• Says “when somebody is kidnapped, people don’t bother about how he is released.

Governor of Ekiti State, Dr Kayode Fayemi, on Wednesday, defended the use of security vote by state governors even as the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai disagreed with him over the spending of security vote at the headquarters of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission( ICPC).

While Buratai questioned the use of security vote by state governors, describing it as illegal and unconstitutional, and demanded that it should be subject to audit, governor Fayemi said the allegations that security vote was illegal and unconstitutional, were an “incorrect narrative.”

The Punch reports that the army chief said amidst serious criticisms against security votes including alleged corruption, adding that governors are taken  advantage of the immunity clause in the constitution because they could not be checked until they left office.

Buratai said, “Let me say that this security vote is also subject to audit, if it is not done, it is quite wrong. According to Robert Clarke (SAN), security vote is not constitutional. Security vote should be subject to audit.

“We should also take note that the security vote is not a defence vote; it is not meant to tackle insecurity. We have funding for the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces. We have also the police fund. It is the same for other security agencies.

Fayemi, who was guest speaker, during the second quarterly anti-corruption policy dialogue on accountability for security vote, with the theme, ‘National security: The accountability imperative,’ organised by the ICPC Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria, however, said security vote was necessary because governors spent a large chunk of it on maintenance of security agencies in their domains.

The governor also demanded the devolution of powers to the federating units for them to have the control of security architecture in their domains.

He said, “In a crisis situation, resorting to bureaucratic process or procedure may worsen the situation. It requires prompt actions or measures to get it resolved. On such an occasion, the governor as the chief security officer may have to take an urgent action.  This is why the sustenance of security vote is inevitable.

“Many state governors do in fact use their security vote to provide funding to federal security agencies —whether the Nigeria Police Force, the Nigerian Army, the Department of State Services, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps — operating in their states.

“When somebody is kidnapped, people don’t bother about how he is released. No police agree that they pay ransoms, no soldier admits that they pay ransoms. Yet, all the money must be accounted for.

“The foundations of the secrecy in the allocation and abuse of security vote increased over time as a result of the long reign and dominance of the military in Nigeria’s political life.”