The Aminchi Center for Social Defense and Community Development on Wednesday criticized the 14-day ultimatum issued by the Concern for Muslim rights (MURIC) to the Minister of Defence, General Christopher Gwabin Musa (rtd), over the worsening insecurity in Sokoto State.
MURIC, through its CEO, Professor Ishaq Akintola, had demanded that the Defense Minister “stop the killings” in Sokoto within 14 days or resign.
Reacting to a statement titled “MURIC’s 14-day ultimatum: A call for accountability, not scapegoating”, the President and CEO of the Aminchi Centre, Brahim Abdullahi Shuni, said that while MURIC had every right to demand protection for Nigerians, its decision to single out the Minister of Defense did not recognize the constitutional and institutional security structure of the country.
Shuni said the Federal Ministry of Defense was a complex institution involving civil administrative structures, the Defense Headquarters, the Nigerian Army, the Nigerian Navy, the Nigerian Air Force and other defense institutions.
He argued that it was therefore misleading to present the Minister as someone who personally commands every soldier or who has the unilateral power to prevent every attack across the country.
“National security is a system. It requires the coordinated efforts of the Presidency, the Armed Forces, the Police, intelligence agencies, state governments, local governments, traditional institutions, communities and citizens,” he stated.
According to him, the Defense Minister is responsible for defense policy, strategic direction, supervision, resource mobilization, procurement, administration, welfare and institutional coordination, but is not the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
He cited Article 218 of the 1999 Constitution, which, according to the declaration, grants the President, as Commander in Chief, the power to determine the operational use of the Armed Forces and to appoint the Chief of the Defense Staff and the Service Chiefs.
Shuni said that, consequently, the responsibility of addressing insecurity should not be reduced to a single individual.
He also challenged MURIC and other civil society organizations to complement their criticism of the government with concrete contributions to address insecurity.
“Criticism must be accompanied by constructive accountability,” he said, asking what intelligence MURIC had provided to security agencies, how many criminal networks it had helped expose and how many communities it had mobilized for early warning mechanisms.
The group also questioned why the MURIC ultimatum was directed only at the Defense Minister and not the broader security architecture, including the president, service chiefs, police, intelligence agencies, state government, local governments, community leaders and citizens.
“If MURIC truly believes that insecurity is a national emergency, then the logical response cannot be to isolate a member of a much larger security architecture and threaten him with resignation,” Shuni said.
He warned that such an approach could turn a national security crisis into “a political or personality contest.”
READ ALSO: 2027: NASFAT accuses politicians of being accountable and conducting peaceful campaigns
However, the Aminchi Center stressed that its position should not be interpreted as opposition to accountability.
Shuni said the Defense Minister, the Armed Forces and other security agencies must be held accountable for the responsibilities legally assigned to them, but insisted that such accountability must be based on law, facts, institutional accountability and measurable performance.
He also described as unrealistic MURIC’s demand that Sokoto be made “impregnable and impregnable” within 14 days.
“No serious security professional can responsibly guarantee that no terrorist, bandit or criminal will attack a particular location within a specific period,” he said.
Instead, he said security performance should be assessed by improvements in intelligence gathering, preventing attacks, degrading criminal networks, rescuing victims, protecting vulnerable communities, prosecuting criminals and strengthening the national security architecture.
The organization called on MURIC to consider constructive engagement with the Ministry of Defense and other security institutions, including support for community intelligence, early warning systems, cooperation between religious leaders and security agencies, support for victims and efforts to discourage the recruitment and glorification of criminals.
Shuni further defended General Musa, describing him as “a son of the soil of the headquarters of the Caliphate” who spent much of his early life in the area and had contributed to the development of the community.
He said the appropriate response to insecurity was stronger intelligence, better coordination, adequate resources, effective leadership, professional military operations, community cooperation, responsible governance and citizen participation.
“Therefore, General Christopher Gwabin Musa must be judged by the responsibilities assigned to his office, the resources available to him, the constitutional chain of command and measurable results, not by an artificial 14-day ultimatum issued by a civil society organization,” he said.
The center also maintained that MURIC had the right to express its opinion but lacked constitutional authority to determine the tenure of a federal minister.
According to Shuni, the appointment and dismissal of ministers remains within the purview of the President and the constitutional processes of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
He concluded by urging Nigerians to move the debate from blame to collective responsibility.
“Therefore, the real challenge facing all Nigerians is not ‘Who should we blame?’ It is about ‘What can each of us do to help Nigeria defeat terrorism, banditry, kidnapping and violent crime?’”
“Safety is everyone’s business,” he added.
WATCH THE BEST VIDEOS FROM Newslodge TV