Tag: Security Votes

How I managed Anambra security vote account under Obiano – Ex-banker

A former commercial bank staff, Mr Ugochukwu Otubelu, on Wednesday, revealed how he managed the security vote account under ex-Gov. Willie Obiano of Anambra government.

Otubelu, who said he is now a businessman, told Justice Inyang Ekwo of a Federal High Court, Abuja that he was with the bank between Nov. 2, 2008 and March 24, 2023.

“I worked in Awka Regional Branch at Nmamdi Azikiwe University.

“I was a relationship officer, I recruit customers, manage their account and approves loan facilities for customers of the bank.

“The branch I worked is a regional branch and the Marketing Department is divided into Consumer Marketing, Commercial Banking and the Public Sector,” he said.

Otubelu, who was led in evidence by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s counsel Sylvanus Tahir, SAN, as 3rd prosecution witness (PW-3), said he worked in the Public Sector Department of the bank.

He said he was told by the bank’s compliant unit that the EFCC was investigating the state and the security vote accounts of Anambra which he managed.

He said the commission asked him to get details of six accounts including that of Youdoo Ventures, Nazdal Ventures, Moment of Peace Ventures and Easy Dia.ln Limited and C.I Party Ventures Nigeria Limited.

He said he had met with ex-Gov Obiano before in the course of managing the security vote account.

The PW-3, however said that the signatories to the security vote account were the former Principal Secretary to the ex-governor, Willy Nwokoye, and the Accountant, Theophilus Nweze.

“I interface with them mostly on daily and weekly basis in processing their transactions.

“I correlate between the bank and them and in processing their transactions, I give them feedback on those transactions.”

He said he goes to the principal secretary’s office every week and he tells him the transactions to be done for the week.

“He will give me instruments through cheque for the transaction to be processed on behalf of that security vote account.

“After every week, I do go to his office to balance the account via the money that came into the security vote account and what it is needed to be done for that week,” he said.

On how the transaction was done, Otubelu said Nwokoye sometimes issued cheques and they at times, took the cash to him.

He identified the documents submitted to the EFCC numbering 215 and was marked as exhibits after Tahir tendered them.

But Obiano’s counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, reserved his objection until final address in line with court directive.

Otubelu, who admitted that funds from the security votes account went into the six companies’ account, said the money did not go to the account holders.

When being cross-examined by Ikpeazu, the witness admitted that the state government was neither part of any of the six accounts nor did it open them.

He also said that the state government did not directly operate the six accounts.

He said the six accounts were used for discreet security transactions.

When asked on what he understood by the expression , “discreet security transactions,” Otubelu said; “As at the time the accounts were needed, there were a lot of insecurity in the state to the extent that we, the bank workers, do not go to work.

“There was high tension of insecurity all over the state.”

“AmI right to say that the security operatives did not operate regular bank accounts?” Ikpeazu asked.

Responding, the witness said: “In the course of my duty, the security agencies were basically paid in cash.”

The PW-3 admitted that on few occasions he took cash to the former governor, it was usually during his meeting with the security operatives.

“The service chiefs are always there; the army, the navy, the DSS director, civil defence, vigilante and others,” he said.

He admitted that the vigilante groups in the state were established by the communities and churches.

He, however, agreed that the state government participated in their funding and expenses as security operatives.

The witness admitted that in the course of operating the six companies’ accounts, no part of the state government money went to the benefit of the companies and their directors.

“Not even a kobo because the transactions done for the week will be reconciled with the Principal Secretary,” he said.

After re-examination, Otubelu was discharged from the witness box.

The EFCC also called Hayatu Hadejia, a Bureau De Change (BDC) operator as 4th prosecution witness (PW-4).

Hadejia told the court that he is a businessman, who runs BDC companies.

He said he had five companies and was invited by the EFCC as part of its investigations into the financial activities of the government of ex-governor Obiano.

After given his testimony and was cross-examined by Obiano’s lawyer, Justice Ekwo discharged him from the witness box and adjourned the matter until Oct. 7, Oct. 8, Oct. 9 and Oct. 10 for continuation of trial.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Obiano was Anambra governor between March 2014 and March 2022.

