By ODIMEGWU ONWUMERE

The letter allegedly written to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu by Ateke Tom, Boyloaf, Shoot-at-Sight and others presents itself as a serious policy concern about oil production, pipeline surveillance, and political stability in the Niger Delta.

But when examined carefully, it reveals something else entirely: a misplaced priority, a troubling demand, and a disappointing shift away from the real issues that have long affected the region.

Let us speak plainly and honestly. At the heart of the letter is a call to decentralize the pipeline surveillance system currently handled by companies like Tantita Security Services Nigeria Limited and Maton Engineering Nigeria Limited. The writers argue that spreading control among multiple actors will improve efficiency, reduce oil theft, and increase political inclusion.

On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But in reality, this argument is deeply flawed. Pipeline surveillance is not a political favor to be shared among stakeholders. It is a highly sensitive national security responsibility. Oil pipelines are the backbone of Nigeria’s economy, and protecting them requires discipline, coordination, intelligence, and accountability. When too many hands are involved, especially in a region with a history of rivalry and conflict, the system becomes weaker—not stronger.

A single, coordinated surveillance structure—if properly monitored and held accountable—is far more effective than a fragmented one driven by competing interests. When responsibility is centralized, it is easier to track performance, identify failures, and enforce consequences. But when surveillance is divided among multiple groups, blame becomes difficult to assign, oversight becomes diluted, and the risk of compromise increases.

The letter itself complains about oil theft, lost revenue, and operational failures. Yet, it proposes a solution that could worsen these very problems. This contradiction cannot be ignored.

Even more concerning is the political tone of the letter. The writers link pipeline surveillance directly to electoral success, suggesting that including more “stakeholders” in the surveillance contracts will improve political alignment ahead of the 2027 elections.

This is where the argument becomes not just weak—but dangerous. National assets like oil pipelines should never be used as tools for political bargaining. The idea that surveillance contracts should be distributed to secure votes or loyalty undermines the very foundation of governance. It shifts focus away from competence and accountability, and toward patronage and influence.

Nigeria has suffered greatly from this kind of thinking in the past. It is precisely why many systems fail—because decisions are made based on “who is involved” rather than “what works.”

But perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the letter is who is writing it. Many of the signatories are individuals who once took up arms in the Niger Delta struggle. That struggle, whether one agrees with its methods or not, was rooted in a clear demand: resource control, environmental justice, and fair treatment for the people of the region.

That was the central issue. That was the fight. Today, however, instead of pushing for meaningful reforms in how oil wealth is managed and distributed, these same voices are now focused on who gets pipeline surveillance contracts.

That is a serious fall from purpose. If there is any conversation to be had, it should be about oil resource control—how revenues are shared, how communities benefit, how environmental damage is addressed, and how the region can achieve long-term development.

Those are the real issues. Pipeline surveillance is a technical matter. It is not the core of the Niger Delta question. Elevating it to this level of urgency, while ignoring broader structural concerns, suggests a shift away from collective interest toward personal or group gain.

And that is why this situation is, frankly, a shame. It is difficult to understand how those who once demanded systemic change have now narrowed their focus to contract allocation. It raises an uncomfortable question: what happened to the original cause?

The letter also criticizes the current system as ineffective, pointing to oil theft and revenue losses. These concerns are valid. Nigeria does lose billions of dollars annually to crude oil theft, and this is a serious problem that must be addressed.

But again, the solution is not to multiply actors without a clear framework. What is needed is stronger oversight, better technology, improved intelligence gathering, and strict enforcement. Surveillance should be driven by professionalism, not politics. Contracts should be awarded based on proven capacity, not influence or agitation.

If the current operators are failing, then they should be reviewed, audited, and, if necessary, replaced. But replacement should be based on competence—not pressure. The letter also raises concerns about exclusion and marginalization. These are real issues in the Niger Delta, and they should not be dismissed. However, inclusion does not mean turning every national responsibility into a shared entitlement.

There are better ways to achieve inclusion—through development programs, infrastructure investment, education, employment opportunities, and fair revenue allocation.

Those are sustainable solutions. Distributing surveillance contracts is not. Another troubling aspect of the letter is its suggestion that decentralization will create a system where stakeholders “monitor each other.” While this may sound like a form of accountability, in practice it can lead to conflict, rivalry, and even sabotage.

When multiple groups with different loyalties and interests operate in the same space, cooperation is not guaranteed. Instead, competition can take over, and the entire system becomes unstable. Security operations require unity of command—not a patchwork of competing authorities.

The writers also express frustration with government oversight and alleged interference in investigations. Transparency and accountability are indeed essential, and any attempt to undermine them should be addressed.

But again, this does not justify the proposed solution. Two wrongs do not make a right. If oversight is weak, then it should be strengthened—not bypassed through decentralization that could introduce even more complexity and opacity.

At a deeper level, this entire debate reflects a broader issue in Nigeria’s governance: the tendency to focus on control rather than structure.

•Odimegwu Onwumere is Chairman, Advocacy Network On Religious And Cultural Coexistence (ANORACC).