 And it's time for our very first hot topic, which will be reviewing the national security of the country ahead of incoming government. Global terrorism index of 2020 rated Nigeria third worst country within security in the world. The Northwest and the North Central are the most troubled region, followed by the Southeast region, where unknown gunmen and process session agitators have made region security climate very, very unsafe. We've been joined by Mr. Augustine Ega, he is a security expert resident here in Lagos. Good morning Mr. Ega. Good morning, my pleasure. Mr. Ega, why has Nigeria not been able to tackle the multi-dimensional and pervasive insecurity across the nation, government after government, but it appears to be getting worse? From all indications, I think they have not been able to pinpoint what they need to do at the state level. So far, there have been some provision for resources, but the state government, to me, I will lay my own kind of concern on the state government, and the governors that are coming on board. They don't have, they have not built of a networking platform that will bring all the resources together and then provide the results. And then security is coming from the state and the local government, while the federal government is just the general overseer of everything. And so I believe that all what have been extended to state government should be appropriately accounted for, especially the security votes. They need to build a platform that they will handle, make all the secretaries. Like for instance, before the, after the terrorist bombing in the U.S., there was a review of the entire security structure of the U.S., and after that they came out with one particular formidable front that could help them deal with the security issue, the internal security issue, which is called the homeland security. So Nigeria, like you said, from over time, we've had the same issue over and over, and we don't have a complete body like the homeland security that will look into every aspect of security, because security is like a very big, a big building with many rooms. So all of those rooms need to be cut out for, and so that we can have a, we can have a corporate plan that will totally reduce the insecurity in Nigeria. But now it's like a trial and error. Every government comes with a trial and error. There's no structure. That's what I can say. There is no structure that is actually deleted, the security for all. But you're putting some blame on the state government because they get the security votes. But their own excuse is always that they don't own the security infrastructure as it is. The police, the army, everything belongs to the federal government, and they have to take permission before they are able to do anything. So when you say that the state governments have not done enough, what else can they do in light of the kind of powers that the constitution gives them as state government in terms of security? You see, Nyangu, security is a very complicated domain, and even the federal government alone cannot do. As long as we have this infrastructure in every state, it is actually important for every governor to be knowledgeable enough to harness some of these resources that have been given. For instance, you should always have a security committee. In every state, there should be a platform. This committee is very important. For instance, in Lagos, two decades ago in Lagos, Lagos was very, very difficult to move around. We had big pockets. We had so many violence acts in Lagos. But until they have this security fund, this fund that they had in Lagos, that they had to bring the private and public partnership to get funding, and then to build a structure that they are able to respond to so many emergencies in Lagos. You see that security in Lagos, in security in Lagos, have been reduced at least for minimum. But we look at some certain states that don't even have. They have a lot of terrorist attacks or attempts of penetration in Lagos. But of course, it's not the news that would be in the public domain because of funding. They have all these terrorism trying to invade Lagos, but they are actually ready to go because they have a structure that can inform, that can gather intelligence and quickly inform the command and control in Lagos. But in some states, it's totally not available. For instance, look at Benway State. We had the first issue that happened when it was in TPC, a letter in PDP. The thing repeated itself, and it was still crying to the federal government to send help. Meanwhile, you have to help. All you need is just to get this response and work with them. You are a people. You must work with these structures that they have given you. It's not like waiting for permission or waiting for a time that something has happened and you begin to react. Reactive security can never solve Nigerian security problems. Reactive is actually building a structure on ground and looking at every avenue that will cost the security before it happens. When they have these structures, I think even the federal government would support because they know that they are doing the right, they are doing something good. Like Lagos, Lagos will always receive support because they have a structure. But some state governments don't have anything on ground. And so when it happens, they are confused because there's no prep plan. They begin to call federal government to solve them. Exactly. You know where people are dying. Edgar, you know, I like what you're saying and I believe that Nyamgo's question is actually very apt. However, just like you, I am against a situation where states record hundreds and thousands of their people dying and then you have the state governors crying, crying repeatedly to the federal government. Now tell us how far they can go. Each state should be able to go with the security vote that they receive in their domains as chief security officers of their states. How far can they go? And how far should they go? The first thing they must, yeah, the first thing every governor must know is that there is time for policies and there's time for business. And they must know that they are the chief executive and also the chief security officer of their state. So I don't want to believe that they have to approve approval from federal government. Of course, they must take the consent of the federal government. That is only if they have something very good to present. So one of the things I've seen, I think I've seen something in the governor of Kaduna states where they have a commissioner of security or something like that. Just you form that kind of commission within their system and get professional, get experts that will sit there and build a structure for them. The homeland security did not just come. In the U.S., they work with both private and public sexual policing and that's why they are able to get a very, very strong system that monitors everything for them. So every state government, they should start by having a commissioner. One of their commissioners should be a security expert and from them, they should be able to give them a blueprint that will work out a structure that will really enable security in every state. That isn't the first thing to achieve it because the governor might not have the technical knowledge on how security works. It's complex. Security is very complex. So they should have a commission on its own. Every state government should have a commission and they should get experts that will sit there and develop a plan that will totally reduce security in their state. That plan will contain the complex security management plan as a whole. People security. It will also include cyber security. It will include investigations of how we have the police doing that. But these are all platforms that will harness all of these platforms, including intelligence, active intelligence, and to ensure that they get all this information coming strategically and also enabling them to build tactical and operational plan that will help the security of the state. But currently, it's like the state governor, when he has a