In what was a strong departure from centuries-old tradition, President Trump boarded the Air Force One, few hours before the inauguration ceremony on January 20 and headed for his home in Florida, bringing an end to a tumultuous four years in office. Trump`s decision to not attend the inauguration of his successor certainly did not come as a surprise to many, considering his claims of election fraud since the results of the election were announced. The decision fit his persona and certainly pleased his base who had largely bought the claim that the election was “stolen”. But while this bold claim and the resulting drama, including the violent assault on the US capitol on January 6, will remain a dent on Trump`s legacy, countries like Nigeria whose democracies are still infantile must look at important lessons that can be learned from the disputes that emanated from the US general elections.

To object to the outcome of an election on the belief that human or technical errors helped to change the overall outcome is one thing; to claim that an election was intentionally rigged in favor of one candidate is another. The latter was Trump`s claim which in itself calls into question the legitimacy of American institutions saddled with the onerous responsibility of ensuring elections are always free and fair. Trump, of course, had a right to raise any objection—no matter how spurious— to the outcome of the election as long as he was within legal boundaries. The former Republican president, George Bush, touched on this point in his congratulatory message to Biden when he stated that “Trump has a legal right to request recounts and pursue legal challenges, and any unresolved issues will be properly adjudicated.” However, he did not hesitate to point out his belief that the “American people can have confidence that this election was fundamentally fair…and its outcome is clear.”

But instead of vigorously pursuing legal challenges and hoping for a favorable outcome, Trump decided to start a whole new campaign centered around the outrageous claim that the election was stolen, and at a point, even declared himself to have won the election. His actions seemed not to have any parallels in US history and all but few of his fanatical supporters saw no merit in the claims. Aided by his allies in the right-wing media, Trump began a fierce battle to overturn the outcome of the 2020 general elections. As the legal challenges continued to be thrown out in state courts for essentially having no merits, Trump’s desperation grew to new heights.

What could pass as the biggest moment of the fiasco came when the US Supreme Court refused to entertain the lawsuit filed by Texas against other so-called battleground states where Trump had lost by narrow margins. Prior to that moment, Trump was probably under the illusion that the three Supreme Court justices he had managed to appoint would somehow help his cause if the elections resulted in litigations that wound up in the apex court. But he was terribly disappointed because as it turned out, all three Trump appointees, including Justice Barrett whom he had fought a highly contentious last-minute battle to “install” few weeks before the election, sided with the majority in ruling that the state of Texas had not “demonstrated any cognizable judicial interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”

Trump lambasted the Court after the decision was made, claiming that it “lacked courage” and had “let down” all Americans. In the same vein, he either fired or threatened to fire cabinet members or federal employees who did not propagate the claim of a “stolen” election. Christopher Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, an agency which in Trump`s own words was to ensure “that [the US] confronts the full range of threats from nation states, cyber criminals, and other malicious actors of which there are many,” was dismissed for his howbeit sarcastic claim that the 2020 election was the freest and fairest in US history. Not long thereafter, Trump`s attorney general, William Barr, was “forced” to resign after he made it clear that he believed “there was no evidence of widespread electoral fraud” during the 2020 elections.

The events from November 3 to Inauguration Day could have made the United States resemble any third world nation. “Stop the Steal” marches were organized across the country by Trump supporters who had decided without any shred of evidence that the election had truly been stolen. The president was of course quite patronizing of the events and in one instance drove through the marches with his motorcade to show his support. At the other end of the spectrum, a handful of Republican lawmakers were already threatening to object to the certification of the results on January 6. And when Trump supporters began clashing with left-wing “counter-protesters” during the marches, political violence seemed quite inevitable.

Somewhere in the whole drama, it is believed that Trump expected “loyalty” from fellow Republicans in his bid to overturn the results of the election. But Republican leaders like Senator Mitch McConnell seemed to have accepted the outcome of the result by offering their best wishes to Biden while Trump was spouting conspiracies. Not surprisingly, Trump turned to Republican lawmakers who controlled the houses in certain battleground states, as well as election officials, in his desperate attempt to remain in power. The meeting which he held in secret with state lawmakers from Georgia generated a huge backlash from within and without. But the lawmakers told news outlets afterwards that though the meeting with the president was routine, they had made it clear to him they would respect “the will of the people” by certifying the results in Georgia.

