Iliyasu Gadu
Ilgad2009@gmail.com
08035355706 (Texts only)
Last week, following a TV programme in which he featured as a guest, Yusuf Datti Baba-Ahmed the running mate to Peter Obi in the last presidential elections in
2023 under the Labour Party was ‘’invited’’ by the Department of State Security (DSS) for a ‘’chat’’ over comments he made while on the programme.
From our knowledge and experience in when the DSS invites one for such ‘’chats’’ it is almost always a thing to be alarmed because under one pretext or another such a person is subjected to unlawful detention and the inconveniences that come with it.
Fortunately, although this was not the case with Datti Baba-Ahmed who was released without further ado after a ‘’civilized chat’’ as he later told newsmen, the episode however cannot go without comment.
The question that arises is, did the DSS obtained a valid order from a competent court of law to ‘’invite’’ Baba-Ahmed?
If the DSS did not, then it establishes that it was acting out of its brief to so do. Further to that it can then be established that the DSS acted in violation of the basic constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of Datti Baba-Ahmed.
First he was denied his freedom of movement as the time he spent honouring the DSS invitation constitutes a restriction and inconvenience to his person as he never bargained or planned in his schedule for that day to spend some time at the DSS offices especially given the fact that the ‘’invitation’’ was not ordered by a court of law as it should.
Secondly, the DSS infringed on his freedom of speech. Was it established by a court of law that what Datti BabaAhmed purportedly said during the programme warranted his being ‘’invited’’ to explain to the DSS? Does the
DSS have a carte blanche to determine what constitutes a speech that affects the security of the state and to act in a manner that questions the basic, inalienable rights of a citizen to express his views on a matter of overriding public interest?
On the instant matter of the ‘’invitation’’ by DSS to Datti Baba-Ahmed, it must be reiterated that if indeed, there was no valid court order for such an action, then the DSS illegally and must be sanctioned by supervising authorities.
Let us put what the DSS is and should be in context.
The DSS is basically an agency established by law as part of the security architecture of state with the principal responsibility of thwarting and protecting the state from infiltration and acts of destabilization by agents of foreign interests. Due to the sensitive nature of these duties, the DSS is set up by law to carry out its functions unobtrusively without intruding into the lives of citizens and very importantly, without bringing undue attention to itself and the work it is expected to do. Its counterparts like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and MI5 in the United States of America and Britain respectively have never publicly ‘’invited’’ a citizen to their premises. If they have to, it is always done quietly or preferably pay a visit.
But come to think of it, was there anything said by Datti Baba-Ahmed in the interview to warrant the ‘’invitation’’? In the interview Baba-Ahmed mentioned three factors that enabled President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s ascension to power; the judiciary and their lack of judicial diligence, his political opponents who could not come to a consensus on a broad political front during the 2023 elections and the military and security establishment who could not do the necessary background security checks on President Tinubu prior to the last elections.
Everyone knows that this has been a matter of public discourse for quite sometime now. So why should BabaAhmed’s reference to the matter now cause the DSS to be so panicky as to act outside its brief and to break its statutory rules of engagement?
The DSS is an important of the ‘’Deep State’’ and its responsibility is principally to the protection of the state of Nigeria in enlightened interest guided by law. Baba-Ahmed’s statements are no more incendiary and inciting as statements and actions credited to other public figures in the present and previous political dispensations. During the Goodluck Jonathan administration, President Tinubu as opposition leader was recorded to have called President Jonathan as a ‘’drunken fisherman’’ among other inciting rhetoric. Tinubu was never hauled to the DSS then as Baba-Ahmed now. If the DSS needed any proof of the comprised nature of the Judiciary as Baba-Ahmed has mentioned, one needs to look no further than recent episode where judges were seen and heard chanting ‘’On Tinubu’s mandate we stand’’. Does the DSS not consider that a danger to the state where Judges and the Judiciary which is an independent arm of government surrendering its constitutional mandate to the executive arm of government? Or was the DSS not aware of the recent incident involving a serving Minister in this government involved in a shameful altercation with a representative of the security institution of government which could have resulted in the sort of actions that could destabilize the government and the country as a whole. Did the DSS act on these incidents?
Let it not be that the DSS’s action on Baba-Ahmed be the beginning of a move towards intimidating opposition political figures and dissenting voices as the political season gathers momentum. Let the DSS not consider itself as beholden only to protecting the interests of
President Tinubu at the expense of the Nigerian state for which it was established by law. Otherwise the DSS must be prepared to detain as many Nigerians as possible who will not be denied their constitutional rights to freedom of movement, speech and association.
DSS should let Datti Baba-Ahmed and all those who want to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights be in the overriding interest of the democracy which all Nigerians in one way or the other fought for.