The former governor, in a nine-count charge, was alleged to have among others, misappropriated over N4 billion from the state’s treasury.

June 26, 2024
How governors spend security vote – Fayemi

The Chairman, Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), Gov. Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti State, on Thursday explained that security votes collected by state governors are used to support security agencies and their operations to enhance security in the states.

Fayemi stated this while speaking as a panel discussant during a two-day multi-stakeholders meeting on the “Peace and Inclusive Security Initiative”, organised by the NGF in partnership with the Center for Democracy and Development (CDD) in Abuja.

Fayemi, responding to questions on what the governors do with security votes and why they are against local government autonomy, said not all governors collect security votes.

“Security vote has a history. And I will urge you to look for a book by Chief Jerome Ugoji – “Serving three masters. You will find in that book the origins of security votes in Nigeria.

“You say what do we do with it? Without mincing words, I can’t speak for others, but I also get feedbacks from other states in my capacity as chairman of the governors forum.

“There is hardly any of these institutions that you are talking about that we do not fund. We fund the police.

“Quote me, State governors fund police more than the Federal Government. We buy them vehicles. We pay them allowances. In some cases we even buy ammunition’s, of course under the authority.

“And if we are to engage our Military in aid to civil authority, which you will find actually in 36 states in this country, we fund it.

“Today, the military is involved in internal security operations, which really is a problem, because for me, when you inflate the role of the security institution, beyond its primary responsibility, you also have consequences that will come with that. That may not be palatable.

“But that is where we are, because most Nigerians don’t trust police. They will still come and beg governors to say ‘can you ask the brigade commander to put a roadblock in my area’.”

Fayemi said sometimes ordinary citizens insist that governors should engage soldiers even though military roadblocks could not be set up everywhere because the number of soldiers is limited.

“If you engage the military, in a civil authority, your state is responsible to pay for the operations of the men that are engaged in that activity and not expect the military also to share that burden because that is not their primary responsibility.

“You have taken them out of their primary responsibility, you have to pay for it. So we pay for that, we pay for Civil Defense.

“There is no security institution that you have that states are not responsible to more than the Federal Government that has primary responsibility for them.”

On local government autonomy, Fayemi said while he had no objection to local authority playing a role in local security, the debate about local government autonomy is a totally different debate.

He said the belief of the NGF is that local government autonomy is the business of the state.

He added that while the clamour for local government autonomy is a populist demand, he does not think it serves the purpose that they want it to serve because of capacity challenges, experienced both at state and local government level.

Speaking on the perception that state police could be abused, Fayemi said that what he suggested was multi-level police system – at the Federal, State and Local Government levels.

Fayemi who said there is possibility of abuse of police at any level, added that there are mechanisms in the constitution to protect citizens rights.

“In most countries where you have multi-level policing, there is a regulatory authority that is responsible for punishment, and sanctioning those who go beyond their own responsibilities.

“I think that is what we should be talking about rather than talking about the possibility of abuse, there would always be possibility of abuse,” he admitted.

Earlier in his opening remarks, Fayemi said that the level of insecurity across the country has not only jeopardised citizens’ safety and means of livelihood, but also impeded the exercise of the rights of Nigerians.

The Ekiti governor noted that this had impeded particularly the right to life and the right to movement, and ultimately the country’s socio-economic development

He, however, said that how well the country responded to the security challenges would be determined by the level of collaboration between state and non-state actors.

“It is in recognition of this that we have invited the Security Agencies, Civil Rights Organisations, Faith-based, and Traditional Institutions here represented in this summit.”

Fayemi said the meeting was convened to harness peoples’ views and make policy recommendations towards addressing the security challenges faced in the different geopolitical zones of the country.

He pledged the NGF’s support for any effort to create a more inclusive and collaborative platform to mobilise an immediate national response to the country’s security challenges.

The Governor of Plateau State, Simon Lalong, who was also the second discussant, said that supporting multi level policing is different from supporting state police.

