The Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) spokesman, Bisi Kazeem recently disclosed that the act that established the corps permits personnel to bear arms and the corps is waiting for government’s approval. Daily Trust sought the opinions of some Nigerians on whether the agency should be armed.
Barr. A.A. Oshoko, Legal Practitioner
It is good for them to carry arms because our highways have become too dangerous and armed robbers are daring these days. We have had instances where the lives of officers have been in danger. So, they should be allowed to carry guns. But, it should be with regulations and limitations on what the gun should be used for, at what point it should be used and at the end of the day, every officer in firearm carrying department should be able to give account.
Osazee Edigin, 43, CSO official
The FRSC was established by an Act of parliament towards achieving safer highways for citizens. As traffic regulators and enforcers, they are to enforce the codes as embedded in the enabling Act. The new agitation to bear arms is worrisome because we still have issues of extra-judicial killings by other armed personnel or security agents. Adding FRSC to the list would mean that we have more of such incidents to contend with.
Traffic offences do not really pose security threat that requires bearing of arms by enforcers. In other climes, what is required are the vehicle registration numbers and body-cameras for enforcement agents to apprehend, prosecute or issue a ticket as the case may be. The police or NSCDC officials can be drafted to secure them when they perceive their operations could prove hazardous. The federal government should have a unified vehicular database linked to others for easy identification of culprits.
Barr. Sunny Daudu, Legal Practitioner
The law establishing FRSC does not stipulate that they should carry arms. The law should be amended to suit that purpose. I am however of the view that they should not carry arms because their work is to check vehicle particulars to see whether they are expired or not. Their major work is not to pursue criminals, and as such, they should not be carrying guns. They deal with civilised people and should do their work in a civilized manner.
The agency saddled with the responsibility of arresting criminals is the Police Force, who have the power to carry arms. But again, how effective is the police with arms that we are now contemplating giving arms to the FRSC? Arms carrying is not their duty and as such they should not be allowed to carry guns. I think they should update their technology in such a way that it enables them check vehicles properly.
Hassan Nurudeen, 52, Newspaper Distributor
It is not necessary for the FRSC to carry guns. They are not dealing with armed robbers and criminals, but human beings that can be controlled with the right attitude. Their work is to stop vehicles and check their particulars.
Samuel Dada Ayokhai, 50, Lecturer
We have many agencies carrying arms, like the police, NSCDC, Prisons, Customs among others. The idea of carrying arms would make FRSC officials notorious on the roads and people would obey traffic rules because of guns when they should obey through education.
I don’t support the idea because there are too many people carrying arms, and before you know what is happening, they will get involved in election and politicians will be using them to rig election and snatch ballot boxes. The saying that they are being attacked is not a yardstick to bear arms, because even the police that carry arms are being attacked daily. FRSC doesn’t work at night, they only control traffic on the road in the day time. If bearing arms is due to attacks, then everybody should be armed because we are being attacked by armed robbers too. FRSC should remain friendly traffic officers who are on the road to maintain sanity.
Lawrence Fabian, 19, Student
I don’t think it is right for the Federal Road Safety Corps to carry arms. The work they are doing doesn’t require arms bearing. They are on the road to arrest traffic offenders. Even if they had been attacked in the past, that is not enough reason for them to carry arms. I think they might abuse the privilege if given such opportunity.
Toni Abolo, 75, Media Consultant
In other climes, before such a serious decision is taken for a group of persons, whether civil or paramilitary, serious things must have happened and I don’t know what has happened to warrant FRSC bearing arms. We have the police and the new FSARS. There is also the military. How many agencies should be carrying arms?
Even if FRSC comes under attack, they can call the police for back up. If they are bearing arms, it means they will have to build an armoury. Who will fund the foreign expenditure? They are just creating more bureaucratic situations. I don’t think that is what we need.
What we need is a more intelligent security architecture in which we will police ourselves in a more civil and cost-effective way. So, I don’t subscribe to arming them.
Imelda Osayande, Journalist
I believe that FRSC should carry arms due to the inherent danger they face in the course of doing their job. They have suffered various degree of injuries and even untimely death. I lost a cousin who is an official in the course of doing his job. The vehicle he flagged down ran over him. So many of them have died while cautioning vehicles on the road. I support the idea because when motorists know that they have arms, they will obey them.
Elizabeth Chukwudi, 30, Accountant
There is no need for FRSC to bear arms because they are not dealing with criminals but drivers. We already have too many people carrying arms. With the way police are abusing their positions of authority that lets them have guns, I don’t think it is good for FRSC officials to have that opportunity.
