Anambra State Homeland Security Law, 2025: My Take — Valentine Ozigbo

The enactment of the Anambra State Homeland Security Law, 2025, by the State House of Assembly is a lackluster step towards enhancing security in the state. Its introduction, three years into Governor Soludo’s administration—a tenure marked by numerous killings and kidnappings never seen before in the state—raises pertinent questions about its timing and effectiveness.

While the law may have the objective to tackle crime and improve safety, a thorough review reveals fundamental flaws. These shortcomings render it outdated, overly punitive, economically harmful, and prone to abuse.

More fundamentally, it’s pertinent to approach equity with clean hands. The starting point of creating a secure environment is to entrench a law and order system across the board such that there would be consequences for every wrong action. In the case of Anambra State under Gov. Soludo, we have witnessed several breakdowns of law and order, from how PG elections are conducted in several communities to licensing of agberos in the name of revenue collection, to rising cult clashes, some of which stem from aggressive unorthodox revenue collection approaches. As if these were not enough, we were all witnesses to how he conducted LG elections and how he is fighting to control resources of Local Governments against what the Supreme Court has adjudicated. With these, you can now understand why insecurity has festered, given that the leadership that ought to pay attention to this pertinent problem is busy creating more problems and would rather focus on burial laws and how Igwes should confer chieftaincy titles.

Here are some of my observations on the new law:

1. Conflict with the Nigerian Constitution

The Homeland Security Law confers quasi-policing powers on the Agunechemba security outfit, such as patrolling, making arrests, and conducting investigations. However, under the Nigerian Constitution, such duties are the exclusive preserve of the Nigeria Police Force. This creates a direct conflict with the constitutional framework.

Additionally, Clause 5(5) of the law permits security personnel 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.

2. Unrealistic and Overbearing Provisions

Several clauses impose unrealistic and burdensome obligations on citizens:
• Monthly Security Reports from Community Leaders (Clause 13): Requiring community leaders to submit monthly reports is impractical and diverts them from their primary responsibilities.
• Obligations on Landlords and Hotel Operators (Clause 14): Mandating landlords and hotel owners to collect and verify detailed personal information from tenants and guests, and to install surveillance cameras, imposes undue financial and administrative burdens. These requirements are especially unrealistic for small businesses and rural communities.

3. Economic Implications

The law’s stringent penalties, such as a ₦5 million fine for non-compliance by landlords, risk discouraging investment in critical sectors such as real estate and hospitality. Furthermore, the provision allowing property forfeiture for alleged links to criminal activities (Clause 15) creates an environment of uncertainty and fear, deterring property ownership and development. Forfeiture should only happen with proven basis and not alleged links.

The broader economic consequence is a chilling effect on entrepreneurship and tourism. Excessive regulation and punitive measures may portray Anambra as an unfriendly environment for investment, pushing potential investors and visitors to more accommodating states.

4. Risk of Abuse and Political Exploitation

The expansive powers granted to the Agunechemba outfit and the Governor’s supervisory committee raise serious concerns about potential misuse. For example, Clauses 5 and 15 allow for detention, property searches, and asset confiscation, all without sufficient safeguards. Such powers could easily be abused for extortion or political intimidation.

Ambiguous terms like “questionable character” (Clause 5(4)) create room for arbitrary profiling and wrongful arrests. Moreover, the ability to close businesses or places of worship without judicial oversight (Clauses 15 and 19) threatens fairness and impartiality, raising fears of political persecution, especially in an election year.

5. Disregard for Cultural Sensitivities

Clause 18 criminalises certain traditional practices involving charms, which are not inherently criminal. This blanket ban alienates local communities and undermines the cultural values of the people. Such measures risk fostering resentment and could reduce public cooperation with the law’s broader objectives.

6. Weak Oversight and Accountability Mechanisms

The law lacks adequate provisions to ensure transparency and accountability in its implementation. While the Attorney General is empowered to review certain cases (Clause 17), this measure is insufficient to prevent potential abuse by Agunechemba operatives. The absence of robust oversight mechanisms leaves citizens vulnerable to injustice.

7. Political Overreach and Timing

The timing of the law’s introduction raises concerns about its potential use as a political tool. By granting overwhelming control of Agunechemba to the Governor, the law could be exploited to intimidate opposition figures and dissenting voices. Anambra State, known for its vibrant political culture, must remain vigilant against any attempt to erode democratic principles under the guise of security enforcement.

Recommendations for Improvement

To address these challenges and make the law effective, the following changes are imperative:
•Align with Constitutional Provisions: Agunechemba should focus on intelligence gathering and community engagement rather than law enforcement, to avoid conflict with federal policing powers.
•Simplify Compliance Requirements: The obligations imposed on landlords, hotels, and community leaders should be made more practical and less costly.
•Promote Economic Growth: Penalties and compliance measures should be revised to support, rather than stifle, business activity and investment.
•Prevent Abuse: Independent oversight bodies should monitor Agunechemba’s operations, and vague terms like “questionable character” should be replaced with clear and objective criteria.
•Respect Cultural Practices: Engage with local communities to ensure that cultural traditions are respected while addressing legitimate security concerns.
•Ensure Non-Partisan Implementation: Clear safeguards must be established to prevent the politicisation of the Agunechemba security outfit.

In the end

The Anambra State Homeland Security Law, 2025, may appear to some as ambitious in its intent, just like Dubai Taiwan, but deeply flawed in its potential execution. As it stands, the law risks undermining constitutional rights, damaging the economy, and eroding public trust. A more balanced, inclusive, and transparent approach is necessary to achieve sustainable security in the state. Addressing these shortcomings will not only strengthen public confidence but also ensure that the law contributes positively to Anambra’s development and stability. These we must achieve whether with Soludo or not.