Something even more scandalous than Trump`s clandestine meeting with Georgia lawmakers occurred on January 2, four days before the certification of the election results by Congress. In a leaked phone call, the president could be heard telling Georgia`s top election official, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, that all he wanted was “to find 11780 votes” just enough to eclipse Biden’s narrow win in the state of Georgia. Raffensperger had voted for Trump in the election and reportedly contributed to his campaign, but when faced with intimidation from the president as he described it, he simply chose duty over loyalty. He completely dismissed Trump`s outlandish claim that 5000 dead persons voted for Biden in Georgia, insisting the number was just 2 and that investigations were ongoing to unravel the identities of the impersonators. This, of course, was not to be the last of Trump`s misfortunes.

There is certainly no doubt that Trump believed that if all else failed, his vice president Mike Pence would somehow manage to keep him in power. He thought that since the vice president was charged with the constitutional responsibility of counting the electoral votes before they are certified by Congress, he could manage to “block” votes from “fraudulent states.” Speaking at a rally in Georgia, he made it quite clear that he “hopes that Mike Pence comes through for us…he is a great guy of course. If he doesn’t come through, I won’t like him quite as much.”

Pence`s letter to congress on January 6, at first, seemed to pander to Trump`s wishes. He stated that “after an election with significant allegations of voting irregularities and numerous instances of state officials setting aside state electoral law, I share the concerns of millions of Americans concerning the integrity of the election.” He went further to assert that as presiding officer he was going to “ensure that the concerns receive a fair and open hearing in the Congress of the United States…Objections will be heard, evidence will be presented, and the elected representatives of the American people will make their decision.”

But in a sharp twist, he stated that given the controversy surrounding the election, some have come to erroneously believe—probably alluding to Trump and his legal and media allies—that the vice president should be able to unilaterally accept or reject electoral votes. He was quick to debunk the notion, pointing out that all through US history no vice president had ever asserted such authority and that, indeed, any such move would be antithetical to the spirit of the constitution. And in what was the final nail to the coffin of Trump’s highly improbable dreams, Pence declared that his oath to support and defend the constitution constrained him from claiming unilateral authority over what votes should and should not be counted.

In a stern rebuke of Pence, Trump roared that the vice president “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our constitution, giving states to certify a corrected set of facts and not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to certify.” Having exhausted all “legal” options at this point, President Trump embarked on what would become the defining moment of his presidency.

On January 6, few hours before the joint session of Congress would meet to certify the result of the election, Trump gave a speech at a “Save America” rally near the White House—a speech that would later be termed an “incitement to insurrection”, resulting in the resignation of some of his cabinet members. In the speech, Trump charged his supporters not to “give up” or “concede” since “theft was involved” in the election. “We will not take it anymore…we will stop the steal…we won [the election] by a landslide…we didn’t lose,” he thundered. Taking aim at the vice president once again, he continued: “all vice president Pence has to do is send [the electoral votes] back to the states to recertify and [I] become the president and you are the happiest people.”

Turning to the Supreme Court, President Trump made no secret of his unhappiness: “They love to rule against me. I picked three people. I fought like hell for them…and they couldn’t give a damn…but it almost seems they are going out of their way to hurt all of us and to hurt our country.” And at the end of his protracted speech, Trump urged his followers to “fight.” “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you are not going to have a country anymore…and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give [weak Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country,” he boomed.

But just about the time the president finished his speech, an attack on the United States Capitol, where lawmakers had convened to formally certify the results of the election in favor of Joe Biden, had already commenced. Hundreds of Trump supporters had breached the Capitol, giving way to lawlessness, looting, and destruction of property. In the violence that erupted, five persons including a police officer lost their lives. While the families mourned the loss of their loved ones, the rest of the country scrambled to make sense of what had occurred. And as expected, the debate of whether or not President Trump was responsible for the violent attack on the Capitol will continue for a long time despite him being acquitted by the Senate on the charge of “incitement to insurrection”.

Meanwhile, Trump, in his rather unapologetic farewell speech on January 19, disowned the “rioters and looters” who stormed the US Capitol claiming they “do not represent [the] country,” and that they “would pay.” He did not, however, shrink from praising the “patriots” who had come to the rally to “peacefully” make their voices heard. The seeming insensitivity in his utterances certainly did not help the cause of “repairing” his image, but he seemed not to care.

And no matter what one might think of Trump and his last days in office, there is no question that he made for a good test of the strength of American institutions—institutions that proved wholly capable of checking one man`s lust for power. And as Andre Perry of the Brookings Institution noted: “Win or lose, Trump was the mirror that America needed.” He was right.

