With their mode of operation, security agencies in the country are generally regarded as state’s agents of oppression and coercion. But, with recent developments, the State Security Service (SSS), also referred to as the Department of State Services (DSS), appears to be breaking from the pack, Assistant Editor, ERIC IKHILAE, reports.
Since its establishment decades ago, the State Security Service (SSS), also known as the Department of State Services (DSS), has undergone stages of evolution and in the process, attracted to itself a mixed reputation.
The beginning
The DSS, as it is commonly known today, metamorphosed from the then “E” Department (Special Branch), established in 1948 in the office of the Inspector General of Police (IGP).
It became a separate entity and rechristened the Nigerian Security Organisation (NSO) shortly after the 1976 abortive coup, in which the then Head of State, General Murtala Mohammed was killed.
General Olusegun Obasanjo, who succeeded Mohammed, promulgated the NSO Decree No.16 of 1976 which created the organisation as a response to the security challenges posed by the 1976 abortive coup.
The agency was then charged with the responsibility of timely procurement of relevant and well analysed intelligence, necessary to meet the highlighted challenges and other matters bordering on national security.
When General Ibrahim Babangida took over in 1985, he overhauled the NSO by promulgating Decree No. 19 of 1986 referred to as the National Security Agencies (NSA) Decree 1986.
The NSA Decree created three agencies – the SSS (DSS), the Defence Intelligence Service (DIS) and the National Intelligence Agency (NIA).
The DSS’ jurisdiction did not extend to operations outside the country. The agency is under the Presidency and reports its activities directly to the President and the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA).
Its core responsibilities
By virtue of Instrument SSS Number One of 1999 made pursuant to Section 6 of the National Security Agencies (NSA) Act 1986 Cap. 74 Law of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004, the agency is charged with the following responsibilities:
• The prevention and detection of any crime against the internal security of Nigeria.
• The protection and preservation of all non-military classified matters concerning the internal security of Nigeria;
• The prevention, detection and investigation of threats of espionage, subversion, sabotage, terrorism, separatist agitations, inter-group conflicts, economic crimes of national security dimension and threats to law and order.
• The provision of protective security for designated principal government functionaries, sensitive installations and visiting dignitaries;
• The provision of timely advise to government on all matters of national security interest and,
• Such other functions as may, from time to time, be assigned to it.
Before now
For the many years it has existed, the DSS has experienced the various stages of the nation’s political development and had, in itself, been exposed to varied methods of executing its mandates.
The DSS and sister agencies were dreaded during the military era. They were generally perceived as the state’s instruments of brutality, coercion and oppression. The DSS was referred to then as the dreaded Abuja Yellow House.
Many, who spoke against the government of the day, were taken care of, while some simply disappeared.
It is believed that a number of individuals, who spoke against military regimes and advocated for democracy, particularly the restoration of the annulled June 12 presidential election, who were taken in by state’s agents in the DSS and sister agencies, remain unaccounted for till date.
However, with the re-establishment of democratic governance in the country in 1999, it was expected that a new era was here, where state’s security outfits, like the DSS, would abandon their old ways and adopt more civil operational methods that emphasise the rule of law and respect for human rights.
To many, however, the operational pattern of the DSS did not meet this expectation until recently when it appeared to be shifting focus.
From 1999 till recently, incidents of arbitrary arrests and detentions without trial have been widely recorded.
As if unsure that thier mode of operations ought to be generally covert, DSS’ officials engaged in overt display of might on most occasions, with many wearing attires that boldly display the insignia of the agency.
To observers, however, the agency now seems to be retracing its steps in recent times, a development being attributed to its current leadership.
Beginning of a rebirth
On his assumption of office on August 28, 2024, the current Director-General of the DSS, Adeola Ajayi, spoke about the need for a refocused agency that promised a new era.
The then DSS’ spokesman, Peter Afunanya, in a statement issued on August 29, said Ajayi “pledged to refocus the service towards covertness and likelihood of studied silence over certain matters.”
Observes are of the view that signs of such departure from the past are becoming visible by the day, going by the way the agency has handled recent cases of deliberate provocation and threat to national security and sovereignty.
Cases
They cited the manner the DSS dealt with the case involving the 2007 presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Patrick Okedinachi Utomi (also known as Prof. Pat Utomi).
Utomi had earlier this year announced plans for the formation of what he described as shadow government in the country.
Observers argue that, before now, a typical DSS would have swooped on him and his fellow travellers, noting that in this case, the agency acted civil by electing to approach the court for the determination of the propriety or otherwise of Utomi’s action.
In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/937/2025 in respect of which a Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled judgment for September 29, the DSS is contending, among others, that the move by Utomi was intended to create chaos and destabilise the country.
The DSS, in the suit filed by a team of lawyers, led by Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), argued that, not only is the planned shadow government an aberration, it constitutes a grave attack on the Constitution and a threat to the democratically-elected government that is currently in place.
It expressed concern that such a structure, styled as a ‘shadow government,’ if left unchecked, may incite political unrest, cause intergroup tensions, and embolden other unlawful actors or separatist entities to replicate similar parallel arrangements, all of which pose a grave threat to national security.”
The DSS urged the court to, among others, declare the purported “shadow government” or”’shadow cabinet” being planned by Utomi and his associates as “unconstitutional and amounts to an attempt to create a parallel authority not recognised by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”
It equally wants a declaration that “under Sections 1(1), 1(2) and 14(2)(a) of the Constitution, the establishment or operation of any governmental authority or structure outside the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). is unconstitutional, null, and void.”
