…..Why Nigeria must protect institutional integrity while demanding accountability
By Comrade Olufemi Lawson
In every democracy, the right to criticise government institutions, question public officials and demand accountability is fundamental. Indeed, Nigeria’s democratic journey owes much to the courage and sacrifices of individuals who stood against authoritarianism and fought for the restoration of civil liberties. Among those whose contributions to this struggle deserve recognition is Mr Omoyele Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters and presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC).
However, there is an important distinction between holding public institutions accountable and engaging in a seemingly endless campaign of institutional discreditation. This distinction becomes particularly important when the institution in question is a critical component of Nigeria’s national security architecture, such as the Department of State Services (DSS).
The question Nigerians must begin to ask is whether the persistent antagonism between Sowore and the DSS, particularly under its current Director General, Mr Oluwatosin Adeola Ajayi, is genuinely advancing democratic accountability or gradually encouraging public distrust in an institution whose effectiveness is essential to our collective safety.
It is not unreasonable to ask why other prominent figures who played equally significant, if not more extensive, roles in Nigeria’s pro-democracy struggle, including human rights lawyer Femi Falana, Dr Joe Okei-Odumakin, Chief Olisa Agbakoba and several others, are not routinely defined by confrontations with the nation’s security institutions. These distinguished activists have continued to engage the Nigerian state through advocacy, litigation, public criticism and institutional dialogue without making permanent antagonism towards security agencies the defining feature of their public engagements.
Their approach reinforces an important democratic principle; defending citizens’ rights and protecting national institutions are not mutually exclusive responsibilities.
One cannot discuss the present conversation about the DSS without acknowledging the apparent institutional repositioning taking place under the leadership of Mr Tosin Ajayi.
For decades, the Service has faced criticisms relating to operational excesses, arbitrary arrests, human rights concerns and its relationship with civil society. These historical concerns should neither be denied nor dismissed. However, it would be unfair to ignore the reforms and changes being pursued by its present leadership.
Under Ajayi, the DSS has increasingly projected an approach centred on intelligence-led operations, professionalism, inter-agency collaboration, accountability, respect for human rights and adherence to the rule of law.
Perhaps one of the most significant policy directions introduced by the current leadership is the clear distinction between civil disputes and criminal matters. In September 2026, the Director-General publicly directed operatives not to arrest individuals over civil matters, explaining that the initiative was part of a broader effort to strengthen the agency’s human rights record and improve compliance with the rule of law.
He also identified five major areas of institutional reform: law enforcement, inter-agency synergy, accountability, respect for human rights, and infrastructural and administrative improvements.
These are not insignificant policy pronouncements. They represent an attempt to reposition the DSS from an institution sometimes perceived through the prism of coercive enforcement into a more professional intelligence organisation whose primary responsibility is to anticipate threats, prevent criminal activities and protect the Nigerian state.
The handling of certain sensitive matters also illustrates this emerging philosophy. Rather than resorting automatically to arrests, the Service has, in some instances, pursued judicial interpretation of matters it considers to have national security implications. Its handling of the controversy involving Pat Utomi and the alleged establishment of a shadow government, as explained by the Director-General, is one example.
Beyond institutional reforms, the operational responsibilities of the DSS demand recognition.
Nigeria is confronting terrorism, kidnapping, arms trafficking, organised criminal networks, threats to critical infrastructure and other complex security challenges. These threats cannot be defeated through public commentary or political grandstanding. They require intelligence gathering, professional investigation, strategic coordination and effective collaboration among security institutions.
In July 2026, during a joint security briefing, the DSS reported rescuing more than 200 kidnapped victims through coordinated operations with other security agencies, alongside disrupting terrorist activities and dismantling arms-trafficking networks.
Similarly, the successful rescue of 308 abducted Nigerians from Niger and Kwara States in August 2026, through an intelligence-driven operation involving the DSS, the Armed Forces and the Nigeria Police, demonstrated the importance of inter-agency collaboration.
These achievements deserve public recognition, not because the Service should be insulated from criticism, but because national security institutions must be encouraged when their operations produce tangible benefits for citizens.
A security organisation should be assessed through its operational effectiveness, institutional discipline, respect for citizens’ rights and willingness to submit its actions to lawful scrutiny.
It is important to acknowledge that Sowore has raised allegations of rights violations against the DSS and has instituted legal proceedings to challenge some of its actions. Such allegations deserve appropriate judicial examination, and nobody should suggest that an individual forfeits constitutional protection simply because he is a political activist or critic of government.
However, there is a fundamental danger in allowing personal or political disagreements with the leadership of a security institution to become a sustained narrative that portrays the entire organisation as untrustworthy, incompetent or inherently hostile to the Nigerian people.
The DSS is bigger than its Director-General. It is an institution of the Nigerian state, staffed by thousands of personnel whose professional responsibilities include protecting lives, identifying security threats and safeguarding national interests.
If every disagreement with the head of a security institution is converted into an opportunity to discredit the entire organisation, the consequences could be dangerous.
We must ask ourselves: what happens when citizens begin to distrust intelligence institutions to the extent that they prefer the intervention of political actors, vigilante groups, partisan organisations or other non-state actors in matters of national security?
What happens when public confidence in lawful security institutions is systematically weakened while individuals and groups outside the constitutional security framework begin to present themselves as alternative guarantors of public safety?
The likely consequence is a gradual weakening of state authority and the emergence of competing centres of power, a development that could encourage lawlessness, vigilantism and insecurity.
No responsible democracy should encourage such a situation.
This is not an argument for giving the DSS or any other security agency a blank cheque. Where operatives violate the law, there must be investigations, accountability and appropriate sanctions. Where citizens’ rights are infringed upon, the courts must remain available to provide remedies.
Indeed, the current DSS leadership should be encouraged to deepen its reforms, strengthen internal disciplinary mechanisms, improve transparency within the limits of legitimate intelligence confidentiality and ensure that human rights protection remains central to its operations.
However, Nigerians must also recognise that intelligence institutions operate under extraordinary circumstances. Their successes are frequently invisible because successful intelligence operations often prevent attacks that would otherwise have occurred. Their work cannot always be measured by the publicity surrounding individual controversies.
The democratic credentials of Omoyele Sowore are not in question. His contributions to the struggle against military dictatorship deserve their place in Nigeria’s history. But historical contributions cannot become permanent justification for an approach that risks undermining confidence in critical institutions of state.
Equally, the DSS must understand that public confidence is earned through professionalism, restraint, accountability and results, not through the invocation of national security to silence legitimate criticism.
The present reforms under Mr Tosin Ajayi deserve objective assessment, constructive engagement and public encouragement where they are producing positive results.
Ultimately, the choice before us is whether we want a country governed by strong, accountable and constitutionally recognised institutions or one where institutional distrust creates room for individuals and non-state actors to assume responsibilities that properly belong to the state.
For me, the answer is clear; we must defend the right to criticise the DSS, but we must never encourage the destruction of public confidence in the institutions entrusted with protecting our collective security.
Nigeria’s democracy cannot survive on the strength of political activism alone. It also requires strong institutions, responsible citizenship and a collective commitment to national stability.
Comrade Olufemi Lawson is a Pro-democracy Activist, and Public Affairs Commentator.