The recent saga of the defection of Governor David Umahi of Ebony State to the All Progressives Congress (APC) should rekindle the debate on the so-called “cross-carpeting” in Nigerian politics. Switching of political parties in Nigeria is not something new. In 1951, some members of the Nigerian Council of Nigeria and Cameroon (NCNC) defected to the Action Group led by Obafemi Awolowo. The move was a calculated attempt to deprive Nnamdi Azikiwe and the NCNC of having the majority in the Western Regional House of Assembly at the time. It was believed that the move was birthed by the ethnic tension in the NCNC and an attempt by one ethnic group to resist what was perceived as ‘foreign domination’ by another although this has sometimes been dismissed as a misconception. Nevertheless, it set the stage for the kind of political manoeuvring that continues to dominate Nigeria`s political landscape.

Because of the political tension and instability that was often associated with inter-party defections, there was a strong demand for the government to weigh in. Section 68 of the 1999 constitution, for instance, makes it clear that a member of the Senate or House of Representatives who got elected on the platform of one party cannot defect to another party before the expiration of the term for which that member was elected. The only condition where it might be acceptable is if the defection is as a result of an internal squabble or a split or merger. This clause, in effect, nullifies the law for the simple reason that inter-party defections are almost always the result of internal divisions, splits, or mergers.

Politicians sometimes become disgruntled with their party for ideological reasons and seek to leave. The decision to switch to another party can also be made to further personal interests as is often the case when one candidate fails to secure nomination under one party and switches to another to boost their chances.

It is true that inter-party defections occur even in advanced democracies like the United States and the UK but there are sharp contrasts. Both former Republican president, Ronald Reagan, and Democratic presidential candidate, Hilary Clinton, have switched parties once during their careers. While Reagan started as a Democrat, he later switched to the Republican Party, declaring,” I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.” The same is true for Clinton who went on to become a Democratic senator despite her affiliation to the Republican Party in her early years.

There is, however, almost no similarity between these two examples and the chaotic defections that occur in Nigeria. Both Clinton and Reagan had not held any political office before switching parties. In fact, it would be several years after switching party allegiance before either of them would be elected.

The same is also true for Democratic senator, Elizabeth Warren, who was a registered Republican for 5 years before switching sides in 1996. She claimed the reason for the switch was because she felt that the Republican Party was “no longer principled in its conservative approach to economics and the markets.” And, just like Clinton and Reagan, it would be well over a decade before Warren would be elected to the US senate as a Democrat. Indeed, examples of politicians switching parties in recent times while holding an elected position is hard to find in the United States.

The case of Nigeria`s former vice president, Atiku Abubakar, is quite remarkable. In order to further his presidential ambition, and possibly as a result of not receiving the blessings of the president, Olusegun Obasanjo, to run for president under the People`s Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar decided to switch to the Action Congress and was able to secure nomination for the 2007 election.

This was a watershed moment in Nigerian politics. For the first time, the president and vice president were members of different parties. The president, however, did not take this ‘act of betrayal’ kindly. He announced that he had dismissed the vice president and that the office had become vacant.

In a letter to the senate president, speaker of the house of representatives, and the attorney general of the federation, Atiku Abubakar claimed “the president was not entitled to remove his deputy who was elected with him by the Nigerian people”. He further stated that the only course of action open to the president was to table the matter before the National Assembly or to seek ‘clarification’ from ‘a competent court of law.’ The Action Congress also echoed the same sentiment, declaring the dismissal of the vice president as unconstitutional and an act of tyranny.

On the 20^th of April 2007, the case reached the Supreme Court. This was after an appeal court had ruled that it was unconstitutional for the vice president to be dismissed on the grounds of having defected to the opposition party. The appeal court also held that the vice president could not be deemed to have resigned because he switched parties, and therefore restored him to office.

Although the Supreme Court ruled that the president lacked the powers to dismiss his vice for any reason, it raised significant points on the conduct of the vice president. The court held that the constitution envisaged a harmonious relationship between the president and the vice that ought to be maintained throughout the tenure, noting that there was no separate election for the vice president who, in the first place, was nominated by the president from the same political party.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court insisted that while the action of the vice president did not violate the constitution, it was unconscionable for Atiku Abubakar to openly criticise the government, campaign for another political party, or switch parties. This, however, did not mean, from the court`s perspective, that the vice president was slave to the president and could not voice his opinions even if they did differ from those of the president.

