| Advertisement |
Ahmed Makarfi, former Caretaker Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, has called for the restructuring of security agencies in Nigeria.
The former Governor of Kaduna State said institutions of government, including security agencies
must be restructured to serve Nigerians rather than leaders and politicians.
Speaking in Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital, the PDP presidential aspirant also noted that there was nothing wrong with restructuring Nigeria “as long as the foundations are not tampered with”.According to Makarfi, “The way Nigerian institutions operate currently, they only serve the interest of the leaders to the detriment of the citizens.
“If you look at the armed forces, police, customs and other agencies of government, they always serve the interest of the leaders and carry out orders whether lawful or unlawful.
“The armed forces should be more interested in defending the territorial integrity of Nigeria rather than elections. The police will also favour those in power. Customs will clear goods as long as there are instructions from the political leaders. These institutions should be serving the the people. All Nigerians must be equal before the law. That is one restructuring of the institutions that must be done.”Makarfi said the question of Nigeria’s unity had remained unsettled because “leadership over time has failed to genuinely address issues of particular concern to some of our compatriots, you still hear agitations here and there”.
He added, “I believe we must not run away from discussing issues that concern one and all of us. We must not be afraid to talk to one another.Good a thing that the agitations do not revolve around the dismemberment of the nation but rather on how to make our union stronger, more functional and inclusive.“I believe that since no human enterprise is perfect, it is always in order to periodically take a look at the structures of our country with a view to strengthening would cause no harm, so long as the work is the product of a national consensus.”
0 comments: