Perish the FRSC gun proposal

A seemingly innocuous but risky bill seeking an amendment of the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) Act 2007 with a view to creating a special armed squad for the corps is reportedly receiving favourable legislative consideration in the House of Representatives. The proposal sponsored by Honorables  Abiodun  Derin Adesida and Olaide Lateef Mohammed “seeks to make FRSC officers on the rank of Deputy Corp Marshal enjoy benefits attached to the rank, including retirement benefits as well as empower the corps with the sole responsibility for road traffic administration and safety management, preventing and minimising road traffic crashes on public roads, supervision of users of such public roads and regulation of traffic.” The bill also seeks to empower the FRSC to clear obstruction on any part of public roads and to educate drivers, motorists and other members of the public generally on the proper use of public roads.

The bill, which was said to have been unanimously supported by the members after a voice vote for its passage for second reading, is patently superfluous because save for the proposal to enable officers of the corps to bear arms, there is no other provision in the proposed bill that the extant FRSC Act is bereft of. And seriously, what do the FRSC officials need guns for, especially when the enabling Act does not authorise them to do stop and search operations? Is it to enable them to continue to overreach themselves while pretending to carry out their duties? For even now that they don’t have guns, their actions are contemptuous. They allegedly harass motorists and demand bribes from even road users with complete papers, even as they see rickety vehicles and do nothing about them. It is a veritable fear that guns will simply embolden them to become unnecessarily aggressive. That is, armed with guns, they may start to shoot at erring motorists at the slightest provocation or attack those who do not agree with their alleged extortionist schemes.

The functions of the FRSC are well defined by law and they are restricted to federal highways, which are being reasonably patrolled by the police. In other words, should the operatives of the FRSC need security assistance in their line of duty, the police are always in proximate locations to give them a helping hand. Or better still, since the police still operate checkpoints on the highways, FRSC officials could be stationed with the police at such checkpoints. In reality, if the officials are truly carrying out their duties diligently and conscientiously within the ambit of the law, they do not need firearms to deliver on their mandate. Twenty-five years after the last military administration in the country, the increasing quest for ‘legitimate’ proliferation of arms in the polity does not bode well for the image of the country. Even in the militarily strong and prosperous advanced countries, you sparingly see security agents bearing firearms within civilian spaces.

Why arm every government agency? It will be recalled that under Rauf Aregbesola as Interior Minister in the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, the government also planned an armed squad for the fire service and we condemned that plan, wondering what fire service men needed arms for and pointing out that if they faced any threats, they could always call on the police and other security agencies for help. Our position in that regard remains unchanged. We are vehemently opposed to the unwarranted creation of armed squads for government agencies, including the FRSC. However, it seems as if every government agency now wants to carry guns, which is most probably down to ego. It is surprising that some public organisations love to engage in needless aggrandizement instead of prioritising effective delivery on their mandates.

The proposed bill also seeks to empower the FRSC to educate drivers on safe driving. The question is whether it is not doing that now. And if indeed the agency is not already involved in enlightening, sensitising and reorienting road users on the imperative of safe driving and proper use of public roads, then it couldn’t possibly be because this crucial duty is not spelt out in its mandate or because its officials do not bear arms; it would be down to incompetence and/or negligence of duty. And a new legislation rehashing the known duties of the FRSC is unlikely to wake it up from its supposed slumber. And in any case, how does educating motorists on the proper use of public roads justify arms bearing? Are the arms to facilitate drivers’ education? Or will the arms be used to attack recalcitrant road users?  Again, we don’t understand what the bill means by saying that it will empower senior FRSC officials to enjoy retirement benefits. Are they being denied retirement benefits now? And assuming but not conceding that there are issues with the administration of the ex-service officials’ welfare and retirement benefits, can’t the matter be resolved by any means other than legislation that introduces the extraneous issue of creating an armed squad for the FRSC?

And even now that some states have established traffic control agencies like FRSC, will those state agencies also be advised to carry guns? It is ridiculous and even insane to say or imply that every simple operational, management or administrative exercise in this country can only be performed effectively with the force of arms. Meanwhile, operatives of regional and state security agencies like the Western Security Network (Amotekun),  Ebubeagu Security Network and so on, which were set up to complement the efforts of the federal security agencies, are prohibited from getting guns they badly need to confront outlaws carrying sophisticated weapons. Strangely, the National Assembly has not considered it expedient to alter the extant laws which are preventing the subnational security outfits from being adequately armed to help bridge the obvious gap left by the federal security agencies in containing insecurity in the country. Yet, the lower chamber of the National Assembly is proposing to arm officers and men of a FRSC who do not have a compelling need for guns to do their job.

Nonetheless, we support the motion moved by Honourable Ibrahim Garba Muhammad, which was already adopted by his colleagues, calling on the FRSC to prioritise the use of technology in its operations. That is the way to go in this time and age. It is hoped that in tandem with the international best practices, the House of Representatives will invite members of the public, especially the relevant stakeholders, to come forward with their opinions and views on the proposed alterations to the FRSC Act, 2007, and more significantly, on the proposal to create a special armed squad for the FRSC. However, even before calling for public hearing on the bill, we urge the legislators to perish the FRSC gun proposal because it is unnecessary, dangerous and tantamount to avoidable dissipation of scarce resources.

READ ALSO: Obi condemns killing of 16 youths in Anambra