Author: user user

For some residents of Enugu State, the state’s Command and Control Centre, a security monitoring facility established by the state government, has remained a subject of doubts. Like the proverbial blind men describing an elephant from different angles, people have formed different opinions about the facility based largely on what they have heard or seen from outside.

Some have questioned whether the facility is worth the huge resources reportedly invested in it. Others have argued that its surveillance capacity may not extend beyond the immediate vicinity of Government House, while some believe that although the building and equipment exist, the centre may not be as effective as portrayed by the state government and its media handlers.

However, a visit inside the facility offers a different picture of the situation.

I had the opportunity to enter the Command-and-Control Centre when members of the Correspondents’ Chapel of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Enugu State Council, were taken on a tour of some of the major projects executed by Governor Peter Ndubuisi Mbah’s administration during his first three years in office.

What I saw inside the facility was, to say the least, striking.

The sophisticated surveillance equipment and monitoring systems installed at the centre provide security personnel with access to a wide range of information across Enugu metropolis and other parts of the state.

The system is designed to monitor roads and streets, track movements and provide real-time security information to the command centre. Traffic violations, including motorists who beat traffic lights, can be captured and flagged by the system, allowing security personnel to identify and monitor offending vehicles.

The centre also has the capacity to capture images of people and vehicles entering and moving around monitored areas, providing security agencies with useful information that could assist investigations and crime prevention.

The surveillance network is complemented by security patrol vehicles and other security formations deployed to strategic locations across the state. Information from these field operations can also be transmitted to the command centre, giving those monitoring the system a broader picture of security developments.

The state government has also acquired surveillance drones, which are connected to the security monitoring architecture and can provide aerial intelligence where necessary.

The significance of such a system goes beyond the technology itself. In a state where kidnapping, armed robbery, cult-related violence, farmer-herder conflicts and other forms of criminality remain security concerns, the ability to monitor movement and gather intelligence can give security agencies an important advantage.

In simple terms, the philosophy behind the system appears to be that criminals may run, but hiding becomes considerably more difficult when their movements can be detected, recorded and analysed.

The system’s potential, however, also raises an important question: why should such an initiative remain confined to one state when insecurity is a regional challenge?

The South-East states-Enugu, Anambra, Ebonyi, Abia and Imo-share boundaries, economic corridors, forests, highways and communities. Criminals do not recognise state boundaries when carrying out their activities. A suspect who commits a crime in one state can quickly cross into another, making inter-state intelligence sharing and coordinated surveillance particularly important.

This therefore, presents an opportunity for the governors of the five South-East states to consider security as a common regional agenda.

Rather than each state working in isolation, the region could explore the possibility of developing an integrated security surveillance and command system capable of sharing intelligence across state boundaries.

Such a regional system could incorporate surveillance cameras, drones, emergency response systems, vehicle recognition technology, communication networks and intelligence-sharing mechanisms linking security agencies across the five states.

The objective would not be to replace the existing security structures of individual states or federal security agencies, but to strengthen coordination among them.

If properly implemented, a regional command and surveillance architecture could help security agencies respond faster to distress calls, monitor major highways and vulnerable communities, identify suspicious movements and improve investigations after criminal incidents.

One of the biggest beneficiaries could be the agricultural sector.

For years, insecurity has discouraged farmers from travelling to distant farms, particularly in areas perceived to be vulnerable to attacks and kidnapping. Improved surveillance and rapid security response could gradually restore confidence among farmers and encourage them to return to their farms.

The economic implications could be significant. A safer rural environment would support food production, reduce displacement and strengthen local economies across the region.

The idea could also be extended to the national level.

The Federal Government could consider supporting states and regions that want to establish modern security command centres through special interventions, affordable financing arrangements or public-private partnerships. Such investments could complement the work of the Nigerian Army, Nigeria Police Force, Department of State Services, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps and other security agencies.

A coordinated surveillance system could also assist military and security operations by providing commanders with better situational awareness. It could help reduce the vulnerability of personnel operating in difficult terrain, particularly where timely intelligence is critical.

Of course, technology alone cannot solve Nigeria’s insecurity. Surveillance systems require reliable electricity, strong communications infrastructure, trained personnel, regular maintenance, data protection safeguards and effective coordination among security agencies.

The sustainability of such facilities is therefore, just as important as their establishment. A command centre that operates around the clock must have dependable power, backup systems, technical support and continuous funding for maintenance and upgrades.

There is also the need for appropriate safeguards to ensure that surveillance technology is deployed responsibly and primarily for public safety, crime prevention and lawful investigations.

But having seen the scale of technology installed inside Enugu’s Command and Control Centre, one question continues to linger: could this be the beginning of a new regional approach to security in the South-East?

Enugu State may not be among Nigeria’s richest states in terms of federal allocations, yet the establishment of such infrastructure demonstrates that innovative approaches to security are possible when governments make them a priority.

The South-East governors now have an opportunity to think beyond individual state security strategies and consider a collective regional solution.

A South-East Command and Control Centre, supported by all five states and integrated with federal security agencies, could become one of the region’s most important investments.

The goal should be simple: make the roads safer, protect communities, secure farms, improve intelligence gathering and make it increasingly difficult for criminals to operate undetected.

For a region seeking economic growth, industrialisation and renewed investment, security is not merely a law-enforcement issue. It is an economic necessity.

And perhaps, the lesson from Enugu is that with the right technology, political will and regional cooperation, the South-East can begin to build a security architecture capable of matching the challenges of the modern age.

Those who gloss over the critical role of the senate of a university may have to pay more attention to some risk factors of ignoring the senate.

This was unveiled in a presentation at a retreat by Barineme Beke Fakae, a renowned researcher as well as professor of veterinary parasitology and entomology, who was a two-time vice chancellor of the Rivers State University of Science and Technology (RSUST), now Rivers State University (RSU).

Isaac Zeb-Obipi, vice chancellor of the Rivers State University, named him the father of modern RSU for several reasons especially for starting and laying the foundations of transparency, ICT, digital campus, and financial prudence.

Speaking to the RSU senate on the topic: ‘The Role of the University Senate in Academic Governance’, Fakae focused on strengthening governance through effective legal and policy frameworks.

He warned about risk to avoid, saying role conflict occurs where the Senate becomes overly administrative, or the Council interferes in academic decisions. He called for balance.

In reviewing decision-making in a university senate, he said the quality of university governance depends heavily on how the Senate makes decisions. He gave the principles of effective decision-making including evidence-based deliberation, inclusiveness of diverse expertise, respect for academic freedom, and timeliness and efficiency.

He pointed at what he called good practices such as use of well-structured committees, circulation of documents before meetings, clear agenda and minutes, and data-driven discussions.

He went on: ‘Members of the University Senate bear the responsibility of safeguarding the institution’s integrity, upon which its survival depends. Drawing from my background in parasitology, I often note that only a foolish parasite would destroy its own host. In the same way, the Senate must act with foresight and restraint. Positioned at the very core of academic life, the University Senate serves as the custodian of academic integrity, standards, and excellence, and its effectiveness is decisive in shaping the institution’s credibility and reputation.’

He discussed the statutory powers and responsibilities of the Senate, its relationship with Council and Management, decision-making processes and delegation, accountability mechanisms, and practical strategies for strengthening Senate effectiveness.

Helping the senate to understand academic governance, he said it refers to the framework of authority, policies, and processes through which academic decisions are made within a university. ‘At the centre of this structure is the Senate, which is responsible for academic standards, curriculum development, quality assurance, research oversight, and student academic matters.

‘In essence, if governance is the engine of the university, the Senate is the driver of its academic direction.’

He took a lot at statutory powers and responsibilities of the Senate, saying the authority of the Senate derives from university laws, statutes, and regulations. Typically, he added, the Senate is empowered to handle control of academic programmes by approving new programmes and courses, review and update curricula, and ensure relevance to national and global needs.

The Senate also handles regulation of examinations and standards by approving examination results and award of degrees, diplomas, and certificates. There is the oversight of research and scholarship, promoting research excellence, approving research policies, and encouraging innovation and interdisciplinary engagement.

The Senate, according to the researcher, said the Senate would determine admission standards, regulate progression and graduation requirements, handle academic misconduct (plagiarism, examination malpractice), and ensure fairness and due process.

On key insight, he said the Senate must not merely exercise authority, it must exercise it responsibly, consistently, and transparently.

Fakae harped on the ideal Senate’s relationship and said effective university governance depends on clarity of roles and mutual respect among three key bodies. Council should focus on finance, policy, and overall governance; while the Senate should focus on academic matters.

For clarity, the expert who took the UST to the first spot among state-owned universities in Nigeria gave what he called guiding principle as the ‘Council governs, Senate regulates academics.’

He said the Senate formulates academic policy, Management implements policies. On areas of interdependence, he mentioned strategic planning, resource allocation for academic programmes, and institutional accreditation.

To boost good practices, Fakae suggested use of well-structured committees, circulation of documents before meetings, clear agenda and minutes, and data-driven discussions. He gave an action point thus: ‘Move from ceremonial meetings to strategic academic decision-making forums.’

He suggested effective delegation of tasks within the Senate, given the complexity of modern universities, to achieve efficiency, expertise utilization, and faster decision-making. He said the Senate of a university has committees such as Academic Planning Committee, Curriculum Committee, Research and Publications Committee, and Examination and Results Committee.

He insisted that delegation must be accompanied by clear terms of reference, reporting obligations, and oversight mechanisms. He made it clear that the Senate can delegate tasks, but not responsibility.

He harped on accountability, saying it ensures that the Senate’s powers were exercised responsibly. Internal Accountability looked at transparent procedures, proper documentation, and ethical standards; while external accountability involves accreditation bodies, government regulations, and public expectations.

The mechanisms to strengthen accountability include periodic review of Senate decisions, performance indicators for academic units, and audit of academic processes. He named a key idea thus: ‘Accountability builds trust; institutionally and publicly.’

The retreat looked at complex challenges confronting modern universities such as rapid technological change, quality assurance demands, funding constraints, global competition, and balancing expansion with quality. ‘These challenges require the Senate to be proactive, not reactive; strategic, not routine-driven; and innovative, not rigid.’

He then gave what he called practical strategies for strengthening Senate effectiveness, saying it is in line with the workshop’s objective of actionable outcomes. He proposed capacity building for Senate members with regular training on governance and higher education trends; strengthening committee systems by ensuring committees were functional and not symbolic; digital governance tools such as use of technology for document sharing, voting, and tracking decisions; and policy clarity and review such as regularly update academic policies.

Other key recommendations were data-driven decision-making whereby institutional research units should support the Senate; culture of accountability by embedding transparency and ethical conduct. The goal should be to deliver a Senate that is efficient, credible, and respected.’

Fakae deposed that the University Senate is not just an administrative body but it is the guardian of academic excellence and institutional integrity. ‘Its effectiveness depends on clear authority, strong processes, ethical conduct, and strategic thinking.’

Any university with optimal senate functionality, he noted, would discover that their academic standards would improve; institutional reputation grows, and stakeholder confidence increases.

‘Let us work collectively to ensure that the Senate of Rivers State University becomes a model of effective academic governance-focused, accountable, and forward-looking.’

Fakae urged all universities to therefore commit to strengthening the Senate as a dynamic, responsive, and accountable organ of academic governance.