By Oluwakemi Kindness
Three proposed security reform bills before the National Assembly came under scrutiny on Thursday as stakeholders raised concerns over funding structures, institutional duplication, and possible conflicts within Nigeria’s intelligence architecture.
Leading the submissions at a public hearing, Dr. Timothy Joshua, Legislative Centre for Security Analysis, NILDS, warned that the three bills, the Department of State Services Trust Fund Bill (HB.2178), the Strategic Intelligence Management Institute Bill (HB.2589), and the DSS Research and Development Institute Bill (HB.2716) contain overlapping provisions that could weaken institutional efficiency if passed without major amendments.
Dr. Joshua said the proposed legislation risks creating duplication within Nigeria’s security and intelligence framework, noting that several provisions already exist under current laws.
On the DSS Research and Development Institute Bill (HB.2716)
He raised concerns over the design and structure of the proposed institute, including:
*Conflict with existing laws and institutions, creating duplication of functions
*A weak financial management framework, with unclear financial structures
*An inappropriate governance model, where the chief executive is designated as “Commandant,” which he said reinforces a military culture unsuitable for a research institution
*Lack of institutional autonomy, as staffing relies heavily on DSS postings rather than open recruitment
*Limited access to external expertise from universities and research institutions
He warned that the model could undermine the scientific and independent nature expected of a research institute.
On the Strategic Intelligence Management Institute Bill (HB.2589)
Dr. Joshua described the proposed institute as elitist and overly centralised, saying it risks weakening intelligence capacity.
He listed his concerns as:
*A restricted mandate focused only on management cadre officers
*Exclusion of operational intelligence personnel, who he described as the backbone of intelligence gathering and analysis
*A governance structure that concentrates authority within a single agency, limiting diversity and institutional balance
*A recruitment system that could exclude wider intelligence stakeholders across agencies
He warned that intelligence training should remain inclusive and reflect all operational levels of the intelligence community.
On the DSS Trust Fund Bill (HB.2178)
Dr. Joshua also raised strong concerns about the proposed funding framework for the DSS Trust Fund.
He noted:
*Unclear and vague funding provisions, particularly around budgetary allocations
*Ambiguity in contributions from federal and state governments
*Inclusion of levies, taxes, grants and donations, which he warned could trigger public backlash
*Risk of creating new financial burdens on citizens at a time of ongoing tax concerns
His recommendations include:
* Removal of unclear funding language
* Reliance on statutory allocations and FAAC contributions only
* Stronger and clearer parliamentary oversight mechanisms
He also urged lawmakers to introduce strict eligibility requirements for board members, including:
* Mandatory financial qualifications
* Exclusion of persons convicted of financial crimes
* Stronger governance safeguards
He further recommended that the board operate under the policy direction of the National Security Adviser, and that the bill be amended to strengthen oversight by ensuring regular appearances before relevant National Assembly committees, including Public Accounts and Security Committees.
NIA: Warns of Mandate Clash and Opposes Foreign Funding
Representing the National Intelligence Agency, Amb. Jadesola Adesina warned that parts of the bills could create institutional conflict within Nigeria’s intelligence system.
She said provisions relating to international intelligence cooperation and research partnerships overlap with the statutory mandate of the NIA, which already handles foreign intelligence liaison and external cooperation.
She cautioned that allowing multiple agencies to engage independently in foreign intelligence relations could create ambiguity, duplication, and coordination failure.
Amb. Adesina also strongly opposed provisions permitting foreign funding, grants, and donations for intelligence-related institutions, warning that such arrangements could expose sensitive national security operations to external influence.
She recommended that all international intelligence cooperation should remain under the coordination of the NIA to maintain a unified national intelligence framework.
Dr. David Okoror: Warns of Vague Funding Structure and Institutional Duplication
Also speaking, Dr. David Okoror, Director-General of the International Institute for Security and Governance Studies, raised concerns over the financial and governance structure of the proposed Security Trust Fund.
He described the funding provisions as unclear and legally risky, particularly those involving levies, taxes, grants, and investment returns.
He warned that such ambiguity could trigger legal disputes, citing past challenges faced by similar security trust fund arrangements.
Dr. Okoror also questioned governance clarity within the bill, noting possible confusion between the roles of the chairman and executive secretary, which could lead to operational conflicts.
On legal drafting, he faulted provisions relating to penalties, presidential regulatory powers, and repeal clauses, saying they are inconsistent with established legal principles.
He further argued that the proposed Strategic Intelligence Management Institute duplicates existing institutions such as the National Institute for Security Studies and the National Defence College, warning against creating parallel structures when existing ones could be strengthened.
Across the submissions, stakeholders consistently urged lawmakers to clarify funding mechanisms, avoid institutional duplication, strengthen oversight, and ensure alignment with existing security laws
