By Comr. Preye V. Tambou.
26th March, 20261.
1. The sudden agitation for “decentralisation” of pipeline surveillance is not a policy argument but power argument disguised as reform. Those leading the charge, the like of Ateke Tom, Boyloaf, Shoot-at-Sight, and others are not demanding a superior security model, transparent bidding, or evidence-based restructuring. What they are demanding is redistribution of a Federal security contract to themselves. That alone invalidates the moral posture of the campaign. Public policy is not reshaped to appease personal grievances, settle old rivalries, or pacify expired militant hierarchies. No serious government trades national energy security for political convenience.
2. Pipeline surveillance is a Federal security assignment, not an ethnic inheritance. The Constitution vests ownership of crude oil in the Federal Republic, not in tribes, kingdoms, or ex-militant blocs. Surveillance is therefore a service contract executed for the Nigerian State, not a communal cake or Christmas rice to be shared according to past agitation, ethnicity, or traditional titles. This is why the Navy is not decentralized to clans, Air Force is not distributed by senatorial district, and DSS operations are not fragmented for “equity.” Fragmentation weakens the State; centralization strengthens it.
3. The argument that “one man cannot control Ijaw land” collapses upon contact with fact. Tantita does not control Ijaw land; it controls criminality, oil theft and pipeline saboteur. It does not govern territory; it protects infrastructure. It does not manage communities; it manages threats. The rhetoric of conquest is therefore emotional blackmail, designed to provoke ethnic sentiments and mobilize public anger where none is justified.
4. The decentralisation being demanded is a security disaster waiting to happen. Breaking surveillance into multiple militant fiefdoms will multiply extortion points, complicate intelligence gathering, encourage rival armed structures, and return the Niger Delta to a competitive militarized economy. Nigeria’s energy backbone cannot be policed by a patchwork of competing groups who may use pipeline access as leverage during election cycles. No country protects strategic national assets by balkanizing security into the hands of multiple armed actors with divergent loyalties. No oil-producing nation runs fragmented pipeline security – not Saudi Arabia, UAE, Angola, Brazil, Mexico – only a unified command works.
5. The claim that “collective wealth” is being handed to one family is emotional manipulation, not economic logic. Pipeline surveillance is not wealth distribution; it is a performance-driven service. If the contract were handed to any of the agitators today, they would instantly redefine it as “merit,” not collective wealth. This exposes the argument as situational morality – anger only when someone else is the beneficiary. Selective outrage is not justice; it is jealousy with a megaphone.
6. Nigeria cannot afford sentimental restructuring in its most delicate revenue sector. Before the current surveillance architecture took shape, the nation was losing hundreds of thousands of barrels daily. Production had collapsed. Refinery supply was sabotaged. Illegal bunkering thrived. General instability was costing Nigeria billions monthly. Successive reforms, including Tantita’s intervention, reversed the trend. Where progress exists, the responsible government consolidates, not experiments.
7. The loud calls for decentralisation are not accompanied by any evidence that the current model is failing. None of the agitators has produced data showing a rise in vandalism, pipeline breaches, or oil theft under the current arrangement, instead, the argument is built entirely on feelings: “We contributed to the struggle,” “We deserve our share,” “We cannot be left out.” Struggle participation is not a qualification for national security outsourcing. Emotional entitlement is not evidence.
8. Those crying for decentralisation were silent during years when other firms controlled surveillance with minimal accountability. They did not challenge OMS under Captain Hosa Okunbo. They did not dispute PINL. They did not demand equity or decentralisation then. The sudden moral awakening only emerged the moment an Ijaw-owned structure achieved unprecedented success. This inconsistency exposes motive, not principle.
9. The government must not reward blackmail disguised as advocacy. A State that bends to pressure from loud voices without evidence becomes a State governed by intimidation. Today it is pipeline surveillance; tomorrow it will be the Navy, Customs, or NIMASA. A country that allows security contracts to be shared like chieftaincy titles will never know stability.
10. Criticism is legitimate; destabilization is not. Anyone with evidence of corruption, inefficiency, or abuse should submit it to the EFCC, National Assembly committees, or the Presidency. What is unacceptable is the attempt to weaponize ethnic anger, historical romanticism, and personal relevance in order to dismantle a system that is working better than any before it. The call for decentralisation is not a call for reform; it is a demand for compensation. Governance must rise above that.
11. True reform would focus on measurable metrics: transparency, oversight, youth inclusion, subcontracting frameworks, community engagement, and periodic review of efficiency. None of these require dismantling the current architecture. Only those who seek to inherit the system rather than improve it demand cancellation and fragmentation.
12. The Niger Delta cannot afford a return to chaos disguised as equity. The region has suffered enough like military raids, destroyed communities, burnt homes, economic exclusion, and lost generations. Amnesty was the bridge out of that era. Pipeline surveillance, structured correctly, is part of the post-conflict stabilization architecture. To scatter it recklessly is to reopen old wounds and ignite new rivalries.
13. Nigeria must choose competence over sentiment, performance over envy, and stability over reactionary agitation. Government cannot abandon a working model simply because a few influential voices crave relevance ahead of 2027. National assets must be protected by those who have proven capacity, not those who shout the loudest.
14. The real debate is not about decentralisation but discomfort with Ijaw economic ascendancy. It is not about fairness but fear. It is not about inclusion but control. The Nigerian State must see through the haze of propaganda and stand firmly with what works, not with what pacifies.
In the end, the truth is simple and immovable: Nigeria cannot sabotage a working security architecture to soothe bruised egos, reward threatened influence, or appease noisy factions seeking a return to the old order. No responsible nation dismantles what is delivering results to experiment with what has already failed. The loudest voices in this debate have offered no superior model, data, evidence, and national-security justification, only entitlement, nostalgia, and personal grievance. A government that abandons performance for appeasement is a government preparing for collapse. Therefore, the call for decentralisation must be rejected firmly, finally, and without apology. National security is not a negotiable favour, and the protection of Nigeria’s pipelines cannot be subjected to ethnic bidding, militant nostalgia, or political desperation. The only path forward is to strengthen what works, audit what needs improvement, and ignore those who mistake personal ambition for public policy. Any other choice is a journey back to darkness, one the Niger Delta and Nigeria cannot afford to repeat.
