A coalition of civil society organizations, CSOs, in the country have rejected the Nigerian Coast Guard Bill currently before the National Assembly.
The CSOs, under the aegis of Coalition in Support of National Security Advancement (CSNSA), at a press conference in Abuja, warned that the bill would lead to proliferation of armed forces in Nigeria, a situation which they said could escalate insecurity in the country.
The CSOs also argued that the bill is an attempt to amend the Nigerian Constitution through the backdoor by creating another arm of the Armed Forces.
In rejecting the bill, the CSOs raised concerns over security, economic and constitutional implications of the proposed legislation.
Address journalists through its leaders, Okwa Dan and Bilal Abdullahi, the CSNSA warned of the economic burden of establishing a Coast Guard which would require significant funding, potentially diverting resources from the Nigerian Navy.
Furthermore, the CSNSA stressed that the proposed Coast Guard contradicts the provisions of Section 217 of the Nigerian Constitution, which recognizes only the Army, Navy and Air Force as branches of the Armed Forces.
Rather than establishing a the proposed Coastal Guards, the CSNSA said the Nigerian Navy should be strengthened, and a civilian-controlled maritime agency created to handle non-military duties.
Calling on the National Assembly to jettison the bill, the CSOs said the legislation was not in the best interest of Nigerians.
Parts of the statement read, “We call upon President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the National Assembly leadership to carefully consider the demands of our country’s present security, economic realities, and constitutional obligations.
“Several important issues have been brought to light by our thorough analysis of the Coast Guard Bill as well as observations from regional and global perspectives.
“However, the Nigerian Navy’s function and responsibility overlap is one of the main problems. It is noteworthy to start that, International acclaim has been given to the Nigerian Navy for its successful management of marine security, which includes law enforcement, counter-piracy, and hydrographic services.
“Moreover, establishing a new Coast Guard can lead to potential jurisdictional conflicts and operational inefficiencies; examples from the US, UK, and South Africa show how different duties might prevent such overlaps. Nigeria’s unique resources and structure, however, don’t seem well adapted to implementing this distinct strategy exemplified by these countries, considering Nigeria’s present effort in stabilizing the economy.
“The proposed Coast Guard Bill has been observed to bring up issues of command organization and constitutionality. The Nigerian Constitution’s Section 217 recognizes only the Army, Navy, and Air Force as branches of the Armed Forces.
“Thus, creating a second military duty would necessitate constitutional amendments, and could create legal ambiguities. Unity of command is essential during emergencies, and military service under a civilian ministry may make this more difficult.
“Furthermore, we discovered that the costly burden of building a Coast Guard is exacerbated by Nigeria’s economic constraints. To put it in perspective, the U.S. Coast Guard spends more than $13 billion a year. It seems like a more effective and long-term option would be to use these funds to bolster the Nigerian Navy.
“Additionally, the Coalition in Support of National Security and Advancement believes that the proposed Coast Guard under the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy would create a complex administrative structure that could lead to inefficiencies.
“Specific security requirements that might not fit into a single framework are being addressed by each agency, and thus operational inefficiencies may also result from the Coast Guard’s administrative complexity when placed under the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy.
“Under the Ministry of Defense, military services typically need a rigid chain of command. A civilian-led command structure for a military service could result in contradictory orders, compromising Nigeria’s ability to respond timely to security threats. Rather than strengthening security, the Coast Guard, as proposed, may exacerbate threats.
“Given these worries, we humbly request that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the National Assembly consider increasing the support to the Nigerian Navy as a step which would be a practical way to improve maritime security without adding more red tape.
“Secondly, Nigeria would be able to handle non-military duties more effectively, openly, and responsibly if civilian control for non-military maritime functions were given priority. For a better replacement for establishing a Military Coast Guard, Nigeria might set up a civilian-run organization to manage tasks like environmental protection, customs enforcement, and search and rescue.
“In addition to avoiding duplication of Navy operations, this strategy would be in line with global best practices. Finally, it is crucial to adhere to constitutional limits by making sure that any reorganization of Nigeria’s maritime security does not conflict with the 1999 Constitution.”
The Nigerian Coast Guard Bill, sponsored by Senator Wasiu Eshilokun (APC-Lagos), seeks to, among other objectives, establish the Nigerian Coast Guard to be charged with the responsibility of securing maritime zones within Nigeria.
The bill has already scaled second reading in the Nigerian Senate.
CSOs reject Coastal Guards Bill, warn against proliferation of armed forces in Nigeria