Lalong, represented by his Deputy, Prof. Sonni Tyoden, said that the existence of vigilantes is an aspect of multi policing, which Nigeria had not been able to get the best from.

“This is because the vigilantes have not been really treated as part of the security structure we operate. And I think that is what we need to do.

“The existence of vigilante groups is a manifestation of the disenchantment with the existing security apparatus.

“I think if we model the vigilantes properly, incorporate them into the security structure, I think we will get something better out of it,” he said.

A Senior Fellow at CDD, Prof. jubril Ibrahim, in his remarks, said the centre was conscious of the fact that a lot of consequences of the insecurity in the country fell on the state.

He said that the centre also recognised the efforts by state governments to address the challenge.

He said that the CDD is engaged in researches on the dynamics of insecurity at the grassroots level, what was been done to address it, suggestions on ways forward and other programmes.

The highlights of the event include the launching of a report titled “Multiple Nodes, Common Causes: National Stakeholders of Contemporary Insecurity and State Responses in Nigeria”, written by the CDD.

March 10, 2022
Appropriation of security votes not illegal – Fayemi

Gov. Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti State says appropriation of security votes to states is not illegal and also not unconstitutional.

Fayemi, who is also the Chairman, Nigeria Governor’s Forum (NGF), said this at the Quarterly Policy Dialogue on Accountability for Security Votes in Abuja on Wednesday.

The event was organised by the Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria (ACAN), the training arm of the ICPC.

While noting that there is widespread belief that the appropriation of security votes in Nigeria is unconstitutional and thus illegal, Fayemi declared that “it is not correct”.

“This is because in the Nigerian Constitution, the executive is entrusted with the responsibility of preparing a budget which is then sent to the legislature for ratification.

“The fact that huge amount of money are routinely being budgeted and expended in the name of security vote does not make it an illegal practice,” Fayemi said.

He said that the act of approving any sum allocated to such a heading (security vote), covert or overt, legalised the concept.

“The insinuation that such money is not budgeted for, is not true.

“In the State level context, a security vote is a pot of money appropriated by the state legislature.

“This amount often appears as a line item (or line items) in the governor’s annual budget request to the state legislature.

“The overall percentage of a state’s budget set aside as security votes vary widely,” he said.

The governor explained that security vote was basically a budgetary term that covered the discreet expenditure of the activities related to the strengthening of security for the protection of lives and property of the citizenry.

“The main objective of the Fund is to support the various law enforcement agencies, mainly through the donation of arms and operational gadgets.

“All other states also make regular donations to the security agencies.”

He noted that security votes attracted more attention because of the seemingly none accountable nature of the expenditure under the budgetary provision.

however called on the custodians of security votes to manage it judiciously with good sense of responsibility.

“If the security agencies also perform their responsibilities as expected, there will be adequate security in the society and trust will be restored and the clamour against security vote will reduce.”

The Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai, said that security vote was subject to audit and “if it is not done, it is wrong”.

He said that the votes were not votes for defence and were also not meant for the armed forces.

“Strictly speaking, if you look at security votes in the true context, it is not meant to tackle insecurity.

“We have funding for Ministry of Defence and the armed forces. If you have budget lines for these services and organisations, then why security votes?

However, it can be used for security; but it is not meant to solve insecurity,

“There are other votes which are constitutional which include the contingency fund,” he said.

Buratai explained that even though there was security vote that was generally applied, it must follow Public Procurement Act 2007.

He said that there were several criticisms on security votes which were subjected to corruption, embezzlement and misappropriation.

The chief of army staff said that if security vote was made constitutional and proper guidelines were set out on how they were utilised, this issue will be laid to rest.

September 11, 2019
SERAP writes Buhari, governors, seeks disclosure of spending on ‘security votes’

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has sent Freedom of Information requests to President Muhammadu Buhari and the 36 state governors in Nigeria requesting them to use their “good offices and leadership positions to urgently provide information on specific details of spending of appropriated public funds as security votes between 2011 and 2019.”

