As voters in Anambra State prepare to elect their next governor and state Assembly lawmakers tomorrow, security agencies have announced plans to deploy a large number of their personnel to maintain peace and guarantee a credible electoral process.
According to official figures, the Nigeria Police Force plans to send 45,000 of its operatives on election security duty. At the same time, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) will deploy 10,250 officers for the same assignment. The military and other paramilitary agencies are also expected to contribute additional personnel. Their official duty will be to ensure that the 2.8 million eligible voters can exercise their franchise peacefully across the 5,718 polling units in the Anambra State governorship election, and also to prevent desperate power seekers from breaching their democratic rights.
At the last governorship election in 2021, over 50,000 personnel drawn from the police, NSCDC, military and Department of State Services (DSS) were involved in the election security work. A heavy security presence has become a recurring feature of Nigeria’s electoral system over time, especially during off-cycle elections such as this one.
However, from past experiences, heavy security deployments have not always translated into peaceful and credible polls. While the insecurity in the South-East—stemming mainly from the activities of the separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and its militant wing, the Eastern Security Network—as well as other criminal elements, provides a credible reason to have a strong security presence in the Anambra election, similar large deployments have been observed in other states such as Edo, Kogi, Ekiti, Imo, Bayelsa, Osun and Ondo with off-cycle elections. During the last governorship election in Edo State, 35,000 policemen were deployed for election security, supported by 8,000 personnel from other military and security agencies.
First and foremost, there must be transparency and accountability in this massive deployment. Federal lawmakers responsible for overseeing the security agencies need to thoroughly investigate these deployments to ensure that the stated numbers were actually deployed for the intended purpose. It should not be the case that some senior officers use election duties as an opportunity to manipulate the system or line their pockets. In a public service notorious for the phenomenon of ghost workers and ghost pensioners, such suspicions cannot be easily dismissed.
Accountability, therefore, must begin with clear documentation, independent verification, and public reporting on how security operations were executed. Citizens and civil society groups should also be allowed to observe and confirm that security personnel are properly deployed and performing their duties professionally.
Beyond the numbers, there is a more profound concern about the conduct and neutrality of the security agencies themselves. In previous elections, security operatives were accused of colluding with politicians, intimidating opposition supporters, or turning a blind eye to vote-buying and ballot-snatching.
These are not isolated incidents but patterns that have eroded public confidence in the electoral process. As part of the broader question of accountability, the security agencies must ensure that no individual or group is allowed to undermine the electoral process, and that those who attempt it are promptly arrested and diligently prosecuted.
The recent incidents in which security deployments appeared to have been used to influence electoral outcomes in predetermined ways must stop. Another issue associated with such heavy security build-up is that it can lead to voter suppression, as the intimidating presence of armed personnel often discourages citizens from turning out to vote. Care must, therefore, be taken to ensure that this does not happen.
Security agencies must conduct their operations with utmost professionalism, demonstrating allegiance to the country’s constitution and not to the government in power or any specific individuals. The previous practice of militarising elections to enthrone a candidate preferred by the central government—commonly referred to as “federal might” in Nigerian parlance—must be discarded forthwith, beginning with the Anambra poll.
The new Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, was given marching orders by the President to ensure credible polls, starting with Anambra as a litmus test.
The INEC boss has equally declared his determination to eliminate the growing scourge of vote-buying from Nigeria’s elections.
However, this goal cannot be achieved solely by INEC. The success of the commission’s first major outing under Professor Amupitan depends heavily on the professionalism and neutrality of the security agencies.
It is essential to remind these agencies that the primary responsibility for ensuring the success of the INEC chairman’s first electoral test lies mainly with them. The viral videos from past elections showing vote buyers openly mingling with police officers near polling stations without being apprehended must no longer be tolerated.
Overall, as a newspaper, we insist on accountability for the responsibilities that come with these heavy security deployments. The only way to justify the massive expenditure on election security is when the process is hitch-free in all parts of Anambra, and where it is not, those responsible must be apprehended and made to face trial.
If the security agencies perform their duties with professionalism and impartiality, they will not only ensure the credibility of the Anambra election but also strengthen public trust in the electoral system.
