The persistent threats of terrorism, kidnapping, and other forms of violent crime across Nigeria have placed greater attention on how government responds to insecurity, the laws governing that response, and the resources and institutions available to protect affected communities.
Where attacks continue despite existing laws, security institutions and substantial public expenditure, the question of who is accountable when the State’s response does not provide adequate protection becomes increasingly important.
The State’s Duty to Protect
Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) provides that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government, while Section 33 protects the right to life.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act gives domestic effect to the Charter’s protection of the right to life under Article 4 and the right to liberty and security of the person under Article 6.
The protection of life and personal security is therefore a responsibility of government, and while the State cannot prevent every act of violence or guarantee that no citizen will become a victim of crime, public authorities are expected to take reasonable measures to protect people from threats to their lives and security, particularly where communities have faced repeated attacks and government is aware of the risks they face.
Nigeria has laws addressing terrorism, kidnapping and related offences, but kidnapping continues to affect individuals, families and communities across the country.
The continued occurrence of these offences despite the legal framework in place illustrates the gap that can exist between laws designed to protect citizens and the protection they actually experience.
Legislative Responsibility and Accountability
The National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly form part of the system through which the State’s responsibility to protect citizens is examined.
Their role connects the legal framework governing security and criminal conduct with the resources provided to the institutions responsible for enforcing that framework and the results those institutions achieve in protecting citizens.
The existence of laws addressing terrorism, kidnapping and related offences is only one part of the State’s response to insecurity.
The effectiveness of that response also depends on whether the institutions responsible for enforcing those laws are able to prevent offences, investigate reported cases, prosecute perpetrators and protect affected communities.
Where kidnapping and other forms of insecurity continue despite the laws in place, examining how these institutions perform those functions becomes necessary to understanding why the protection provided to citizens remains inadequate.
The legislature’s role in determining how public resources are allocated through the budget and appropriation process is directly connected to the State’s response to insecurity.
Through these processes, the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly determine the resources available to institutions responsible for protecting life and security, including security agencies, emergency responders and justice institutions.
Where substantial resources have been approved for security, but attacks continue, the legislature can examine how those resources have been used, what the institutions receiving them have achieved, and whether they have translated into effective protection for citizens.
This examination also extends to the performance of the institutions responsible for responding to insecurity. Where communities continue to experience attacks despite warnings, emergency responses are inadequate, investigations remain unresolved, or questions arise about the use of public funds, legislative oversight can examine how institutions have responded, the reasons for any failures, and whether those responsible have accounted for their performance.
The effectiveness of the State’s response therefore depends on how the legal framework, public resources and institutions responsible for security operate in practice.
Where these measures have not provided adequate protection, the legislature’s role in examining institutional performance, scrutinising the use of public resources, and seeking explanations for failures forms part of the wider process of holding the State accountable to the citizens it is responsible for protecting.