician. He’s coming here as the head of the family.
This is the function of the head of state. Remember I keep saying there are three functions in that office. You are head of state, you are the chief executive, and you are the commander-in-chief.
So, the hall should have had victims’ families, right?
The victims’ families mainly and the rest of the fanfare should have been cut down. Indication would have been given to traditional and political people that taking children and asking them to lie on the streets and wait for so long are out of it because this is not Independence Day celebration.
This is not Democracy Day. This is not you coming to give them roads or food or something. This is you, coming to say, I am sorry I failed you.
The governor of the state will also take a cue from you and say, we failed you. These are steps we need to take. You are now behaving like a foreign dignitary who is coming around, even foreign dignitaries, even if the Pope had come, he wouldn’t come and conduct a mass and make it look like he’s doing that.
One thing that people have pointed to in that particular town hall meeting was when he spoke to the Inspector General of Police, the Chief of Defence Staff and the intelligence agency heads. That statement he made to the Inspector General of Police, a lot of people understood when he said no arrest had been made. Isn’t that something that points to demanding accountability from his security chiefs?
No, that’s a failure of his own Commander-in-Chief position. It shows that the President may have other good qualities, but he’s totally not a good Commander-in-Chief because before you go there you will know whether arrests had been made. This Commander-in-Chief thing is not a joke. It’s not the same thing as being chairman of a party or wearing an agbada like I’m doing now.
If I’m President, I know what is going on, how many vehicles pass a road unless it’s not relevant to me. The information is there. The information apparatus was paid billions and trillions of naira for this kind of information.
You’d know who had not been arrested. You’d have got pictures of the area where people went. If they go to a foreign country, within 24 hours you’d be in touch with the foreign country.
You will know it’s not there that you will behave like a pedestrian and be asking no arrests had been made. No, you will know if arrests had been made, if there had been an investigation, if there had been anything.
I don’t think he said it because he didn’t know. I think in many ways, saying it out there was, in many ways, showing that you’re not doing well as Inspector General of Police on this particular matter. Thereby showing that he is not doing well himself as Commander-in-Chief because normally, if there’s any aspect, if for example arrests had been made, the security may not want to tell you that arrests had been made because it may affect the investigation. If you want to communicate to the people, you can say ‘we are sorry, we are on it.’ So if you need to let people know that arrests had not been made, it is not there that you’ll be asking your Police Head, he’s talking to you in public, you are the boss. Even if he says something that is not correct, yes sir. If you tell a soldier anything, he’ll give you a salute, yes sir. It is the same thing with the police.
But if you want to communicate with people, you have to ask them. Either you communicate confidence to them that we are on it or you keep quiet. That kind of question is not appropriate for that.
If you want to communicate that you need their cooperation, then you let them know. Please give us more information. We know we are bereaved, but please come forward, give us more information.
The Chief of Defence Staff had an engagement in the FCT after the President’s visit and he was very poignant, saying we are doing the kinetic bit of this job, but the non-kinetic bit of the security work takes up over 70 percent. What do you make of that assertion?
You see, first, the protocol of politics is that an aspiring Commander-in-Chief, a politician, should not criticise people in uniform, who are risking their lives and so I wouldn’t criticise the Chief of Defence Staff, but I would criticise the Commander-in-Chief, who appointed him and the whole setting that they are giving there is not a sign of seriousness. Killing of people is kinetic, if we are going to use their language, because they think that now that they are spending a lot of security budget, they should also be bringing security vocabulary to the public.
