Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
ABUJA, Nigeria — A senior presidential aide has ignited widespread controversy after publicly advocating that individuals caught vandalising public infrastructure, particularly on federal highways, should be “shot on sight.” Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Information and Strategy, made the statement on social media in response to a viral video showing alleged vandals damaging components of a major road reconstruction project.
On Sunday, Onanuga reacted to a video shared on X (formerly Twitter) by user Salanwu Omoiyaonipako, which depicted workers at the reconstruction site of the Ibadan-Ilesa/Ife Federal Highway in southwestern Nigeria discussing ongoing damage to starter bars and shoulder rods — vital steel components used to reinforce and align road structures. The footage showed how sections of these materials were being cut and removed at the construction site.
“These are pure acts of wickedness,” Omoiyaonipako wrote alongside the video, lamenting that despite government efforts to deliver quality infrastructure, some citizens continue to undermine those efforts. “The government is helping us build good roads, but some Nigerians are vandalising them. I’m tired!”
In his quoted response to that post, Onanuga did not call for legal prosecution or strengthened enforcement under the law but instead issued a stark, extrajudicial directive: “Just shoot these unconscionable vandals/thieves at sight. They are the worst species of citizens.” That remark rapidly drew backlash from legal experts, civil society actors and commentators who view it as an endorsement of violence outside the framework of due process.
The Ibadan-Ilesa/Ife federal highway is among several major road projects funded and overseen by the federal government as part of broader efforts to improve Nigeria’s transport infrastructure and boost economic activity across states. Road vandalism — including theft of metal components, theft of signage and damage to construction materials — has long been a concern for authorities, often cited as causing project delays and increased costs. However, previous government responses have typically focused on strengthening policing, community engagement and legal penalties for offenders.
Onanuga’s remarks have prompted immediate debate across political and legal circles. Critics have characterised the “shoot on sight” language as contrary to constitutional protections and due process, arguing that it could encourage abusive conduct by security forces and escalate rather than mitigate conflict around public works. Nigerian law guarantees the right to life and fair hearing, and extrajudicial use of lethal force outside clearly defined legal circumstances is widely regarded by legal scholars as unlawful.
Supporters of more aggressive action against infrastructure vandalism argue that the theft and destruction of public assets — including road materials, railway fittings, oil pipelines and electricity infrastructure — cost the nation billions of naira annually and disrupt essential services. They contend that deterrence requires tougher enforcement, though most advocate for measures such as improved surveillance, stronger penalties under existing statutes and community cooperation rather than ad hoc use of force.
Human rights organisations have been among the most vocal critics of Onanuga’s statement. They argue that advocating lethal force against alleged vandals risks setting a dangerous precedent for state-sanctioned violence and undermines the rule of law. International legal norms and Nigeria’s own constitution enshrine protections against arbitrary deprivation of life, and security policy experts warn that language endorsing extrajudicial killings could exacerbate tensions in other security-sensitive areas where law enforcement is already scrutinised for excessive force.
The debate comes against a backdrop of longstanding challenges with vandalism and theft of public infrastructure in Nigeria. Beyond highway projects, there have been repeated incidents of oil pipeline sabotage, theft of railway hardware and destruction of electricity transmission lines — each contributing to service disruptions and economic losses. Previous efforts to address these issues have included joint task forces, enhanced policing and collaborations with local communities to protect critical infrastructure.
Political analysts say the controversy illustrates the growing frustration within government ranks over persistent sabotage and the pressure on authorities to demonstrate results in infrastructure delivery. They note, however, that balancing firm enforcement with respect for legal norms is a perennial challenge for policymakers, especially in a democratic context where public trust in state institutions and adherence to constitutional safeguards remain central to governance legitimacy.
In response to the growing public reaction, some commentators have called on the presidency to clarify whether Onanuga’s statement reflects official government policy or a personal opinion expressed in the heat of online debate. Such clarification is particularly relevant given Onanuga’s role as an adviser to the president on information strategy, a position that traditionally involves communicating and interpreting government positions to the public.
At present, there is no indication of any formal policy change or directive from the federal government endorsing shoot-on-sight measures against infrastructure vandals. Security agencies have not confirmed operational shifts to adopt lethal force in response to vandalism, and there have been no reports of enforcement actions based on Onanuga’s remarks. However, the conversation has heightened awareness around the issue and sparked renewed calls for comprehensive strategies to protect public assets while upholding legal and human rights obligations.
As discussions continue, legal experts emphasise that any effective response to vandalism must align with constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards, combining prevention, community engagement and judicious enforcement rather than resorting to extrajudicial prescriptions.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments