The Centre for Humanitarian and Homeland Advancement has defended President Bola Tinubu’s appointment of retired Major General Adeyinka Famadewa as Special Adviser on Homeland Security.
The group described criticisms trailing the appointment as misguided and disconnected from the realities of modern security governance.
The Centre was reacting to comments credited to Prof. Femi Otubanjo of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), who reportedly described the appointment as wrong and a sign of failure by the administration in tackling insecurity.
In a statement signed by its Executive Director, Dr. Maurice Ayobami, the group argued that the creation of the office reflects strategic adaptation to Nigeria’s evolving security challenges rather than institutional weakness.
Ayobami said modern threats such as terrorism, banditry, cybercrime, organised transnational crime and sabotage of critical infrastructure require governments to constantly redesign their security coordination mechanisms.
“To interpret the appointment of a Special Adviser on Homeland Security as an admission of failure is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of contemporary security management,” he said.
“Serious governments evolve. Serious administrations review their structures, identify emerging gaps, and create mechanisms capable of improving coordination, intelligence integration, and rapid strategic response.”
The Centre dismissed claims that the office would duplicate existing security structures or create rivalry within the security architecture.
According to Ayobami, the role is purely strategic and advisory, aimed at improving coordination among security institutions rather than replacing military command structures.
“The Special Adviser on Homeland Security is not being appointed to command military formations or override existing agencies,” he stated.
“The role is strategic and advisory, aimed at deepening intelligence coordination, improving homeland risk assessment, and strengthening synergy among critical institutions.”
The Centre also described Major General Famadewa as a seasoned security professional with extensive operational and intelligence experience.
It noted that the retired officer played a key role in developing Nigeria’s intelligence coordination framework during his time at the Office of the National Security Adviser.
According to the group, Famadewa’s background in military operations, intelligence coordination, security diplomacy and research makes him suitable for the position.
“Major General Famadewa is not an experimental choice. He is a tested security professional with decades of operational and strategic experience,” Ayobami said.
“At a time when security threats are becoming more interconnected and multidimensional, it is only logical for the administration to bring in individuals with deep institutional memory and proven coordination expertise.”
The Centre further argued that Nigeria’s security problems cannot be reduced to the appointment of a National Security Adviser alone.
It said the country’s insecurity is rooted in long-standing structural weaknesses, porous borders, arms proliferation, socio-economic pressures and regional instability.
Ayobami maintained that the Tinubu administration deserves credit for adopting innovative approaches to security management rather than relying on outdated systems.
“No responsible government confronted with evolving threats would continue operating with static frameworks,” he said.
“What the President has done is demonstrate strategic flexibility and administrative courage by strengthening the homeland security coordination process.”
The Centre urged Nigerians to assess the appointment from the perspective of national security reform rather than partisan politics.
It stressed that addressing insecurity requires continuous institutional strengthening, policy innovation and constructive engagement from all stakeholders.
