A Missing Girl, A DSS Officer And Questions The State Must Answer

By: Sadeeq Garba Shehu

The story involving DSS officer Ifeanyi and Walida has produced many versions – none of which are fully verified. Some say Walida was abducted from Jigawa by Officer Ifeanyi himself; others say she was abducted by another lady, a child trafficker and abandoned in Abuja, where Officer Ifeanyi found her as a lady in distress. Yet another version says she was fleeing a wicked stepmother. One other claims she suffered mental illness or memory loss and was just wandering, not knowing how she got to Abuja and found herself with a new name, Chinasa. Even her age is disputed, ranging from 17 to 22.

There is also no agreement on whether she stayed with Officer Ifeanyi voluntarily or under pressure, and thereafter became a mother.

None of these versions is clear. Any of them could be true, or none entirely true.

But there is one uncontested fact upon which all sides agree: Officer Ifeanyi is a security, intelligence/ law-enforcement officer. Once that is established, all other arguments become secondary.

The only question that matters – the question that determines whether everything else is intelligible or irrelevant – is, “What should a professional security, military, police/ DSS officer do when he encounters a young woman (18–22) who appears distressed, lost, abandoned, mentally unstable, disoriented or fleeing domestic abuse?

This is not a trick question. It is a test of professionalism, ethics, legality and institutional discipline. As an ex-security officer, below are the responsible options and what must never be done. In such an instance, the officer should ensure immediate safety and ensure it is in public (remain in an open, observable space).

He should speak calmly and respectfully; check for injury, threats or self-harm and not isolate her unnecessarily.

Another major thing to do is to identify and verify – without coercion – the name, age, origin, family and where she came from. If a means of identification is available, verify it professionally. If age is unclear, assume she is a child under 18, and vulnerability is not consent.

Also, contact the proper authority. Depending on circumstances, the proper authority in this case includes a police station or divisional headquarters; his own DSS office/ command structure; the social welfare/women and child protection desk. Others include mental health emergency services, government-approved NGOs or shelters, and radio announcements such as Human Rights Radio (Brekete Family). Personal judgment must never replace institutional procedure.

Another thing one could do is to involve a female officer or social worker. This is not optional; it is best practice – it protects the woman and the officer. Gender-sensitive handling is part of modern security professionalism.

Similarly, he should document everything – the date, time and location where the individual (Walida, in this case) was found; observations and actions taken, who was contacted and when. This is accountability, not bureaucracy.

More importantly, formally transfer custody of the individual. Hand over to the Police, social services, a medical facility or the family (after verification). Ensure written records of transfer.

On the other hand, a responsible security officer must never take the person home (Not help accommodate her eve temporarily or “out of pity”). Doing such is unlawful, unethical and dangerous.

Again, avoid keeping her in private custody; no unofficial sheltering. No “I will sort it out; “no secrecy.” Compassion without procedure is how abuse begins.

Do not use rank, uniform or authority to override consent. A person in distress cannot freely consent. (This is why the United Nations does not allow its personnel to get entangled even with prostitutes in conflict areas, because a distressed prostitute cannot give consent.) Vulnerability is not permission, and silence is not agreement.

This is important because every security officer is a temporary custodian of public trust, not a private saviour operating outside the law. The moment an officer crosses from ‘protector to personal decision-maker’, he endangers the individual, compromises his service, damages public confidence and exposes himself and his institution to disgrace.

It is good to note that professional help for a victim is institutional, not personal.

If Officer Ifeanyi truly wanted to help Walida, he should have taken her to the system, not taken her out of it.

Good intentions, claiming “I cannot leave her like that”, do not legalise bad actions. Removing a vulnerable person from institutional protection into private custody is not compassion. It is misconduct regardless of how it is dressed.

.Sadeeq, a retired Group Captain, writes from Abuja.