This landmark decision reached by the court in 2007 has continued to create ripple effects in Nigerian politics till today and might have set a dangerous precedent for wanton inter-party defections in the country. Indeed, it is no longer uncommon for politicians to switch parties soon after winning elections. The case of Imo state where a significant number of PDP lawmakers quickly defected to the APC as soon as the PDP Governor was sacked by the Supreme Court and replaced with Hope Uzodinmma of the APC is quite instructive.

The situation is even more disturbing when one takes a look at what transpired in Edo State over the last 4 years. The present governor of Edo State, Godwin Obaseki, was elected in 2016 on the platform of the APC after a fierce battle with Ize Iyamu, the governorship candidate of the PDP. One thing most people remember from the 2016 campaign was that the PDP sought to undermine the candidacy of Godwin Obaseki by filing a bogus lawsuit of certificate forgery that sought to disqualify him.

The move came after Obaseki claimed that some of his hitherto missing credentials had been discovered in the United States by relatives. The PDP chairman in the state even challenged Obaseki to take to any of the media outlets in the state to showcase the certificates but the governor’s campaign team responded that such measures were unnecessary. And in any case, the agenda of the PDP in filing the lawsuit failed to materialize as Obaseki was eventually elected the governor of the state.

However, in the build up to the 2020 election, Governor Obaseki found himself at loggerheads with the “kingmakers” of the APC. And in a bid to ensure his re-election after being disqualified by the APC`s screening committee, he defected to the PDP.

In a rare feat of political gymnastics, the APC accused the governor of certificate forgery and filed lawsuits seeking to disqualify him. It might have been quite amusing to the people of Edo state to find that the APC was fielding Ize Iyamu against the governor: both candidates had switched parties. This kind of fluid switching suggests that Nigerian politicians are not bound by any discernible ideologies in the same manner the parties are not founded along ideological lines.

This is what can be deduced from the case of Atiku Abubakar. The former vice president returned to the PDP after failing to clinch the presidency on the platform of the Action Congress in 2007. His “second coming”, however, was fruitless as he lost the PDP primaries to eventual winner of the 2011 presidential election, Goodluck Jonathan. In typical Atiku fashion, he abandoned the party again in 2014 to join the APC in a bid to bolster his chances in the 2015 race. But he told the BBC that his defection was not borne out of his desire to become president, it was part of his wish to “see a strong second party for the country”. What then are Nigerians to make of his switching back to the PDP as the 2019 presidential election approached?

Just like Atiku Abubakar and other defectors in time past, Governor David Umahi, the most recent high-profile defector in the country, has assured all that he did not defect to advance any personal interests even as rumours swirl that he is aiming for the 2023 APC presidential ticket. He claimed his defection from the PDP was a “protest against the injustice being done to the South-East zone by the PDP.” The injustice, he said, was that the PDP had never “considered the South-East Zone to run for president”. The governor also claimed that his political career was ‘God`s project’ and that he had become some sort of martyr by leading the crusade against the injustice in the PDP.

Umahi’s defection, as expected, triggered strong reactions. First, some members of his cabinet resigned in protest, feeling confused and betrayed. Some felt he had been ungrateful to the party while others believed his action could harm the South-East. The governor of Rivers state, for instance, claimed that the defection of Umahi had the potential to destroy the South-East politically, while alleging that Umahi also practiced the same injustice he accuses the PDP of: placing his brothers in key positions in the party.

The PDP in its official statement refrained from attacking the governor. Instead, the party thanked him for his services and wished him well for the future but also made sure to point out that his defection was for personal reasons that “Nigerians would later realize.”

Of course, the news of Umahi`s defection was cheered in some quarters. His deputy hailed the move and stated during the ‘defection ceremony’ that he was a faithful disciple who would stand with his boss on whatever decision he made. President Buhari did not also hesitate to commend Umahi for the “bold move driven purely by principle rather than opportunistic motives”. He acknowledged that the governor might be ridiculed but pointed out that was part of the price “men of principles have to pay for acting according to their conscience and convictions”. The president also noted that the defection would herald a new dawn for Nigeria`s democracy as “voters will be more motivated by the records of parties and their candidates”, even though it is not quite clear what he meant.

Regardless of what one thinks of Umahi`s defection, it must be said that political parties are not to be vehicles that advance the selfish interests of politicians. Parties should have a clear vision of the nation that they seek to build, visions that are hinged on a clear set of economic, political, social, and moral ideologies.

Political parties should be distinct from one another based on the ideologies they profess. If political parties in Nigeria are structured in this manner and strong institutions prevent the advancement of the selfish interests of politicians, it is possible to have the rate of inter-party defections minimized since ‘political prostitutes’ such as Atiku Abubakar and most recently, David Umahi could easily lose credibility. The United States has set a good example in this regard and Nigeria must follow.

