Nigeria’s Oil Security Model: Evidence, Not Ethnic Agitation

BY EGUONO ODJEGBA

Nigeria’s oil industry, long crippled by theft and sabotage, has been experiencing a remarkable, sustained recovery in the past two years. At the center of this turnaround is the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC)’s contract with Tantita Security Services Limited, an indigenous firm which ownership is linked to High Chief Government Ekpemupolo, otherwise popularly known as Tompolo.

To keep it simple, the results are striking. Crude oil theft has dropped by more than 90%, production has rebounded from precarious lows of 700,000–1 million barrels per day to a sustained 1.7–1.8 million barrels per day, and billions of dollars once lost to criminal cartels are now flowing into the Federation Account. This recovery has strengthened Nigeria’s OPEC standing, stabilized the naira, and funded national budgets that benefit every Nigerian.

Yet, despite these gains, a small group of agitators that comes across more like disgruntled individuals, notably Fejiro Oliver and Zik Gbemre have mounted campaigns of distortion. They style themselves as advocates of equity but in reality are pursuing a selfish script, inciting the Isoko and Urhobo ethnic groups against Tantita’s lawful managers.

Let it be stated quickly and for the umpteenth time, and unequivocally that the agitation is not representative of these communities; it is more like grievance dressed as activism, entitlement masquerading as justice.

What the NNPCL and Tantita are doing is by no means off the blues, it is a global practice that concerns outsourcing security of critical infrastructure. Nigeria’s model is neither novel nor peculiar. Across the world, governments contract private firms to secure critical resources.

The United States is an example with 65% of critical infrastructure privately owned, and where private contractors safeguard pipelines, power grids, and data centers; often in partnership with federal agencies.

In East Africa states, oil pipelines and ports vulnerable to sabotage are protected by private firms employing trained local personnel for patrols, monitoring, and rapid response. Same happens in parts of Europe where public-private partnerships underpin the security of transport hubs and energy facilities, with private contractors providing specialized expertise in surveillance and cyber defense.

Perhaps, Nigeria’s reliance on Tantita mirrors East Africa’s approach, both models emphasize competence, local knowledge, and accountability rather than ethnic distribution.

So far, a number of meaningful voices from the Niger Delta have made instructive interventions. Despite that community leaders and industry experts have weighed in on the debate, these holier-than-thou campaigners have refused to listen to voices of reason. Chief Emmanuel Okolo, a respected Isoko elder, told this paper: “We have seen what chaos looks like when contracts were fragmented among groups. Theft was rampant, and our youths were jobless. Today, with Tantita’s coordination, there is peace in the creeks and jobs for our sons. Those who say otherwise are not speaking for us.”

Similarly, Dr. Grace Edewor, an energy economist at the University of Port Harcourt, explained: “Security contracts are not developmental grants. They are performance-based procurements. The data shows that consolidation under competent indigenous operators has delivered results. Fragmentation would reverse these gains.”

Industry insiders echo this sentiment. A senior NNPC official, speaking on condition of anonymity, noted: “We tried the multi-contractor model before. It failed. Consolidation was not political; it was pragmatic. The numbers speak for themselves.”

If these agitators were guided by the common good, perhaps the issues to raise would be how to achieve greater benefits by examining the strengths and weaknesses of private security models.

So far, the strengths have been evident. These includes specialized expertise and intelligence networks, flexibility to adapt to emerging threats, performance-based accountability, and efficient use of government resources.

Conversely, the weaknesses include risks of politicization if contracts are awarded merely on patronage, potential community resentment if communication is poor, while dependence on private firms may reduce direct government oversight.

Except for those who wish otherwise that the peace, security and improved national economic gains currently been enjoyed are reversed, and they are infinitesimally few, Nigeria is better with Tantita. That the ethnic fragmentation campaigns via offensive media articles have attracted reasonable rejoinders is only a testament to the well-being of the contract been executed by Tantita on behalf of Nigeria.

As Tegapinto’s open rejoinder to Mr. Oliver makes clear, pipeline surveillance contracts are security procurements, not communal wealth-sharing lotteries. They compensate for high-risk services, intelligence gathering, rapid response, and physical protection against sophisticated syndicates. Treating them as ethnic entitlements is economically illiterate and morally bankrupt.

The previous fragmented, multi-contractor model failed spectacularly, with theft skyrocketing. Consolidation under competent indigenous operators with deep local knowledge succeeded where ethnic “shares” could not. Effectiveness trumps ethnicity.

According to Tegapinto, Oliver’s rhetoric, invoking envy, naming individuals, and threatening disruption of national oil flow crosses from advocacy into economic sabotage. His slogan “You guard your pipeline and I guard my own” is not revolutionary; it is regressive vigilantism that risks chaos, inter-communal warfare, and renewed theft.

Without doubt, the human cost of this needless agitation has been responded to at a larger spectrum. Market women in Warri and Isoko towns have their own perspective. “When oil production dropped, prices of everything went up. Our children could not pay school fees. Now things are better. Why would anyone want to destroy this progress?” asked Mrs. Rose Igbide, a trader at Oleh market.

Youth leaders also see opportunity in the current model. “Tantita has employed hundreds of our boys. They are earning salaries, not stealing crude. If Oliver says this is oppression, then he is blind to reality,” said Comrade Daniel Uduaghan, a youth activist from Ughelli.

The bottom line is like a naked wound that pricks the conscience of the just. Nigeria’s partnership with Tantita Security Services is consistent with international best practices. This partnership has been delivering results where government-only efforts have faltered, repeatedly. Fejiro Oliver and his fellow disgruntled elements are not speaking for the Urhobo or Isoko people; they are pursuing narrow, self-centered interests that risk destabilizing a system finally showing progress.

The choice is not between monopoly and fragmentation. It is between progress and regression; and evidence favours progress.