NSA AND HUMAN RIGHTS OBSERVANCE  

EKPA STANLEY EKPA argues for human rights compliance across all theatres of operation

In constitutional democracies, security and liberty are not opposing forces to be traded at political convenience; they are mutually reinforcing imperatives. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) captures this equilibrium with deliberate clarity. Section 14(2)(b) declares that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. Yet, the same Constitution devotes an entire chapter to fundamental rights – life, dignity, liberty, fair hearing, privacy, expression, and association. These guarantees are neither aspirational rhetoric nor peacetime luxuries. They are the moral and legal architecture upon which democratic legitimacy and enduring national development are built.

Nigeria’s prolonged and protracted insecurity has severely tested this constitutional balance. From the insurgency waged by Boko Haram in the North-East, to banditry in the North-West, separatist tensions in the South-East, communal violence in the Middle Belt, and maritime insecurity in the Gulf of Guinea, the state has confronted overlapping theatres of conflict. These crises have strained institutions, displaced millions, and threatened economic stability. In such climates, governments across the world often face the temptation to prioritize expediency over legality, force over fairness, optics over institutional discipline.

Yet, constitutional history teaches a sobering lesson: when security operations abandon human rights safeguards in security sector operations, the state may achieve short-term tactical advantage but at long-term strategic cost. Extrajudicial measures erode public trust, weaken intelligence cooperation, invite judicial intervention, and damage international credibility. A democracy that protects itself by undermining its own constitutional order risks hollowing out the very legitimacy it seeks to defend.

It is within this delicate terrain that the office of the National Security Adviser assumes constitutional significance. The NSA is not merely an operational coordinator of intelligence flows; he or she is a central actor in shaping the normative culture of Nigeria’s security governance. Under the current NSA, Nuhu Ribadu, there has been a discernible emphasis on aligning security strategy with constitutional fidelity. As a lawyer by training and a member of the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, his professional formation reflects both respect for the rule of law and appreciation of long-term strategic governance.

This background matters. Legal training inculcates discipline in due process, evidentiary standards, proportionality, and accountability. Strategic policy education reinforces the imperative that national security must be institutional, not performative. Security sector leadership, therefore, cannot be reduced to dramatic headlines or politicized briefings; it must be measured by the coherence of coordination, the clarity of doctrine, and the credibility of conduct.

Under his stewardship, security sector governance has increasingly reflected a recognition that human rights observance is not a concession to civil society critics but a strategic asset. In recent engagements, there has been increasing insistence that security operations be intelligence-driven, targeted, and compliant constitutional safeguards, with established rules of civil engagements. The emphasis on inter-agency coordination, civilian protection, and lawful detention procedures reflects an understanding that constitutional rights are not suspended by operational difficulty. Even in states of emergency, constitutionalism does not evaporate; it adapts within defined legal boundaries. The right to life and dignity remains inviolable. The right to personal liberty may be restricted only in accordance with law. Fair hearing is not an administrative inconvenience; it is a constitutional command.

Institutionalizing human rights observance within security operations is not an act of weakness. It is a recognition that legitimacy is the most potent force multiplier in asymmetric conflict. Insurgencies thrive on narratives of victimhood and state abuse. When security forces demonstrate restraint, professionalism, and accountability, they deprive violent actors of propaganda oxygen. Communities become partners rather than passive spectators or fearful subjects. Intelligence flows more readily from populations that trust the state.

Nigeria must therefore entrench clear human rights compliance protocols across all theatres of operation. This requires codified standard operating procedures on arrest, detention, interrogation, and engagement with civilian populations. It requires continuous human rights training for military, police, and intelligence personnel. It demands internal accountability mechanisms that investigate and address allegations of misconduct transparently. Oversight by appropriate legislative and judicial bodies must be treated not as hostility but as constitutional partnership.

The National Security Strategy envisions a Nigeria that is safe, secure, and economically vibrant. But security strategy cannot be divorced from constitutional ethos. Development depends on predictability. Investors assess not only natural resources and market size but also rule of law indicators and governance quality. A state perceived as abusive or arbitrary undermines its own economic prospects. Conversely, a security architecture grounded in legality strengthens Nigeria’s global standing and signals that the country is open, stable, and rights-respecting.

The task before the current security leadership is therefore historic. It is not simply to suppress criminality or neutralize insurgent networks, but to consolidate a security culture rooted in constitutional supremacy. This culture must outlive individuals and administrations. It must become embedded in doctrine, training manuals, promotion criteria, and operational evaluation metrics. Security agencies must internalize the principle that effectiveness and legality are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. The true measure of constitutional commitment is whether the state respects rights when it feels most threatened.

By foregrounding human rights observance within security operations and resisting the lure of politicized theatrics, the present National Security Adviser’s commitment to recalibrate Nigeria’s security narrative must be sustained. The goal is not softness toward crime; it is firmness within the law. It is the understanding that constitutional discipline enhances operational success and fortifies public confidence.

Ultimately, security and freedom are not competing claims but complementary obligations. When Nigeria demonstrates that it can confront insurgency, banditry, and organized crime while remaining faithful to its constitutional covenant, it sends a powerful message – to its citizens and to the world – that it is both strong and just. In that convergence lies the promise of a truly secure republic: one that protects its people, respects their dignity, and builds development on the unshakeable foundation of the rule of law.

 Ekpa, a constitutional and human right lawyer, writes via ekpastanleyekpa@gmail.com