In a bid to curb the rising wave of criminal activities in Eket Local Government Area, its Chairman, Mr. Akaniyene Tommey, has issued a stern warning, threatening to demolish any property harboring criminals. While his frustration and determination to restore peace are understandable, such a drastic approach raises serious legal, ethical, and practical concerns that must not be ignored.

Security is undoubtedly a top priority for any government, and no responsible leader should sit idly while criminal elements terrorize residents. However, Mr. Tommey must understand that local government authorities do not possess the sweeping executive powers required to implement such extreme measures. If his motivation is drawn from the recent actions of Anambra State Governor, Charles Soludo, who authorized the demolition of structures linked to criminal activities, he must be reminded that he does not wield the same level of executive authority.

The foregoing view is a there are legal boundaries and due process.  As Barrister Udo Akpan rightly pointed out, without a properly enacted bylaw, demolishing private property on the basis of suspicion alone would amount to illegality and malicious damage. Under the Nigerian legal framework, the power to demolish properties linked to criminal activities largely rests with state governments, as seen in cases where governors exercise their authority under kidnapping and anti-terrorism laws. For a local government chairman to take such action without proper legal backing would be an overreach and a blatant violation of the rule of law.

Even if Eket Local Government enacts a bylaw to support such actions, it must be in alignment with constitutional provisions, which guarantee citizens’ rights to property ownership and due process. Before any property can be demolished, there must be a thorough investigation, judicial oversight, and an opportunity for the affected individuals to present their defense. Anything short of this is an invitation to lawlessness and anarchy.

Furthermore, demolishing properties without due legal processes could lead to a dangerous precedent where authorities bypass lawful procedures to enforce policies based on perception rather than evidence. This would erode public trust and create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty in the community. The chairman must remember that the rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society, and any policy or action taken must adhere to legal principles to prevent abuse of power.

Without a doubt, there are unintended consequences and collateral damage in such move been anticipated by the local government chairman. Beyond the legal implications, carrying out demolitions arbitrarily could lead to devastating consequences for innocent citizens. If a house is used by criminals without the knowledge of the landlord, is it fair to punish an entire family for the actions of a few? Would demolishing homes not render more people homeless and create additional social problems?

Moreover, such actions could foster resentment among the people, leading to distrust in the government. Security is best achieved through community cooperation, not intimidation. By resorting to demolition threats, the chairman risks alienating the very residents whose support is crucial for effective crime-fighting.

Additionally, one must consider the financial implications of demolitions. Many families have invested their life savings into building homes and businesses. Destroying such properties without careful consideration could have dire economic consequences, including increased hardship, displacement, and long-term instability. Instead of promoting safety, indiscriminate demolitions may push affected individuals into further desperation, potentially fueling criminal activities rather than curbing them.

Also looking at the issue from the perspective of police excesses and a ghost town at dusk, it is expedient to opine that another pressing concern is the manner in which security operations are currently being conducted in Eket. Reports of arbitrary arrests, including that of a bricklayer, David Uwa, who was detained despite having no incriminating evidence against him, are deeply troubling. The fear of indiscriminate police action has already turned Eket into a ghost town by 7 p.m., a sharp contrast to the once-bustling community it was known to be. If security agencies continue on this path, the line between combating crime and violating citizens’ rights will become increasingly blurred.

The authorities must ensure that the security measures being implemented do not infringe on the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens. There must be clear guidelines for arresting suspects to avoid wrongful detentions and harassment. The security agencies must operate within legal and ethical confines, as excessive force and indiscriminate arrests will only deepen the people’s grievances against the government.

In fact, there need to be a more strategic approach in place. Instead of resorting to demolition threats, the chairman should focus on proactive measures that strengthen security while respecting the rule of law. Some recommended approaches include:

Given the foregoing, there is no denying the fact that community intelligence gathering is strategic enough. In fact, encouraging residents to provide anonymous tips and intelligence about criminal activities will help authorities take precise action without harming innocent citizens.

Another strategy that can be adopted is that of holding landlords to account through legal means.  Rather than threatening demolitions, the council can introduce policies requiring landlords to vet tenants properly and report suspicious activities.

In a similar vein, it is expedient, under the circumstance, to put enhanced security operations with accountability in place.  With this, the police should be given the necessary support to conduct lawful operations that do not infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Also in a similar vein, there is the need for the local government to be in engagement with State government on the issue of security in the local government.   If the chairman believes that demolishing criminal hideouts is a necessary step, he must lobby the state government to enact relevant legislation and oversee its implementation within the confines of the law.

Again, there is the need for economic and social interventions in the local government.  Addressing the root causes of crime, such as unemployment and poverty, is essential for long-term security. The council should explore youth empowerment programs to steer potential criminals away from crime.

In fact, deployment of modern surveillance systems, and utilizing technology, such as CCTV cameras in strategic locations across the local government, will help in tracking criminal activities and gathering evidence without causing collateral damage.

Also, there is the need for the chairman to think of how the local vigilante groups in the local government can be strengthen, rather than taking the law into his hands.  In fact, working in collaboration with security agencies, local vigilante groups can be better equipped to help in community policing without resorting to illegal actions.

To put it in a cautionary perspective,  Eket Local Government Chairman, Mr. Akaniyene Tommey, must exercise caution and restraint in handling the security challenges plaguing the area. While his commitment to restoring peace is commendable, his approach must not trample on the legal rights of residents or exceed his jurisdiction. Security must be pursued within the bounds of the law, ensuring that both the guilty and innocent are treated fairly.

A community thrives not through fear and destruction but through justice, collaboration, and smart governance. Eket deserves security, but not at the cost of legality and human dignity. By embracing a more measured and lawful approach, Mr. Tommey can foster a safer, more inclusive society while preserving the rights and trust of the people he serves.