No Amount Of Blackmail Will Derail The Reform At Zone 2 Police Command -By Kelvin Adegbenga

The recent publication by an unpopular blog titled “VDM vs AIG Moshood: Outcry in Zone 2 as Petitioners, Complainants Abandon Petitions for Fear of Getting Justice” is, in my view, another desperate attempt to create a false narrative around the ongoing administrative and professional reforms at Zone 2 Police Command Headquarters, Onikan, Lagos.

Rather than being a credible account of developments within the Zone, the publication appears designed to undermine the reputation of the Command and its leadership at a time when efforts are being made to strengthen professionalism, discipline and accountability.

Let me state categorically that the claim that “most petitioners and complainants have either withdrawn their petitions en masse or abandoned them for fear of getting justice” is a big lie. If the publishers are confident in this claim, they should name the petitioners involved. They should identify the petitions allegedly withdrawn and explain why the complainants abandoned them.

Indeed, I challenge the blog to name just one petitioner who has withdrawn a petition from Zone 2 because of fear of getting justice. I am prepared to point to hundreds of petitions submitted by members of the public seeking police intervention in various matters.

It is also important to separate social-media theatrics from due process. The recent social-media rant by Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as Very Dark Man (VDM), ended without the kind of verifiable evidence required to establish the sweeping allegations made online. Social media may provide a platform for public commentary, but it is not a substitute for investigation, evidence and established mechanisms for seeking justice.

If the publishers genuinely believe their story, they should also identify the supposed “key units in the Zone” that are allegedly under lock and key. Journalism should be based on verifiable facts, not anonymous claims, insinuations and sensational headlines.

It is particularly unfortunate to read claims attributed to police personnel suggesting that the leadership style of the new Assistant Inspector-General of Police is “draconian and unfriendly” and allegedly “antithetical to easy operation of their official duties.” If such personnel are involved in conduct that warrants disciplinary scrutiny, they should be prepared to face the appropriate administrative processes rather than hide behind anonymous publications.

There is nothing unusual about personnel who are accustomed to a particular way of doing things resisting reforms that demand greater professionalism and accountability. A reform that introduces discipline, transparency and stricter supervision may understandably be uncomfortable to those who benefited from lax practices. But discomfort with reform does not make reform draconian.

The transfer of about 950 officers and men from Zone 2 to various formations and commands across the country should also not be presented as evidence of crisis. Transfers, postings and redeployments are routine administrative instruments within the Nigeria Police Force. Police authorities regularly deploy personnel across commands, departments and formations to improve operational efficiency, meet manpower requirements and, where necessary, address administrative or disciplinary concerns.

So, should the transfer of personnel automatically be interpreted to mean that the affected officers were indispensable to operational efficiency? Certainly not. The Nigeria Police Force is a national institution, and personnel are expected to serve wherever they are posted in accordance with the directives of the Force authorities.

It is therefore misleading to connect the redeployment of personnel to the alleged dispute involving VDM and then portray the development as a scandal. Such a narrative does little more than distract attention from the central issue: whether investigations and police operations are being conducted professionally and in accordance with the law.

The attempt to link the redeployment to what the publication described as a “shoddy investigation” into a murder case is equally questionable. If there are allegations of investigative misconduct, the appropriate response is to present evidence and allow the competent authorities to investigate, not to manufacture a narrative designed to discredit the leadership of the Zone.

Interestingly, the publication appears to romanticise a period when, according to its own quoted source, “Fridays were like Christmas days” at the Command, with numerous visitors and vehicles allegedly filling the premises.

If the Zone was indeed “like a market place both day and night,” as alleged, then the more important question should be: what exactly was driving that level of traffic?

A police command should not be judged by how crowded its premises are, nor should the number of visitors be used as a measure of effectiveness. What matters is the quality of service, the integrity of investigations, respect for due process and the confidence of citizens in the institution.

The suggestion that complainants handling fraud cases involving millions of naira have abandoned their cases should equally be subjected to evidence. If such complainants exist, the publishers should identify the cases, without compromising sensitive investigative information, and establish that they were actually abandoned because of the present leadership.

The reality is that a leadership determined to enforce professionalism may inevitably disrupt practices that had become normalised over time. Officers and personnel who may have been accustomed to informal arrangements, preferential treatment or practices inconsistent with professional policing may naturally perceive a stricter regime as unfriendly.

That does not make the regime wrong. The Nigeria Police Force cannot continue to tolerate practices that undermine public confidence. A police command must remain a place where citizens can seek justice without having to negotiate unofficial arrangements or wonder whether access to police services depends on personal connections.

The responsibility of the leadership of Zone 2 police command is therefore not to preserve the comfort of individuals who may resist change, but to advance the vision and mission of the Inspector-General of Police, IGP Olatunji Rilwan Disu, particularly in the areas of professionalism, discipline, accountability and improved service delivery.

It is also important to correct another misleading claim: there is no basis to suggest that AIG Jimoh Moshood Olohundare has publicly “cried out” that he needs personnel to work with. If the claim is being made, the publishers should provide the exact statement, the occasion on which it was made and credible evidence to support it.

The present reform effort at Zone 2 police command should be assessed on its results, not on anonymous complaints or sensational social-media narratives. Those who disagree with particular administrative decisions have every right to raise their concerns through appropriate channels, but criticism should not become a licence for character assassination.

No amount of blackmail, sensational reporting or social-media pressure should deter AIG Jimoh Moshood Olohundare from pursuing legitimate reforms within Zone 2 police command.

The real question is not whether some people are unhappy with the changes. The real question is whether the changes are improving discipline, professionalism, accountability and public confidence in policing.

If they are, then the reform deserves support. And if anyone believes otherwise, the answer should be evidence, not propaganda.

Kelvin Adegbenga writes from Ikoyi, Lagos. kelvinadegbenga@yahoo.com