problem, he will call a commissioner of police. A commissioner of police will only do a reaction. It's just the reactive security they have at that moment. So he will only give them what they have. If the government takes their own decision. Yes. Mr. Ega, you know, it was the former head of state, General Sani Abacha, that said that when insecurity continues for more than 72 hours, they know that government is involved. Do you share this sentiment in some quotas that some state governors are complicit in some of these things we see happening in their states because they want to be able to justify the wastage of their security votes and some of the things that are best known to them? I want to believe because Abacha is one of the best security officers Nigeria have ever got, including Al-Mustafa. These are the best security guards in Nigeria. You can check records. So if this statement is coming from Abacha, I believe 100 percent. Why? Because they are accountable. Every state governor is accountable for the life and safety of the citizens of that state. So they are supposed to seek measures in which they can build a security system that will protect their people, protect their business in that state. So if the government is really not doing anything, then they say that they are blaming it on federal government. I think the people should stop looking at the state governors and hold them accountable. There should be accountability. Why should people be dying? When you have the results, you have the military, you have the police, you have every sector of the national security in every state. And then you see how the budget they are supposed to control and then bring them together and sit at the work instinct to achieve the results. But they are not bringing them together. It's only when the needs come help them. They call the military or they call the police or they call the Navy. It's only when there is a need. Maybe they say kick naps. They say piracy issue. There's some violence that you call it. No, it shouldn't be like that. There should be a common platform that all these people should always meet and work together at all times. That is where we can get results. Private sector people should be dead and intelligent. They are knowledgeable in the practice security. They are good in reactive security. So you cannot join the two together and just say, okay, the police. They will never get the results. Okay. Every state, as I understand, has a state security advisor. But what you're saying is like taking it a notch higher. What else will they be doing differently from what they're doing now? Because when you have a state security advisor, he also gathers these people, the security heads, police army and the rest of those people to come to a round table and always discuss these things. But what else should they do that they are not doing now that you are recommending to have a commission that will be in charge of security? What else can they do? What they can do is that I want to believe from every of my assessments from all the violence that have been happening in Nigeria, they don't have a security master plan. It's not enough to just call the bodies, the security heads in every state and say, okay, I'm the state advisor, I'm the state security advisor. Let us discuss on security matter. I mean a plan, a blue plan, a master plan that will work over years, over the years. This plan should be clearly researched. I see, repeat, physical security system, how are we going to address it? How is the state going to address the corporate security as a whole? How is it going to address political security? How is it going to address practice management? And you see that there's so much lack in practice management. Because practice management is a very proactive document or a system that will really help to prevent crisis in any situation. But when they don't have this plan, they wait until when something happens and then they start calling for help. It's too late at that moment. They know how you can fix it. Quick fix will not work. So they should have well-written plans and then evaluate them and see in which area they can implement this plan. Because let us take into account that every state and every local government have its own security challenge. So every plan will not work for every state. So that is why they will actively conduct a risk assessment of their state regarding the local government that they're in charge of and then advise on the particular system that will work in every local government. In some states, or in some local government, they have kidnapped and finished. In some states or some local government, they have pirated. And of course in just some areas, in just terrorism, some places, hedge men, some places, they have banned difference. So you can see that every state and every region have their own security. And that is why analysis is very important. They must analyze and they must develop a blueprint and that blueprint must be enforced and it must be fully funded. Before we can move in ahead. Okay. In 18 days from now, a new government will be sworn in. Some have said that Nigeria cannot progress or make any kind of significant success if we continue as we are structured. If we do not return to regions. What would you say to the incoming government as we seek for how to solve the security challenge? Should Nigeria be restructured? I think the Nigerian government has been shying away from the truth. The real thing is that you cannot manage a system that is too big and too boggled. If they really restructure the regional leadership, it is a step ahead of progress in Nigeria. I am truly in support of this. Because you can actually see the system. Like we said, every region has its challenges, both economic challenges and of course, security challenges. So it is the first step at which they can begin to address security issues objectively. And so I'm in support of this regional restructuring. It's very important. And actually, as what we've seen over time, you can bring the best head of state from anywhere. You will get confused in the Nigerian system. That is very true. Because the system is not a system that enables progress to stay. I can say from the level of management. It is very difficult. And there can be no meaningful progress with aspects of all checkmaking. You can see the position we are finding in the international index. It's very bad. That's the first place. And so which of the investors across the world that want to bring this money to Nigerian investors? When you are reading number three. And when we run to other nations, we have a system that is working. They even take money to those countries that are invested because they have a good system that is working. So I want to believe that it should be the priority for any government that is coming. There must be decisive in dealing with accreditation. So that is more like a political restructuring. When they are restructuring the security apparatus, the security infrastructure, what do you recommend they do, just as a final thing that you answer? Like what I can say, I still believe that the state governors are not doing enough. The federal government, from the system we practice, the federal government is there to support them. But because the citizens in Nigeria, they dwell in every state and every local government. They should take local government autonomy very seriously because that is where people are. The effects of every security come from a particular local government. And so I believe that this system should be built across the state, local government. This is where we can really contribute meaningfully. Or every state government can contribute meaningfully today. In security and security in Nigeria. All right. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Augustine Ega. Mr. Augustine Ega is a security expert who has joined us to review the national security ahead of incoming government 18 days from now. Thank you so much for your time. My pleasure. You're still watching The Breakfast. We'll come back to take a look at a second hot topic. Stay with us.