Centre Backs Tinubu Over Homeland Security Appointment

The Centre for Humanitarian and Homeland Advancement has defended President Bola Tinubu’s appointment of Major General Adeyinka Famadewa (Rtd) as Special Adviser on Homeland Security, describing criticisms trailing the decision as misguided, intellectually narrow, and disconnected from the realities of modern security governance.

The group was reacting to comments by Prof. Femi Otubanjo, a research professor at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, who described the appointment as wrong and an admission of failure by the administration in addressing insecurity.

In a statement issued on Friday and signed by its executive director, Dr. Maurice Ayobami, the Centre said the creation of the office reflects strategic adaptation to Nigeria’s evolving security landscape rather than institutional weakness.

Ayobami argued that modern security threats have become increasingly decentralised, asymmetric, and technologically sophisticated, requiring governments across the world to continuously redesign their coordination structures and policy responses.

According to him, President Tinubu’s decision demonstrates foresight and responsiveness in the face of emerging threats ranging from terrorism and banditry to cybercrime, transnational organised crime, sabotage of critical infrastructure, and internal intelligence coordination challenges.

“To interpret the appointment of a Special Adviser on Homeland Security as an admission of failure is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of contemporary security management,” Ayobami said.

“Serious governments evolve. Serious administrations review their structures, identify emerging gaps, and create mechanisms capable of improving coordination, intelligence integration, and rapid strategic response. That is exactly what this administration has done.”

The Centre noted that homeland security architecture in many advanced democracies continues to evolve due to the changing nature of threats confronting nation-states, adding that Nigeria cannot afford to remain rigid in its institutional approach while security risks continue to mutate.

Ayobami said criticisms suggesting that the office duplicates existing security structures ignore the distinct coordinating and advisory role expected of the appointee.

He explained that the office is designed to strengthen inter-agency collaboration and improve strategic policy coherence, not to replace military command structures or usurp statutory responsibilities of existing security institutions.

“The attempt to frame this appointment as a power struggle within the security architecture is both inaccurate and unnecessarily alarmist,” he said.

“The Special Adviser on Homeland Security is not being appointed to command military formations or override existing agencies. The role is strategic and advisory, aimed at deepening intelligence coordination, improving homeland risk assessment, and strengthening synergy among critical institutions.”

The Centre also described Major General Famadewa’s appointment as one rooted in competence, experience, and institutional knowledge.

It noted that the retired general played a central role in developing Nigeria’s intelligence coordination framework during his years at the Office of the National Security Adviser, particularly through the establishment of the Intelligence Fusion Centre.

According to Ayobami, Famadewa’s experience across military operations, intelligence coordination, security diplomacy, and research makes him uniquely qualified for the role.

“Major General Famadewa is not an experimental choice. He is a tested security professional with decades of operational and strategic experience,” he said.

“At a time when security threats are becoming more interconnected and multidimensional, it is only logical for the administration to bring in individuals with deep institutional memory and proven coordination expertise.”

The Centre further argued that reducing Nigeria’s security challenges to the appointment of the National Security Adviser oversimplifies a deeply complex national problem rooted in decades of structural weaknesses, porous borders, arms proliferation, socio-economic pressures, and regional instability.