Ngige spoke on the sidelines of the Ojoto Ofala Festival in Anambra on Wednesday.
Nigerian governors have been called out by former Anambra State Governor and ex-Minister of Labour and Employment, Senator Chris Ngige.
Ngige accused governors of handling security votes as if it is pocket money.
According to him, the misuse of security funds has worsened insecurity in the country.
Speaking on the sidelines of the Ojoto Ofala Festival in Anambra on Wednesday, Ngige levelled accusations that governors “erroneously believe security votes are pocket money for them,” and divert them from their intended purpose, thus contributing to the current security crisis.
“Security votes are meant to be spent by state governors to stabilize security in their different states,” Ngige emphasized, dispelling the notion that such funds are personal slush funds.
“They are not pocket money, but some governors have converted them to personal money,” he declared, drawing a direct link between misappropriation and the deteriorating security situation.
“Security is like information, publicity, when you are spending money on publicity, you won’t see it, it is not tangible, but you will see the effect. If you put stability in your security, you will see prosperity following it, because there will be economic activities.
“Insecurity has made economic activities to be destabilised in the South-East zone in the past 18 months, coupled with the sit-at-home; and all these activities by non-state actors who hide under the camouflage of Nnamdi Kanu to perpetrate criminality.”
Ngige’s remarks, delivered to journalists, represent a bold critique of state leadership and raises critical questions about accountability and resource allocation in tackling insecurity. His assertion that diverting security funds weakens the fight against crime and violence challenges governors to prioritize their responsibilities in ensuring public safety.
The issue of security vote usage has long been shrouded in opacity, with concerns about lack of transparency and oversight persisting. Ngige’s intervention, coming from a figure with experience in both state and federal administrations, adds fuel to the debate and demands a serious examination of how security resources are managed at the state level.