People’s Security Monitor’s Editorial

The decision of the Delta State Government to exclude the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) from its Security Council, if indeed confirmed, is one that raises deep concern about the state of inter-agency collaboration in Nigeria. The Corps, by law, plays a central role in safeguarding critical national assets, fighting vandalism, tackling illegal mining, addressing farmer-herder conflicts, and protecting pipelines. To deliberately leave it out of such a strategic body not only undermines security coordination but also raises questions about motive and consequence.

Several factors may explain why the state government has taken such a step. At one level, it could be the age-old problem of rivalry among security agencies, where competition for visibility and relevance sometimes overshadows the broader goal of collective safety. Another possibility lies in politics: the NSCDC is a federal agency that reports to Abuja through the Ministry of Interior, and the governor may feel it is less directly answerable to him than the police or other actors. Misunderstanding of the Corps’ mandate is also common in political circles, where some wrongly dismiss it as a secondary outfit, not realizing that the NSCDC Act gives it very clear and strategic responsibilities. There is also the possibility of institutional disagreements over operational matters that may have soured relations between the Corps and the government.

Whatever the cause, the consequences are far-reaching. Excluding the NSCDC means weakening security coordination in areas where it has unique expertise, especially pipeline protection, anti-vandalism operations, and community safety programs. It risks emboldening criminal networks that thrive in the cracks of poor coordination. It also threatens inter-agency trust, since sidelining one federal outfit while empowering others often creates resentment and rivalry. Politically, it sends the wrong signal to the federal government and could be interpreted as undermining the principle of cooperative federalism. Most importantly, it risks eroding public confidence, because citizens want to see unity, not division, among the agencies tasked with keeping them safe.

Security councils at the state level should be inclusive platforms that bring every key stakeholder to the table. The exclusion of the NSCDC from the Delta State Security Council risks creating an avoidable gap in intelligence, manpower, and technical capacity. If not reversed, it may weaken the fight against insecurity in the state and set a troubling precedent for others. Security thrives on synergy, not fragmentation, and sidelining the NSCDC is a dangerous gamble that the Delta State Security Council can ill afford.

---