Why the Office of the “National Security Adviser” Should Give Way to the ” Co-ordinator on National Security” in Compliance with Law
by Frank Tietie
Nigeria’s national security architecture has, for decades, operated on a conceptual contradiction that has gone largely unnoticed in public discourse. While the country officially recognises and routinely refers to the office of the “National Security Adviser” (NSA), the law establishing the framework for intelligence coordination in Nigeria does not create any such office.
Instead, the extant law which is the National Security Agencies Act establishes an office known as the “Co-ordinator on National Security.” This statutory office, created under Section 4 of the Act, is vested with broad powers relating to intelligence coordination, national security evaluation, staffing of intelligence agencies and advisory responsibilities to the President.
The implication is profound. The office that exists in law is not the “National Security Adviser” but the “Co-ordinator on National Security.” This distinction is not merely semantic. It goes to the heart of constitutional governance, legality, institutional clarity and the rule of law.
Nigeria cannot continue to operate critical national security institutions on the basis of political convenience and administrative improvisation. The rule of law demands that public offices derive their legitimacy from law and not merely from convention or executive preference.
Section 4 of the National Security Agencies Act clearly provides:
“For the purpose of co-ordinating the intelligence activities of the National Security Agencies (NIA-National Intelligence Agency, DIA-Defence Intelligence Agency and SSS-State Security Service) set up under section 1 of this Act, there shall be appointed by the President a Co-ordinator on National Security.”
The law proceeds further to define the functions of that office to include the following:
1. Advising the President on intelligence matters;
2. Making recommendations on the operations of intelligence agencies;
3. Correlating and evaluating intelligence reports relating to national security;
4. Disseminating intelligence within government;
5. Determining staffing levels within intelligence agencies; and
6. Carrying out additional functions assigned by the President.
These powers are not minor or ceremonial. They represent the core architecture of national security coordination in Nigeria. Yet, successive administrations have gradually abandoned the statutory identity of the office in favour of the extra-statutory and illegal title of “National Security Adviser.”
This drift away from statutory language has now produced institutional confusion, especially with the emergence of additional unofficial nomenclatures such as “Homeland Security Adviser,” a designation that has absolutely no known foundation in Nigerian law.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has a historic opportunity to restore legality and coherence to Nigeria’s security governance framework by formally recognising the office established by law which is the Co-ordinator on National Security (CONS) while discontinuing the legally undefined office of the “National Security Adviser.” This is not a call for unnecessary bureaucracy or cosmetic restructuring. It is a call for constitutional fidelity.
The current arrangement has created an anomalous situation where one of the most powerful offices in the Nigerian executive branch operates under a title unknown to statute. Such ambiguity is unhealthy for democracy.
In a constitutional system, powers must be traceable to law. Public offices exercising enormous influence over intelligence, defence coordination, cybersecurity, election security, counterterrorism and emergency operations must possess clear statutory identity and legal boundaries.
One of the strongest arguments for reform is that the functions currently associated with the National Security Adviser and even the so-called Homeland Security Adviser are already substantially covered under Section 4 of the National Security Agencies Act.
The law already empowers the Co-ordinator on National Security to counterterrorism coordination, cybersecurity management, maritime security, election security, protection of critical national infrastructure, transnational organised crime response; and homeland security operations.
There is therefore little justification for proliferating overlapping advisory offices with uncertain legal identities. Nigeria needs institutional clarity, not duplication.
What is required is not necessarily an entirely new law but a deliberate amendment of the National Security Agencies Act to modernise and expand the functions of the Co-ordinator on National Security in dealing with emerging security threats.
The amendment should reaffirm the statutory office of the Co-ordinator on National Security, abolish ambiguity surrounding unofficial security advisory titles and consolidate national security coordination functions within the statutory office of the Coordinator on National Security by clearly defining its operational scope and limits and establishing accountability mechanisms through legislative oversight over intelligence operations.
Nigeria’s security challenges are too serious to be managed through informal arrangements lacking precise legal foundations.
From insurgency and terrorism to cyber warfare, kidnapping, separatist violence and organised criminal networks, the country requires a national security structure rooted firmly in law and democratic accountability.
No democracy should tolerate powerful offices existing merely by administrative habit.Public confidence in national security institutions depends not only on operational efficiency but also on legal legitimacy.The rule of law must apply as much to the architecture of national security as it applies to ordinary governance.
Thus the office recognised by Nigerian law is the Co-ordinator on National Security and not the “National Security Adviser.” The latter has evolved largely through administrative convention rather than express statutory creation.
President Tinubu should therefore seize the moment to restore legal clarity by formally recognising the statutory office already established under Section 4 of the National Security Agencies Act and discontinuing reliance on unofficial nomenclatures lacking clear legislative foundation.
At the same time, the National Assembly should urgently amend the National Security Agencies Act to expand and modernise the powers of the Co-ordinator on National Security so that all present-day national security coordination functions including homeland security responsibilities are lawfully consolidated within a single, properly defined statutory office.
Nigeria’s democracy will be stronger when even its most powerful security institutions are firmly anchored in law rather than convention.
Frank Tietie, Esq. Is a Nigerian Lawyer & Media Personality, writes from Asokoro, Abuja
