……By Comrade Olufemi Lawson
For an institution whose work depends on secrecy, intelligence gathering, discretion and strategic intervention, the Department of State Services (DSS) has, at different periods in Nigeria’s democratic journey, attracted attention for reasons that did little to strengthen its professional reputation.
Nigeria’s foremost domestic intelligence agency occupies a critical position in the nation’s security architecture. Established from the restructuring of the Nigerian Security Organisation in 1986, the DSS is fundamentally responsible for protecting internal security and preventing threats such as espionage, sabotage, terrorism and other dangers to national stability.
Such an important responsibility should never be reduced to partisan politics, political intimidation or the settlement of ordinary civil disputes.
Yet, over the years, the Service attracted serious public criticism over allegations of political involvement, arbitrary arrests, prolonged detentions, disregard for court orders and operations perceived as inconsistent with the highest traditions of a professional intelligence organisation.
The consequence was damaging. An institution that should primarily be judged by the threats it prevents increasingly found itself judged by the controversies surrounding its operations.
That was the historical burden inherited by Mr Adeola Oluwatosin Ajayi, who assumed office as Director-General of the DSS in August 2024.
Nearly two years into his leadership, however, there is growing evidence of a deliberate effort to redirect the Service towards its core responsibilities: intelligence-led operations, prevention of threats, professional restraint, accountability and respect for the rule of law.
The greatest intelligence organisations are not necessarily those that make the most dramatic arrests or dominate newspaper headlines. Their real effectiveness lies in the threats they identify before they mature and the crises they prevent before they become disasters.
That increasingly appears to be the philosophy shaping the DSS under Ajayi.
Perhaps one of the most significant aspects of the current leadership is the apparent determination to restore the distinction between national security responsibilities and partisan politics.
For an intelligence agency operating in a politically competitive democracy, neutrality is not optional; it is a professional necessity.
Once an intelligence organisation becomes widely perceived as an instrument of political persecution or partisan advantage, its credibility suffers and public trust diminishes.
Ajayi’s leadership appears to recognise this fundamental reality.
Rather than unnecessarily entangling the Service in political controversies, the DSS has increasingly demonstrated a preference for institutional and legal processes. Its approach to the controversy surrounding Professor Pat Utomi’s proposed “shadow government,” where the Service sought judicial interpretation rather than simply resorting to coercive measures, represents an important example.
The lesson is simple: not every disagreement requires handcuffs, and not every controversial opinion constitutes a national-security threat.
Another important indication of the changing direction of the Service is Ajayi’s reported directive that DSS operatives should not arrest Nigerians over purely civil matters.
For years, Nigerians complained about the involvement of security agencies in landlord-tenant disputes, commercial disagreements and debt recovery matters that properly belong within the civil and judicial system.
Drawing a clear line between civil disputes and genuine criminal or national-security concerns represents an important restoration of professional boundaries.
The reforms being pursued under Ajayi have reportedly focused on law enforcement, inter-agency cooperation, accountability, respect for human rights and improved administrative and operational efficiency.
This is particularly important because security institutions must understand not only the powers they possess but also the limits of those powers.
Another notable feature of the Ajayi era is the increasing emphasis on accountability.
The DSS leadership has indicated that operational mistakes should not simply be ignored or defended. Where errors occur, there should be consequences, remedies and, where necessary, compensation for victims.
The Service has also demonstrated a willingness to investigate allegations of misconduct involving its personnel.
This is how institutional credibility is built, not by pretending that misconduct does not exist, but by ensuring that misconduct is neither tolerated nor protected.
No security organisation is infallible. But a professional institution must possess the courage to acknowledge mistakes, discipline wrongdoing and provide remedies where appropriate.
That appears to be part of the institutional culture Ajayi is attempting to establish.
Another noticeable development is the evolving relationship between the DSS and the Nigerian public.
Historically, the relationship between security agencies, the media and civil society has often been characterised by suspicion and confrontation. Recent developments, however, suggest a greater emphasis on communication, professional engagement and cooperation without compromising legitimate national-security interests.
Professional intelligence certainly requires secrecy.
But secrecy must never become an excuse for impunity.
There is a clear difference between protecting classified information and refusing accountability. The emerging reforms within the DSS appear designed to strike that necessary balance.
The respect of an intelligence organisation is earned through professionalism, not intimidation.
Under Ajayi, the DSS is increasingly being associated with intelligence-led operations, greater inter-agency cooperation, accountability and a more measured approach to security responsibilities.
Of course, rebuilding the reputation of an institution as powerful and historically controversial as the DSS cannot happen overnight.
Two years cannot erase decades of public suspicion.
Neither should reform be judged solely by official statements or favourable media reports. The ultimate test will be consistency, whether the standards being introduced today will continue to apply tomorrow, regardless of political pressure or the personalities involved.
But perhaps Ajayi’s most important achievement so far is his apparent effort to change the institutional culture of the Service.
A culture of fear is gradually being challenged by a culture of accountability.
Unnecessary coercion is increasingly being replaced by legal processes and professional restraint.
The blurring of civil disputes and national-security responsibilities is being corrected.
And the Service is gradually returning to the fundamental principle that should define every intelligence organisation: the protection of the nation through superior intelligence, not the indiscriminate exercise of power.
Nigeria does not need a DSS that citizens fear more than the criminals, terrorists and saboteurs it is expected to confront.
Nigeria needs a professional intelligence organisation, firm against threats to national security, but restrained by law, guided by ethics and insulated from partisan politics.
That is the direction in which the DSS under Oluwatosin Ajayi increasingly appears to be moving.
The work is far from complete, and institutional reform is never complete. But if the current emphasis on professionalism, accountability, operational restraint and respect for the rule of law is sustained, the Ajayi era may ultimately be remembered as the period when the Department of State Services began a serious journey back to its true identity:
Nigeria’s premier domestic intelligence organisation, professional, ethical, intelligence-driven and firmly committed to the security of the Nigerian state and its people.
Comrade Olufemi Lawson is the Executive Director of the Centre for Public Accountability and National Secretary of the Campaign for Democracy (CD).