The dissolution of the notorious police special anti-robbery squad (SARS) might have come as a welcome development considering how the unit seemed to have gotten totally out of control. For years, Nigerians had been calling for the abolition of SARS in the wake of several incidents of harassment, intimidation, extortion, and murder.

The response each time the demand was made was the same: such a move would be counterproductive, resulting in higher crime rates, particularly armed robbery and kidnapping that had become a serious source of concern in certain parts of the country. Instead, the government pledged to reform the unit.

However, the reforms never seemed to yield any results as Nigerians were still being treated to tales of atrocities being perpetrated by the squad on almost a daily basis. And nothing in those tales suggested even remotely that the special ‘anti-robbery’ unit even had fighting armed robbery on their agenda; rather, they had arrogated a new mandate to themselves.

Online financial fraud has been on the rise in the last 10 years in Nigeria with the government still yet to find effective mechanisms for combating the threat. In fact, Nigeria`s international reputation has been hurt on several occasions by the activities of internet fraudsters within the country who seem to be growing more sophisticated by the day.

Young people have begun to embrace cybercrime as a means of livelihood. This, of course, is not surprising in the light of rising social and economic inequality in the nation. It has become extremely difficult for graduates of the country`s tertiary institutions to find employment, and from all indications it seems that the future of youths has been hijacked by the ruling elite. One is, therefore, not surprised that the general attitude of the public towards online fraudsters has been lukewarm. Most people do not seem bothered since the victims are often foreigners.

In any case, law enforcement have struggled, largely due to lack of training, in taming cybercrime. Unsurprisingly. SARS operatives saw a huge opportunity in the lack of coordination in the fight against online fraud.

The operatives soon abandoned their core responsibilities to chase after cybercriminals commonly known as “Yahoo Boys”. Indeed, it was often during their “crackdown “on the supposed fraudsters that the many cases of brutality and extra judicial killings attributed to the squad occurred.

Any young male adult or teenager found in possession of relatively expensive mobile phones was deemed a criminal. People usually had their phones taken from them at gun point; the phones would then be examined for any “evidence” that might implicate the owner. Having any foreigner as a contact or friend on one`s social media account was often taken as good evidence of involvement in online fraud. There was no room for pleas or explanations.

The situation was even worse for men in their 20s and 30s who owned cars. SARS operatives did not believe any one in that age bracket was capable of owning a car through legitimate means. Boys who chose to wear dreadlocks stood no chance with the squad and could be forcefully taken into custody and abused.

Everywhere in the country, SARS operatives conducted stop-and-search operations aimed at fishing out online fraudsters. Phones and personal computers were often confiscated and never returned. During these operations, civilians were physically assaulted and brutalized if they refused to “cooperate” with the officers.

Those accused of being involved in cybercrime had to pay hefty bribes in order to be set free or else they could face consequences that could include being shot and killed. The more public complaints rose concerning the horror inflicted on ordinary citizens by the group, the more brutal it became and learned how to better cover traces of its crimes.

There have been countless reports of persons who were supposedly whisked away by SARS operatives and never found. Rumors have it that the bodies of victims who were shot were carried long distances and dumped in rivers or thrown into the bush. The police, as expected, always dismissed such reports, and when situation demanded, was quick to brand victims of such extra judicial killings as robbers.

The protests that erupted in October after it was reported that SARS operatives had shot and killed a young man in Delta state before carting away with his SUV went global. What began as a social media post quickly drew the attention of famous celebrities within and outside the country and before long it was trending worldwide. Within a few days, the so-called digital protests had snowballed into a physical nationwide protests in which demonstrators called for the dismantling of the SARS unit.

These physical protests immediately gained positive momentum and enjoyed overwhelming public support. As the protests raged through different parts of the country, the government announced it had disbanded the special anti-robbery squad that had unleased terror on civilians for years but not before more human right violations had been perpetrated in containing the protests. It was to be replaced by a new Special Weapons and Tactics team (SWAT).

The inspector-general of police stated during the initial announcement that members of the defunct SARS unit would undergo “psychological evaluation” before being redeployed, possibly to the SWAT team. It would be illegal for the new SWAT team to be involved in hunting down cybercriminals nor would it be permissible for them to conduct stop-and-search operations anywhere in the country. The SWAT operatives would be completely devoted to fighting armed robbery and other similar crimes. Judicial panels of enquiry were also to be established in different states to investigate reports on the excesses of the defunct SARS unit. Officers of the disbanded squad could be indicted and brought to justice.

