Odita Sunday 
Selective Security Policy: HURIWA Questions Tinubu Over Alleged Different Rules for Armed Groups
By Odita Sunday
The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria has challenged the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to explain what it described as apparent double standards in the Federal Government’s handling of non-state security actors across the country.
In a statement signed by its National Coordinator, Emmanuel Onwubiko, the rights advocacy group said it was raising “urgent alarm” over what it called emerging contradictions in official responses to armed or quasi-security formations allegedly linked to different ethnic and regional interests.
HURIWA noted that while successive administrations, including the current APC-led government, have continued military operations against alleged IPOB-linked vigilante formations in the South-East, resulting in arrests, proscription and detention of suspects, there were reports suggesting different treatment for similar groups in other parts of the country.
The association specifically referenced public claims attributed to Yoruba Nation activist, Sunday Adeyemo, popularly known as Sunday Igboho, alleging that he had been approved or licensed to operate a private security network.
”We are particularly alarmed by public claims credited to Yoruba Nation activist, Sunday Adeyemo (Sunday Igboho), that he has been ‘approved’ or licensed to operate a private security network. We also recall similar controversies surrounding alleged state tolerance or patronage of other regional armed formations in different parts of the country,” the group said.
HURIWA questioned what it described as selective security approval and asked whether Nigeria was operating a system in which some groups were criminalised while others were allegedly tolerated.
”HURIWA is therefore compelled to ask: is Nigeria now operating a system of selective justice and selective security approval? Are some citizens now more equal before the law than others?” it asked.
The group further argued that if IPOB-linked vigilante formations were dismantled and criminalised on national security grounds, government must explain the legal basis for allegedly tolerating or endorsing other privately organised armed formations.
According to HURIWA, such perceived contradictions could deepen ethnic suspicion, erode public trust in federal institutions and weaken confidence in the impartiality of the Nigerian state.
The association maintained that there was no constitutional provision permitting the arbitrary licensing of private armies or ethnic militias and condemned what it described as policy inconsistency in the treatment of security-related groups.
It also referenced the continued detention of Nnamdi Kanu, stating that concerns remained over what it termed differing treatment of individuals accused of comparable offences.
HURIWA demanded clarification from President Tinubu and the Federal Government on whether any private security outfit had been officially licensed outside the statutory framework of Nigerian security agencies, the legal basis for such approval, the criteria used in determining which groups were acceptable and the status of all non-state armed or quasi-security formations operating nationwide.
”We warn that continued ambiguity on this matter is dangerous to national unity and security cohesion. Nigeria cannot afford a situation where the law is applied selectively depending on geography, ethnicity, or political convenience,” the group stated.
About the Author
