Paul Okojie.

The recent appointment of special advisers  by the Edo State Governor is commendable to bolster his service to the citizens of Edo state, but it comes with a great responsibility and questions for this need at a time like this during election season is an issue .There are  appointments that can be treated as matters of political discretion, and there are appointments whose consequences go far beyond the politics of the moment. The appointment of a Special Adviser on Security belongs firmly in the second category.

The recent decision by Edo State Governor, Senator Monday Okpebholo, to appoint Engr. Kelvin Ovanbor Aigbe as Special Adviser on Security therefore deserves more than the routine publication of a government announcement. It deserves serious public scrutiny.

This should not be considered an attack on Engr. Aigbe as a person, nor is it an argument that an engineer cannot contribute to security administration. Engineers are professionals with valuable skills, and individuals from virtually every profession can develop expertise in security matters. The concern is whether the person appointed to advise the governor on one of the most sensitive responsibilities of government possesses the specialised training, intelligence experience and operational understanding required for the job.

The government announcement describes Engr. Aigbe principally as an entrepreneur, humanitarian, community developer and political actor. Those attributes may be useful in public service, but they do not, by themselves, demonstrate expertise in intelligence, security analysis, criminal investigation, counterterrorism, threat assessment or strategic security management. The Governor should as a matter of urgency reconsider this decision and find a qualified experienced professional for that position and set politics aside.

Security is not an ordinary political portfolio. It is a specialised responsibility that requires knowledge, experience and sound judgment. A governor’s security adviser should be capable of understanding intelligence reports, identifying emerging threats, analysing criminal patterns, coordinating with security agencies and providing independent professional advice to the governor. Except there more to what meets the eyes.

Edo State is not currently operating in a security vacuum. The state has faced kidnapping, cultism, armed robbery, communal tensions and other forms of violent crime. These challenges require an intelligence-driven response, not merely political mobilisation or community familiarity for election purposes.

The question Edo residents should therefore be asking is simple: what qualifies the new appointee to advise the governor on security?

If Engr. Aigbe possesses extensive security training or experience that was omitted from the official announcement, the government should make that information public. It would be unfortunate if a position as sensitive as this were surrounded by avoidable uncertainty. The implications of having such a person with no knowledge of how the security system operates might pose a disaster for the security of Edo people.

The governor’s decision is even more questionable because Edo has no shortage of experienced security professionals. There are retired military officers, senior police officers, intelligence practitioners, criminologists, security analysts and other professionals with decades of experience in managing threats and responding to criminal activity.

These are people who understand the intelligence cycle, the limitations of raw information, the importance of threat assessment and the complexities of inter-agency coordination. They understand that security is not simply about responding to incidents after they occur; it is about anticipating threats and preventing them.

A good security adviser must be able to tell the governor what he may not want to hear. He must be capable of questioning assumptions, challenging intelligence assessments and warning the government when a particular strategy is likely to fail. He must have the professional independence and credibility to do so.

The Governor must understand political loyalty cannot substitute for that competence and everything is not politics.

However, one of the recurring problems in Nigerian governance is the tendency to confuse political usefulness with professional suitability. Someone who is an effective politician, businessman, community leader or party loyalist may be an excellent choice for several government positions. But that does not automatically qualify him to manage or advise on security.

The office of Special Adviser on Security should be insulated, as much as possible, from the politics of patronage.

Governor Okpebholo came into office promising to confront insecurity in Edo State. His administration has made security one of its major talking points. That makes the appointment of the person who will advise him on security even more important.

The governor cannot afford to surround himself with people whose principal qualification is political allegiance when what he needs is professional security intelligence.

This is not about insulting the appointee. It is about protecting the integrity of the office.

If an engineer is appointed to advise the governor on infrastructure, nobody should object simply because he is an engineer. If an economist is appointed to advise on economic policy, his professional background is directly relevant. If a lawyer is appointed to advise on legal matters, his training is obvious.

Why should security be different? An appointment to a sensitive security position should ordinarily be supported by demonstrable security competence.

The consequences of getting this wrong can be severe. Poor intelligence assessment can lead to delayed responses. Weak coordination can create operational gaps. Misreading criminal networks can result in ineffective interventions. And when security decisions fail, it is not government officials who bear the greatest cost. It is ordinary citizens.

Families lose loved ones. Businesses close. Communities become fearful. Investment suffers. Public confidence deteriorates. That is why the governor’s judgment in this matter must be questioned.

Governor Okpebholo has the constitutional and political authority to make appointments. But authority does not remove the obligation to exercise sound judgment. Leadership is not merely the power to make decisions; it is the responsibility to make the right decisions.

The governor can still address the concerns surrounding this appointment. He can demonstrate that the appointment was based on relevant competence by making the appointee’s security qualifications and experience known. If those qualifications exist, the public should be told. If they do not, the government should have the courage to reconsider the appointment.

There is nothing wrong with correcting a decision when new information or public scrutiny exposes a weakness.

What would be dangerous is allowing political pride to prevent a necessary correction.

Edo State needs a security architecture built on intelligence, professionalism and experience. Community engagement and political networks have their place, but they should complement professional security expertise, not replace it.

The governor should therefore remember that the security portfolio is not a reward for political service. It is a responsibility involving human lives.

Edo cannot afford to experiment with security. At a time when criminals are becoming more sophisticated, the government must become more professional, not less.

The message to Governor Okpebholo is therefore straightforward: put competence before politics. Surround yourself with security professionals who can provide independent, credible and intelligence-led advice. If an appointment does not meet that standard, have the courage to change it.

The safety of Edo’s citizens is far too important to be compromised by political considerations. In matters of security, there should be no room for sentiment, patronage or experimentation.

Lives are at stake, and competence must come first.