In the separate requests sent to Mr Buhari and the governors, SERAP said: “Given the current security realities in the country, we need the information to determine if public funds meant to provide security and ensure respect and protection of the rights to life, physical integrity, and liberty of Nigerians have been spent for this purpose. Our request is limited to details of visible, specific security measures and projects executed and does not include spending on intelligence operations.”

In the FOI requests dated 12 April 2019 and signed by SERAP deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare, the organization said: “’Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended) provides that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.’ It is the security of the citizens that is intended and not the security of select individuals in public office. SERAP believes that transparency and accountability in the spending of security votes are critically important to fully implement this responsibility imposed on both the federal and state governments.”

SERAP said: “We are concerned that rather than serving the citizens, the appropriation of public funds as security votes over the years would seem to serve high-ranking government officials at all levels—federal and states. We are also concerned that the practice of security votes entrusts discretionary powers to spend huge public funds on certain elected public officials who may not have any idea of operational issues on security matters.”

The requests read in part: “SERAP urges you to open-up on the matter and provide information and documents as requested. This will be one step in the right direction. Unless the information is urgently provided, Nigerians would continue to see the appropriation of public funds as security votes and the institutionalization of this cash in ‘Ghana Must Go bags’ practice as a tool for self-enrichment.”

“We would be grateful if the requested information is provided to us within 7 days of the receipt and/or publication of this letter. If we have not heard from you by then, the Registered Trustees of SERAP shall take all appropriate legal action under the Freedom of Information Act to compel you to comply with our request.”

“The most general purpose of State power is to provide security for citizens and other residents and to enable them lead a life that is meaningful to them. However, the growing level of insecurity, violence, kidnappings and killings in Zamfara State and other parts of Nigeria suggest that successive governments—at both federal and state levels—have been unwilling or unable to satisfactorily implement this fundamental constitutional commitment.”

“SERAP believes that there is a strong link between corruption and insecurity, violence, kidnappings and killings in several parts of the country. Available evidence would seem to suggest that many of the tiers of government in Nigeria have used security votes as a conduit for grand corruption rather than spending the funds to improve and enhance national security and ensure full protection of Nigerians’ rights to life, physical integrity, and liberty. In fact, former governor of Kano State Musa Kwankwaso once described security votes as ‘another way of stealing public funds’.”

“The huge financial resources budgeted for ‘security votes’ by successive governments—at both federal and state levels–have not matched the security realities, especially given the level of insecurity, violence, kidnappings and killings in many parts of the country. The current security realities in the country would seem to suggest massive political use, mismanagement or stealing of security votes by many governments.”

“SERAP believes that the Federal government and state governments ought to push for transparency and accountability in the spending of security votes both at the federal and state levels, if any such funds are to be properly spent to promote and ensure sustainable peace and security for the people of Nigeria.”

“SERAP believes that by providing the information, your government would help put an end to any insinuation that security votes are spent on political activities, mismanaged or stolen. This would in turn contribute to better opportunities for citizens to assess the level of spending and commitment of successive governments to ensuring the security of lives and property of the people.”

“Democratic societies function best with a high level of trust. Corruption, opacity and lack of accountability undermine that trust, and thus undermine the very foundation of democracies.”

“We note that the obligation to provide security and protect people’s rights to life, physical integrity, and liberty ought to be a shared responsibility of the federal and state governments, and not just for the federal government, as state governors also appropriate huge public funds each year as security votes. Many governors reportedly hide the security votes in their budgets as the funds are not expressly stated in their appropriation acts.”

“By Sections 2(3)(d)(V) & (4) of the FOI Act, there is a binding legal duty to ensure that details of spending on specific security measures and projects are widely disseminated and made readily available to members of the public through various means, including on a dedicated website. The information being requested does not come within the purview of the types of information exempted from disclosure by the provisions of the FOI Act.”

“As revealed by a 2018 report by Transparency International (TI), most of the funds appropriated as security votes are spent on political activities, mismanaged or simply stolen. It is estimated that security votes add up to over N241.2 billion every year. On top of appropriated security votes, governments also receive millions of dollars yearly as international security assistance.”

