28th March 2026
By Comr. Preye V. Tambou
Nigeria is again confronted with a dangerous and recurring temptation: the attempt to politicize national security, ethnicize performance, and fragment a system that “despite imperfections” is delivering outcomes that were impossible under previous models. The renewed call for decentralisation of the pipeline and oil-and-gas surveillance architecture is not only misguided, it is strategically reckless and fundamentally inconsistent with the logic of a modern State. What Nigeria needs today is institutional strengthening, not sentimental fragmentation; operational coherence, not security balkanization; national interest, not political appeasement.
Those calling for decentralisation have built their argument on political emotion, historical entitlement, and electoral fear, not on national-security logic, data, or the constitutional responsibilities of the Nigerian State.
- National Security Cannot Be Fragmented to Soothe Political Anxiety
No country in the world divides its critical national security architecture among competing factions because of electoral cycles or local grievances. The military is not decentralised. The Navy is not decentralised. Intelligence operations are not decentralised. Border control is not decentralised. Even the police, which are closest to communities, function under unified command principles because the State understands the catastrophic consequences of multiple power centres in a security chain.
Pipeline surveillance – because it intersects with terrorism financing, transnational crime, international relations, and national fiscal stability – belongs firmly within this category.
To fragment this system is to create operational chaos, expand sabotage corridors, multiply points of compromise, and invite inter-operator rivalry that criminals will exploit instantly. Calling for decentralisation because of politics is equivalent to asking the Nigerian Air Force to share territorial surveillance with ethnic leaders because elections are approaching. It is unserious, unsafe, and unworthy of a nation struggling to protect its last functioning economic asset.
- Oil Production Decline Is Not Caused by Surveillance Centralization
Nigeria’s production challenges are multi-layered: aging infrastructure, theft in upstream clusters, pipeline integrity failures, OPEC restrictions, underinvestment from IOCs, and slow regulatory responses. To blame these national structural challenges on a single surveillance contractor is intellectually dishonest.
This is the same mistake repeated for decades: ignore the systemic issues, attack the unit that is easiest to scapegoat, and pretend decentralisation will magically restore output. It will not. Oil production rises when infrastructure is upgraded, reservoirs are properly managed, sabotage is deterred, illegal refineries are disrupted, and security coordination is coherent. A fragmented model can achieve none of these.
- Decentralisation Will Create a Security Marketplace for Criminals
Those pushing for decentralisation claim it will create “mutual oversight.” That is false. It will create mutual sabotage, that is, a competitive battlefield where operators undermine each other to justify expansion. This is exactly how illegal bunkering networks thrived for twenty years: multiple armed actors, conflicting interests, and overlapping territorial claims, each exploiting the other’s weaknesses.
Under a decentralised surveillance model, operators will blame each other, criminals will infiltrate weaker corridors, communities will be militarised by rival factions, and the government will lose central command and accountability. The result will not be oversight. The result will be a perfect storm of conflict and criminality.
- Elections Must Never Dictate Security Architecture
A new and extremely dangerous argument has emerged: that pipeline surveillance must be decentralised to align with electoral interests ahead of 2027. This is political blackmail disguised as policy advice.
Security architecture cannot and must never be redesigned to accommodate electoral calculations. Any President who allows elections to dictate national security will destroy the country he seeks to govern. The military does not share command because of elections. Intelligence structures do not rotate because of elections. Critical infrastructure protection must remain insulated from political desperation.
Those urging the President to fragment security for political convenience are inviting national disaster.
- Stakeholder Inclusion Is Important But It Cannot Replace Performance
Nigeria must continue engaging all Niger Delta ethnic groups, leaders, and communities. Inclusion is desirable and necessary but inclusion is not a substitute for performance. National security contracts are not ethnic compensation schemes; they are performance-driven responsibilities awarded to entities with operational reach, credible intelligence networks, local legitimacy, and measurable outcomes.
If decentralisation is truly about inclusion, then inclusion must be built within the existing structure, not through dismantling a functioning system to satisfy personal ambition.
- The Real Threat to Stability Is Not Centralization But Entitlement
The most destabilizing narrative circulating today is that surveillance contracts belong to ethnic groups or historical “stakeholders.” This sense of entitlement disguised as justice is far more dangerous than any centralization.
Pipeline surveillance is a Federal responsibility, not an ethnic inheritance. Those who argue that decentralisation is the “only way” are not defending the Niger Delta; they are defending their personal political irrelevance and masking it as regional agitation.
Nigeria cannot continue rewarding entitlement politics over performance. That is how nations collapse.
- Reform What Is Imperfect But Do Not Destroy What Works
No system is perfect. Every security architecture needs oversight, transparency, and periodic audits. The Senate investigation should continue. Data should be published. Contracts should be performance-reviewed. Communities should be engaged but dismantling the only functioning structure Nigeria has had in decades is not reform. It is regression.
A decentralized model failed before. A fragmented system enabled theft. Multiple operators created chaos. The nation is still recovering from that era. History has already delivered its verdict. Repeating failure is not policy. It is sabotage.
- The State Must Not Bow to Sentimental Agitation
Nigeria stands at a crucial crossroads. The loudest voices demanding decentralisation have not provided a superior security alternative. They have not provided a technical blueprint. They have not offered an operational command structure. They have not demonstrated readiness for unified accountability. They have offered only one thing: pressure rooted in political anxiety.
The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria must never restructure national security architecture under threat, pressure, or emotional agitation. Leadership requires wisdom to distinguish between reform and regression.
Nigeria must strengthen what works, audit what must be improved, expand inclusion intelligently, and reject all calls to fragment the nation’s most sensitive security system. Any President who centralizes for performance is wise. Any President who decentralizes for politics is courting disaster. Security is not politics. National survival is not a negotiation. Nigeria cannot afford to gamble with the pipelines again.