Most Nigerians, however, were not optimistic about the reforms. It was not the first time the government had announced police reforms, and in the past all such initiatives failed. The so-called SWAT team would be selected from the current crop of police officers who are remarkably corrupt. It was not also made clear by what mechanism the rules would be enforced.

If there is one thing the police is clear on, it is that bribery is completely unacceptable and punishable under the Police Act. But ironically, bribery is the one thing that characterizes the force. There is no part of the country where police officers cannot be seen extorting motorists along the roads in the same manner suspects are extorted before being granted bail even when it is boldly written in police stations that bail is free.

This is done openly and in such a manner that leaves one with the impression that the officers are aware there cannot be any consequences for their actions. The police hierarchy cannot feign ignorance as there is every indication that the problem of bribery runs deep and through to the very top. If it is true that police violence in Nigeria is precipitated by an institutional framework that is devoid of accountability, then the recent attempt at reform is simply futile.

One consequence of the police being responsible for the preservation of the existing social order is that in totalitarian and unjust societies it serves as a tool of repression. The police in Nigeria cannot upend the existing political system where the rule of law is not upheld. In fact, the impunity and corruption seen among police is an indictment of the ruling class as well as a direct reflection of the political structures in the country.

To state that it is impossible to reform the police in isolation from the political and economic structures in Nigeria is to state the obvious. Some Nigerians seemed to have realized this when they stopped calling for the dissolution of the new SWAT team and instead began to demand for an end to police brutality and bad governance.

The government was quick to stifle attempts for renewed demonstrations. There were reports that the Central Bank had issued directives for the blocking of the bank accounts of some notable individuals who were galvanizing support for the protests via social media. One of the affected persons claimed to have been placed on travel restriction since she was “under an investigation”. Flutterwave, an online platform that was used for making contributions towards the protests, was also reported to have been summoned by the apex bank of the country, prompting demonstrators to switch to cryptocurrencies. Soldiers were mobilized to quell the protests and the manner in which it was done sent cold shivers down the spine of the public.

Footage emerged showing soldiers whipping a young woman who was accused of indecent dressing, presumably as part of their efforts to maintain law and order in Ibadan. A middle-aged man could also be seen having his hair shaved by one of the soldiers. The man in the video, recounting his ordeal, said he was summoned by the soldiers as he walked along the road. Without hesitation, he had responded, only to be asked to take off his cap. As soon as the soldiers had determined he had the “wrong haircut” they decided it was crucial to shave it off in order to protect the territorial integrity of the country and ward off external aggression which, in their view, the demonstrations had become.

Incidents like these only underscored the point that security operatives in the country will continue to violate the fundamental rights of citizens because of the absence of the rule of law in the Nigeria socio-political arena.

There are a number of methods that can be adopted to effectively transform the Nigeria Police Force. Some of the methods such as decentralization have been effective in some developed countries like the United Kingdom and Canada although there are centralizing elements in certain aspects of police services in both countries. It has, however, been pointed out that in developing countries of which Nigeria is an apt example, the outcomes of decentralization could be very much different from what the theory predicts. This could be due to the absence of supporting institutions or political frameworks that makes decentralization of police work in some countries but not in others.

In countries like the United States with a decentralized police force and a relatively high rate of police violence, efforts at police reforms have been aimed at policy reformulations. Some of the policies proposed by activists seek to reduce the likelihood of police resorting to the use of lethal of force in the discharge of their duties. It has been suggested, for instance, that provisions that permit the shooting of fleeing felons or moving vehicles be suspended. Some have equally suggested uniform training schemes for police officers that focus heavily on de-escalation; but one is not sure how effective these proposals might be, especially in areas with high crime rates where citizens are almost always lethally armed.

In sharp contrast with the situation in the United States, police violence in Nigeria rarely occurs in situations where operatives are confronted with armed or potentially dangerous suspects. Rather, unarmed civilians are brutalized for little or no offence even up to the point of being shot and killed for refusing to offer bribes to police officers.

It cannot also be said that the situation in Nigeria is comparable to that of crime-ridden countries like Syria, Venezuela, Brazil, and Afghanistan. How is it then that a country that does not rank among the top ten crime-prone countries already ranks seventh in police killings per ten million in 2020?

What must be done to ensure security operatives in Nigeria can be held to account? Regardless of what one might suppose, it seems these questions will be pondered for generations to come.