In response, the DSS, again, headed for the court by instituting a N5.5billion defamation suit against the group and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare for allegedly making false claim against it and its officials.
In the suit, filed in the names of the two affected officials – Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele – the DSS stated, among others, that the alleged false claim by SERAP had negatively impacted on its reputation and that of the two officials involved.
In the suit marked: CV/4547/2024, filed before the HIgh Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the claimants are seeking “an order directing the defendants to tender an apology to the claimants via the first defendant’s (SERAP’s) website, X (twitter) handle, two national daily newspapers (Punch and Vanguard) and two national news television stations (Arise Television and Channels Television) for falsely accusing the claimants of unlawfully invading the first defendant’s office and interrogating the first defendant’s staff.
They also want an order directing the defendants to pay the claimants N5 billion as damages for the libellous statements published about the claimants and interest on the N5b at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is paid.
The claimants equally want the court to order the defendants “to pay the claimants the sum of N50million as costs of this action.”
Another recent incident that supports the observation that the DSS is indeed turning a new leaf is the way it has chosen to react to the recent disparaging remark by politician and online publisher, Omoyele Sowore against the person of President Bola Tinubu.
In the remark shared on his X handle, Sowore described the President, among others, as a criminal.
Rather than deploy its capacity against Sowore, the DSS chose to complain to the management of X, who yielded its platform for the politician to spew such hate speech and unsubstantiated claim against the President.
The DSS’ complaint, dated September 6, and signed for the DG by B. Bamigboye, was addressed to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of X.com, with a demand that the tweet be pulled down within 24 hours.
The agency noted that such tweet by Sowore made. the author and the medium, through which the falsehood was propagated, culpable and criminally liable.
It added: “The author and purveyor of the inflammatory online publication against Mr. President is very much aware that the publication is also prohibited by Section 2 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 and other relevant Laws of Nigeria.
“It is not in doubt that the words employed by Mr. Omoyele Sowore is misleading information, online harassment and abuse; willful intention of furthering an ideology, capable of serious harm, hate speech, cause disunity, discredit the President of Nigeria in the comity of Nations to damage the image of Nigeria and cause threat to national security of the country,” it said.
The DSS categorically demanded that X.com pulls down the tweet and its attendant re-tweet, adding that “this demand is unequivocal with its attendant consequences.
“Should you fail, neglect and refuse to comply with the command in this notice, the Federal Government of Nigeria will be compelled to take far-reaching sweeping and across the board measures through our organisation, whose mandate covers such Criminal Act.
“In the light of the above, having been made official to you, 24 hours is sufficient enough to take necessary action,” it said.
Also, it is observed that the DSS has, of recent, raised the temple of investigation and prosecution of cases, including those inherited by the current leadership.
On September 3, the DSS arraigned nine individuals before a Federal High Court in Abuja over their alleged involvement in the recent killings in Benue and Plateau states.
Out of the nine, Timnan Manjo of First Baptist Church, Mangu LGA, Plateau State and Nanbol Tali of Cocin LCC, Heipang, Barkin Ladi LGA, Plateau State – pleaded guilty to illegal dealing in firearms.
Also last week, the DSS filed charges against another set of terrorism suspects, including recently-apprehended two commanders of the Ansaru Terrorist Group, an Al-Qaeda-linked organisation.
The two are Mahmud Usman (aka Abu Bara’a/Abbas/Mukhtar), the self-styled Emir of Ansaru; and Mahmud al-Nigeri (aka Malam Mamuda), described as Bara’s Deputy and Chief of Staff.
They are charged with, among others, leading a terror organisation, financing its activities, recruiting fighters, and coordinating violent attacks across Nigeria.
The DSS explained that its decision to fast-track its investigation activities was to ensure a speedy prosecution, in line with the directive of the agency’s Director-General, who emphasised professionalism, justice, and respect for human rights in handling terrorism cases.
Lawyers’ perspectives
Former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Kanu Agabi (SAN), recently attested to the professional conduct of officials of the DSS.
Agabi is leading the defence team in the terrorism trial of detained leader of the proscribed separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu,
At a resumed hearing in the case, Agabi denied claim by a member of his team, Alloy Ejimakor, that himself and some members of his team were prevented from accessing Kanu in the custody of the DSS.
On the said date, the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho had, midway into proceedings, noted that Ejimakor posted on one of his social media platforms that the DSS denied Kanu’s legal team access to him. The judge then sought to know what the actual position was.
Agabi, while responding, said none of such happened. He blamed Ejimakor for the mix-up and commended the conduct of the DSS officials, whom he said were very respectful and courteous.
Agabi said: “I was not denied access to the defendant. We had arranged to go there with myself, Ikpeazu, Etiaba, Erokoro. But for some reasons, they were not available.
“When I got to the gate around 1pm, they said our name had not arrived. To be fair, they (the DSS officials) showed me enough respect. I said I will come back another date,” he said.
He added that he was surprised and became angry when he learnt that a member of his team went to put on the internet that he was not allowed access to the defendant.
Kehinde, who is one of the lawyers handling some of the cases instituted by the DSS, has equally commended the current operational pattern adopted by the leadership of the agency.
The Senior Advocate noted that things were now better handled than before.
However, admonition by observers is that the DSS should maintain this momentum and continue to refine its methodology in ways that is in accord with, and upholds democratic tenets.
