In Nigerian public life, governors can find themselves blamed for actions they neither authorised nor knew about, particularly when security officials or other subordinates act in the name of perceived loyalty.
The recent controversy in Maiduguri over five men arrested while wearing “Tinubu Must Go” T-shirts has once again raised questions about the political cost of overzealous officialdom.
The men were arrested around the West End Roundabout in Maiduguri on September 25 and later charged with allegations including criminal conspiracy, inciting disturbance, disturbance of public peace and thuggery.
The Borno State Police Command subsequently said the arrests were not based solely on the inscriptions on the shirts, claiming officers also recovered suspected cannabis, tablets, a shisha pot and other items from the suspects.
The controversy nevertheless triggered criticism directed at Governor Babagana Umara Zulum, amid perceptions that the arrests were connected to political dissent. The governor subsequently said he had learnt of the arrests on Friday morning, indicating that he was not behind the action.
That response raises a broader question about how governors are often associated with actions carried out by security agencies operating within their states, even where the governors may not have directly ordered those actions.
When Zeal Becomes a Liability
The Maiduguri controversy illustrates what can happen when officials attempt to demonstrate loyalty without sufficient regard for the political consequences of their actions.
For a governor, an incident involving the arrest of citizens over political expression can quickly become an issue of leadership and accountability, regardless of who authorised the operation. Once images, reports and allegations circulate, the administration is left to explain an action it may not have initiated.
The problem is not limited to political expression. It can arise whenever officials use excessive force, make questionable arrests or take decisions that appear politically motivated.
In such situations, what begins as an attempt to demonstrate loyalty can become an unnecessary political burden for the governor.
The Bago Experience
A similar question of responsibility arose in Niger State following the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC).
Governor Mohammed Umaru Bago confirmed the deaths and said the state government had not been informed about the arrests and detention of the miners. He subsequently established a commission of inquiry, while the Federal Government also constituted an independent committee to investigate the incident. Several NSCDC officers were suspended pending the outcome of the investigation.
The incident placed the state government at the centre of intense public concern, even though the deaths occurred in the custody of a federal security agency. Bago also called for stronger federal intervention on mining enforcement, citing limitations faced by the state government.
The circumstances surrounding the deaths remain subject to investigation, making it important to distinguish established facts from allegations about what caused the fatalities or who should ultimately be held responsible.
The Complicated Security Structure
Nigeria’s security structure makes accountability at the state level particularly complicated.
The Nigeria Police Force remains a federal institution, while the constitutional framework gives governors a role in matters of public safety and order, including the power to issue lawful directions to the Commissioner of Police subject to constitutional provisions. The issue of how much operational control governors should have over policing has remained a longstanding subject of constitutional and political debate.
Indeed, proposals to establish State Security Councils and alter the constitutional framework have been considered as part of Nigeria’s constitutional reform process, reflecting the continuing debate over the relationship between governors and federal security agencies.
This creates a difficult situation for governors. They are often expected by citizens to provide security and explain security failures, yet many of the agencies responsible for security operations remain under federal structures.
That gap between public expectation and operational authority can become especially damaging when an agency operating within a state makes a controversial decision.
Governors Must Set Clear Boundaries
Governors can reduce the risk of such crises by establishing clear expectations around the conduct of security agencies operating in their states.
At State Security Council meetings and other formal engagements with security commanders, governors can make their position clear on political neutrality, respect for citizens’ rights and lawful enforcement. Peaceful political expression should not automatically be treated as a security threat, while genuine criminal conduct should be handled through evidence and due process.
Governments also need effective channels for receiving early information when controversial arrests or security operations occur.
A governor should not learn about a major incident involving citizens in the state only after it has become a national controversy. Rapid communication between security commands, government officials and relevant citizen groups can help prevent misinformation and allow legitimate concerns to be addressed quickly.
Accountability Must Not Be Selective
Where security personnel cross the line, political leaders should demand accountability through the appropriate institutions rather than shielding officials for reasons of political convenience.
The objective should not be to weaken security agencies or prevent them from enforcing the law. Rather, it should be to ensure that enforcement remains lawful, proportionate and professionally conducted.
Officials who believe that excessive zeal will earn political favour may continue to take unnecessary risks unless institutions make clear that misconduct has consequences.
The Maiduguri controversy therefore offers a lesson that extends beyond Governor Zulum or the five men at the centre of the case. The Borno Police Command has presented its own account of the arrests, while the defendants’ case remains before the courts.
For governors, however, the political lesson is clear: they can be judged by actions they did not order, and the damage can be done long before the facts are fully established.
Zulum’s reported denial of involvement highlights the importance of responding quickly when an administration is associated with an action it did not authorise. More broadly, Nigeria’s public institutions need a culture in which professional responsibility is valued above performative loyalty.
Until that happens, governors may continue to spend valuable time explaining or containing controversies created by officials who believed they were helping.
