Security Votes and Corruption in Nigeria

A recent research report by Transparency International Defence and Security Programme (TI-DS) on security votes incidence in Nigeria has been generating a lot of discussions among Nigerians. The report which was launched May 28, 2018 and titled “Camouflaged Cash: How Security Votes Fuel Corruption in Nigeria” examined how for instance in year 2017 alone, a total of N241.2billion ($ 670million) was expended across the three tiers of the government with a bulk of the funds being expended at states and local government levels.  

Specifically, the report highlighted that a total of N208 billion ($580 million) was expended by 29 states in the country while the federal government expended an average of N18 billion ($50 million) as security votes. Similarly, estimating that chairpersons of Nigeria’s 774 local government areas each receive on average N20 million ($55,000) in security vote funding each year, local government security votes would amount to another N15 billion ($42.6 million).

Comparing the above with budgetary provisions for key security institutions in Nigeria’s 2017 budget, the report strikingly revealed that security votes at N241.2 billion ($670 million) is –

• 9 times more than what the United States has given to Nigeria as security assistance since 2012 which stood at $68.6 million;
• 12 times greater than the support the United Kingdom has promised Nigeria on counter-terrorism from 2016 to 2020 which is £40 million / $53.5 million;
• 70 percent of the annual budget of the Nigeria Police Force - N323.5 billion 
• More than the Nigerian Army’s annual budget - N152.8 billion 
• More than the Nigerian Navy and Nigerian Air Force’s annual budget combined - N192.5b

The report highlighted that:

“Security votes are budgeted funds provided to certain federal, state, and local government officials to spend at their discretion on—in theory— for security requirements. They are budgeted separately from planned security expenditures such as personnel salaries, allowances, equipment, training and operational expenses for key defence institutions like Army, Navy, Airforce and Police.

Transacted mostly in cash, security vote spending is not subject to legislative oversight or independent audit because of its ostensibly sensitive nature. Yet this veil of secrecy protects the many officials who misspend security votes, channel them into political activities or embezzle them outright”

According to the report, security votes is expected to serve overlapping functions. These could be

• Formal. Supplement army, police and other security agencies’ expenditures, often because their budgets are inadequate, embezzled or withheld;

• Informal. Mobilise and sustain non-state security actors (e.g. vigilantes, youth volunteers, local militias);
• Political. Channel public funds into political patronage networks, party coffers, or to cover the cost of elections, including campaigns, vote buying, rigging, hiring supporters, and post-election litigations;
• Personal. Personally enrich senior politicians, officials and security officers.

This research report has been generating a lot of discussions among stakeholders in Nigeria. While majority of Nigerians believe that it is conduit pipe for stealing public wealth and corruption which has contributed to illicit financial flows and should be stopped immediately; some have also argued that the funds have been put to some important uses around combatting insecurity across the country.

I have been involved in discussions around the security votes in Nigeria based on the TI’s research report at different level and I often come across some critical and pertinent questions some of which are:

1. If the security institutions have been well funded; and the funds appropriated are promptly released and cash-backed; and judiciously, transparently and effectively utilized; Why do we need security votes to supplement the budget of the security institutions (army, navy air force and police)? 
2. If state government need to support local agencies to maintain security in their states, they should clearly make provisions for such in their annual budgets after it has been established by an act of the state assembly. Why do state government need security votes since security is under the exclusive control of the federal government? 
3. Even though security vote is not backed by any law in Nigeria, it has become an institutional practice. Does the current crop of leaders in Nigeria have the political will to stop this security votes practice?
4. Who should lead on the reforms around Security Votes in Nigeria? How can it be stopped? How easily can we achieve a reform around it?

The report clearly made 4 recommendations on how a reform around security votes can be achieved in Nigeria. The first and the major recommendation is to have a National Assembly legislation clearly outlawing security votes at federal, state and local levels in Nigeria

A full copy of the report and its relevant annex is available here.