Prof. Charles Soludo, Governor, Anambra State.
Monday Iyke
The Anambra State Homeland Security Law 2025, recently passed by the State House of Assembly, has sparked significant debate. Designed to tackle insecurity in the state, the law comes amid rising crime rates and general lawlessness under Governor Charles Soludo’s administration. However, its timing, provisions, and implications suggest that the law may do more harm than good. While the intent to enhance security is commendable, the approach is fraught with critical flaws that could undermine its effectiveness and credibility.
• Flaws in the timing and context of the Law
The introduction of the Homeland Security Law, three years into Governor Soludo’s tenure, raises serious questions about its timing. During this period, Anambra State has experienced unprecedented levels of violence, including kidnappings, killings, and cult-related clashes. Despite these issues, the state’s leadership has been preoccupied with less pressing matters, such as burial laws and traditional title protocols.
This delayed and reactionary approach indicates a lack of strategic foresight. A more proactive security framework should have been in place earlier in the administration, addressing root causes rather than responding to symptoms.
• Constitutional conflicts and overreach
One of the most glaring issues with the Homeland Security Law is its conflict with the Nigerian Constitution.
• Quasi-Policing Powers: The law grants the Agunechemba security outfit powers to patrol, investigate, and make arrests—roles that are constitutionally reserved for the Nigeria Police Force. This duplication of functions creates legal ambiguities and potential conflicts between federal and state authorities.
• Warrantless Searches: Clause 5(5) allows security operatives to enter private residences without a warrant, violating constitutional rights to privacy (Section 37) and property (Section 44). This provision undermines the rule of law and exposes citizens to arbitrary intrusions.
Such overreach not only risks legal challenges but also erodes public trust in the government’s ability to uphold fundamental rights.
Economic Implications and Investor Confidence. The law’s stringent penalties and compliance requirements pose significant economic risks.
• Harsh Penalties: For instance, landlords face fines of up to ₦5 million for failing to comply with certain provisions, such as verifying tenant information. These excessive fines could discourage investment in real estate and hospitality.
• Uncertainty and Fear: The provision allowing property forfeiture based on alleged criminal links creates an environment of fear and unpredictability. Such measures deter property ownership and development, especially when forfeitures are based on unproven allegations.
The broader economic impact includes a chilling effect on entrepreneurship and tourism, portraying Anambra as an unfriendly environment for business. This could drive investors to other states with more business-friendly policies.
• Overburdening Citizens and Community Leaders
Several provisions of the law place unrealistic demands on citizens, community leaders, and business operators.
• Community Leaders: Clause 13 mandates monthly security reports from community leaders. This is impractical and diverts their focus from more pressing responsibilities in their communities.
• Landlords and Hoteliers: Clause 14 requires landlords and hotel operators to collect and verify detailed personal information about tenants and guests. Additionally, they are expected to install surveillance cameras, an expensive and logistically challenging requirement, particularly for rural areas and small businesses.
These burdensome provisions risk alienating the very stakeholders whose cooperation is crucial for effective security enforcement.
Cultural Insensitivity and Public Perception
The law fails to respect Anambra’s rich cultural heritage, particularly through Clause 18, which criminalizes traditional practices involving charms.
While some practices may raise security concerns, a blanket ban alienates local communities and disregards their cultural values. This insensitivity could foster resentment and reduce public cooperation with security measures.
A more inclusive approach, incorporating local traditions and engaging community leaders, would yield better results in fostering trust and collaboration.
Risk of Abuse and Political Exploitation
The expansive powers granted to the Agunechemba security outfit and the Governor’s supervisory committee heighten the risk of abuse:
Arbitrary Profiling: Vague terms like “questionable character” (Clause 5(4)) open the door for subjective interpretations, leading to wrongful arrests and harassment.
Political Intimidation: With the Governor’s control over the security outfit, there is a significant risk of the law being used to target political opponents or dissenters, particularly during election periods.
Lack of Oversight: Provisions allowing for detention, property searches, and asset confiscations without sufficient safeguards expose citizens to potential extortion and abuse of power.
To avoid these pitfalls, the law requires robust oversight mechanisms to ensure fairness and accountability.
• Lack of Accountability and Oversight Mechanisms
A major shortcoming of the Homeland Security Law is the absence of effective oversight structures.
• Inadequate Review Processes: While the Attorney General is empowered to review certain cases (Clause 17), this measure is insufficient to prevent potential abuses by Agunechemba operatives.
• Citizen Vulnerability: Without independent oversight bodies to monitor the operations of the security outfit, citizens are left vulnerable to injustice and abuse.
To inspire public confidence, the law must incorporate stringent accountability measures, such as independent review boards or ombudsman services.
• Recommendations for Improvement
To address the identified flaws and enhance the law’s effectiveness, the following steps are necessary.
• Constitutional Alignment
Redefine the role of Agunechemba to focus on intelligence gathering and community collaboration rather than duplicating federal policing functions.
• Simplify Compliance
Revise requirements for landlords, hotels, and community leaders to make them more practical and affordable.
• Support Economic Growth
Reduce punitive measures, such as fines and property forfeiture, to encourage investment and entrepreneurship.
• Incorporate Cultural Sensitivity
Engage with local communities to ensure that security measures respect cultural values while addressing legitimate concerns.
•Strengthen Oversight Mechanisms Establish independent bodies to monitor Agunechemba’s activities, ensuring transparency and accountability.
• Ensure Non-Partisan Enforcement Introduce safeguards to prevent political misuse of the security outfit, ensuring impartial and fair operations.
• Conclusion
The Anambra State Homeland Security Law, 2025, is a bold attempt to address insecurity but is fundamentally flawed in its design and execution. Without substantial amendments, it risks infringing on constitutional rights, damaging the economy, and undermining public trust. For the law to achieve its intended goals, a more inclusive, balanced, and transparent approach is essential. By addressing its shortcomings, the government can foster a secure and stable environment that supports both development and democratic principles.