“According to TI, security vote spending exceeds 70 percent of the annual budget of the Nigeria Police Force, more than the Nigerian Army’s annual budget, and more than the Nigerian Navy and Nigerian Air Force’s annual budget combined.”

April 14, 2019
Buhari, Atiku, others should scrap security votes, immunity if elected president – SERAP

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has sent an open letter to major presidential candidates for Nigeria’s February 16 election urging them to “publicly commit to revolutionary and innovative anti-corruption reforms in five key areas, such as security votes, power sector corruption, judicial corruption and removal of immunity for presidents, vice-presidents, state governors and deputy state governors.”

President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives’ Party and Atiku Abubakar of the People Democratic Party, who were absent in the presidential debate last night, are among the candidates that SERAP said it has sent letters. Others include: the candidates of Allied Congress Party of Nigeria, Oby Ezekwesili; Alliance for New Nigeria, Fela Durotoye; Young Progressives Party candidate, Kingsley Moghalu; KOWA Party, Sina Fagbenro-Byron; African Democratic Congress, Obadaiah Mailafia; and African Action Congress, Omoyele Sowore.

In a statement today signed by SERAP senior legal adviser Bamisope Adeyanju, the organisation said: “Consistent with their right to participate in their own government, Nigerian voters deserve a substantive debate during the campaign about issues that affect them, particularly with respect to combating corruption. Now is the time to make commitment for specific reforms that will strengthen Nigeria’s anti-corruption record and standing in global ranking. Set forth below are 5 main anti-corruption priorities that candidates should address. Please let us know which positions you will support.”

The letters dated 19 January, 2019 read in part: “Candidates should commit to scrapping security votes spending by presidents and state governors by repealing the constitution to include specific prohibition of security votes. They should also commit to a comprehensive audit of spending on security votes by presidents and governors since the return of democracy in 1999 and directing their Attorney General and Minister of Justice to take legal action in the public interest to hold governments to account on spending on security votes.”

“Candidates should commit to repealing the Electric Power Sector Reform Act of 2005 to address regulatory lapses which have continued to lead to systemic corruption and impunity of perpetrators, forcing ordinary Nigerians to pay the price for corruption in the electricity sector–staying in darkness, but still made to pay crazy electricity bills.”

“Candidates should commit to reopening all reports of corruption in the electricity sector and ensuring effective prosecution of corruption allegations, including corruption charges against Dr. Ransom Owan-led board of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission; allegations of looting of the benefits of families of the deceased employees of Power Holding Company of Nigeria; and the budgeted N16 billion between 2003 and 2007, which went down the drains as it failed to generate the needed amount of electricity.”

“Candidates should commit to establishing independent counsel and/or special anticorruption courts in the six-geopolitical zones of the country for the effective and speedy prosecution of all former state governors indicted for corruption. They should also commit, within the first 365 days in office, to begin the constitutional reform process of removing the immunity clause in section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) to promote effective leadership and improve institutions of governance.”

“Candidates should commit to working with the judiciary to improve the independence of the National Judicial Council, including by reviewing requirements for its leadership to allow retired judges of proven integrity to lead the council. They should also commit to working with and encouraging the Chief Justice of Nigeria and NJC to ensure that the Chief Justice of Nigeria and all other judges make periodic asset declarations and public disclosures of such declarations.”

“Candidates should commit, within the first 365 days in office, to begin the constitutional reform process of inserting specific requirements in the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) to make asset declaration details by presidents and state governors public, including by widely publishing the details online and on other accessible platforms.”

“Candidates should also commit to directing their Attorney General and Minister of Justice to refer cases of apparent disparity between the asset declarations of presidents and state governors before assuming offices and their alleged illicit wealth and enrichment after leaving to the Code of Code Bureau for joint investigation and prosecution with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).”

“Prior to the elections, SERAP will issue a short report on the anti-corruption commitments that candidates and political parties have made. SERAP will then issue an anticorruption assessment report in March 2019, to set clear anti-corruption agenda for the next president and administration, which would assume office May 29, 2019.”

“We hope that candidates will adopt these commitments as part of their own political platform and ensure that the important recommendations are diligently implemented if they are elected.”

