Whistle-blowing on arms

OBVIOUSLY egged on by the seeming success of the policy of whistle-blowing with regard to hidden loot and ill-gotten lucre, the Federal Government is now toying with the idea of extending the policy to illegal arms, the proliferation of which constitutes a heavy deficit in the security of the country. In a statement, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Mr. Garba Shehu, said that the move was to disarm communities with violent inclinations. He also added that the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) was working on a template for uncovering illegal weapons through a reward system similar to that of the Ministry of Finance.

“The ONSA initiative may be an independent line of inquiry or in active collaboration with what the government is doing in Finance. This will beam a sort of searchlight on weapons ownership in the country. Whatever form or shape it takes, the administration wants to take a tough line to curtail the large number of illegal weapons in circulation used in intra and inter-communal conflicts,” the presidential spokesman explained.

Much as the idea of controlling the illegal possession of light arms is desirable, even laudable, the introduction  of  whistle-blowing into it needs further contemplation and interrogation, notwithstanding the obvious success which it has presumably attained with property or monetary loot. Just because whistle-blowing appears to have succeeded in the area of loot recovery does not mean it will with any other thing, particularly the illegal possession of light arms. It certainly will not be easy to assess the commensurate or fair consideration for the whistle-blower because the value or price of a weapon may not indicate the extent of its potential and collateral damage.

Besides, while the whistle-blower may choose to undertake risks in the case of looted money and property considering what he stands to gain in terms of commission, his counterpart trailing illegal light arms and weapons may not feel equally encouraged because of the higher risks but lesser compensation, even though his whistle-blowing might save a whole community. The incentive to blow the whistle on armed people is definitely incomparable with the danger that it involves for the whistle- blower.

In any case, the proliferation of light arms and weapons in the country is an indictment on the security agencies. Indeed, the fact that the government intends to reduce the gravity of the indictment to a consideration for whistle-blowers is disconcerting, to put it mildly. The lapses and laxity, not to say corruption, which caused the proliferation of illegal light arms and weapons deserve a more serious intervention than whistle-blowing. It is even suggestive of an abdication of responsibilities on the part of the Nigerian state to allow whistle-blowers to feed fat from what is clearly a deliberate, corruptly contrived remiss on the part of its security agencies.

Despite the regular mop up operations by the police targeting illegal arms and light weapons, it is disturbing to see the volume of weapons that were voluntarily released by some contrite militants recently, hinting rather darkly that these light arms get recycled regularly. We believe that if the illegal light weapons had been diligently monitored and duly apprehended, the atrocious activities of various terrorists and insurgent groups would have been significantly mitigated. If the efforts of the police and other security agencies to control the proliferation of illegal light arms and weapons have failed, it would be foolhardy to rely on the activities of whistle-blowers to check the implicit danger of having such arms in the possession of the wrong people and criminals and it shows how lightly the Nigerian state reckons with its duty to protect lives and property.

We are of the opinion that much as controlling the proliferation of illegal light arms is both laudable and desirable, handing it over to whistle-blowers makes light of the onerous constitutional duty of the state to protect lives and property. That, we believe, is a state duty that is not negotiable. The state apparatus must figure out how its agencies will correct the anomaly of illegal arms deals, from importation to distribution. Until that function is kept safely under the custody of the state, relying on whistle-blowers to squeal on armed people and gangs is just a whistle away from confusion.