January 21, 2019
Bring governors to justice over alleged stealing of security votes, SERAP tells Buhari

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, (SERAP) has sent an open letter to President Muhammadu Buhari requesting him to use his “leadership position to direct the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami, SAN, and/or appropriate anti-corruption agencies to without delay investigate widespread allegations of mismanagement and corruption in the spending of security votes by several state governors in Nigeria since the return of democracy in 1999.”

The organization said, “If there is relevant and sufficient admissible evidence, for former governors to face prosecution and serving governors to be prosecuted at the expiration of their tenure as governors.”

The organization also urged Buhari to “instruct the Attorney General and/or appropriate anti-corruption agencies to publish the report of any such investigation including the names of governors that may have benefited from the public funds, and to ensure the recovery of proceeds of corruption. We request that you take this step within 14 days of the receipt and/or publication of this letter, failing which SERAP will institute legal proceedings to compel your government to act in the public interest.”

In the letter dated 6 July 2018 and signed by SERAP deputy director Timothy Adewale the organization said, “Pursuing this matter would ensure that public funds are used properly, and mean state governors would be less likely to misuse or steal security votes, and ultimately improve the ability of state governments to promote, enhance and ensure the security and safety of all Nigerians in their states.”

The organization said, “The lack of transparency and accountability in the spending of security votes is the real cause of many of the security challenges confronting Nigeria. State governments across the country are failing to ensure the safety and security of Nigerians and residents despite huge yearly allocations of security votes to governors. These funds are purportedly appropriated for State security.”

The letter read in part: “However, despite these huge expenditures on security, many state governors are failing to prevent kidnappings, cultism, assassinations and other unlawful killings, maiming of residents and destruction of property.”

“SERAP is concerned about the growing allegations of mismanagement, waste, and corrupt practices in the spending of security votes by several state governors. Rather than using security votes to promote, enhance and ensure peace and security in their states, many governors have allegedly used and/or still using it as conduit to divert public funds for private gain.”

“Yet, the most general purpose of state power is to provide security for citizens and other residents and to enable them to lead a life that is meaningful to them. In fact, the Nigerian Constitution of 1999 (as amended) states clearly in Section 14 (2b) that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.”

“Many state governments do not include security vote expenditures in their appropriation laws, as they prefer to apply extra-budgetary measures in the allocation of such funds. This ensures that the public is kept out of the loop on this bogus and suspicious expenditure.”

“State governments cannot on the one hand appropriate huge funds each year under the security vote expenditure head while on the other claim that ensuring the security and safety of Nigerians is the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government. Rather than serving the public interest in terms of enhancing the security and safety of all Nigerians in several states, the allocation and appropriation of security votes would seem to serve the personal, political and pecuniary interests of public office holders entrusted with security votes.”

“SERAP is concerned that majority of states do not disclose how much funds are allocated and expended as security votes by governors. Referring the allegations of mismanagement and corruption in the spending of security votes by several states would help to remove the secrecy and lack of accountability associated with security votes, improve the level of security in several states and contribute to good governance in the country.”

“Apart from contributing to the level of insecurity across several states, corruption in the spending of security votes is also taking away the much-needed resources to provide education, healthcare, clean drinkable water and other essential public services by these states.”

“SERAP notes that each year since the return to civilian rule in 1999, huge public funds are budgeted at all levels of government in Nigeria in the name of security votes. According to our information, the amount appropriated as security votes by state governments in Nigeria range between N400 million and N2 billion monthly. Over N1.5 trillion is allocated and expended annually as security votes by governments at all levels in Nigeria, virtually all of which is lost to corruption primarily because the spending of such funds is entirely at the discretion of the public office holder.”

“The allegations of mismanagement and corruption in the spending of security votes by many state governors suggest a fundamental breach of Nigeria’s anti-corruption laws and several provisions of the UN Convention against Corruption including articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20, to which Nigeria is a state party.”

“We note that the Attorney General is a defender of public interest and has the powers under Section 174(1) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against anyone including governors, suspected to be responsible for acts of corruption.”

July 9, 2018