Tantita, Ethnic Politics and the Test of National Service

Why performance, not primordial sentiments, should remain the benchmark for Nigeria’s pipeline security contracts.

BY EGUONO ODJEGBA

Few government interventions in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector have generated as much public debate as the engagement of Tantita Security Services Nigeria Limited (TSSNL) in the protection of critical petroleum infrastructure.

Since the company assumed responsibility for large segments of Nigeria’s pipeline surveillance operations, it has remained at the centre of two parallel narratives. On one hand are official reports and industry stakeholders who credit the surveillance arrangement with contributing to improved crude oil production, reduced pipeline vandalism, and stronger protection of national assets. On the other are critics who question aspects of the company’s operations, its influence, and its continued engagement.

The intensity of those competing narratives has increased in recent months following the renewal of Tantita’s surveillance contract by the Federal Government.

For many observers, the controversy raises a larger national question: should contracts involving strategic national assets be judged principally by measurable performance or by ethnic, political and regional considerations?

That question deserves careful reflection. Nigeria’s petroleum industry has for decades suffered enormous losses arising from crude oil theft, pipeline vandalism, illegal refining and attacks on energy infrastructure. Successive administrations deployed military operations, security agencies, private contractors and technological solutions with varying degrees of success.

Yet crude theft remained one of our biggest economic challenges. Industry data released over the past few years indicate that Nigeria’s crude oil production recovered significantly after intensified surveillance operations involving security agencies, host communities and private surveillance contractors. Many stakeholders have acknowledged that improved collaboration among these actors contributed to better protection of oil infrastructure.

Supporters of Tantita therefore argue that its engagement should be viewed within this broader framework of national economic recovery rather than through the narrow prism of ethnic identity.

To them, the primary question is straightforward. Has the surveillance arrangement helped protect national assets? Has it contributed to improved crude production? And has it assisted government efforts to curb oil theft?

If the answer is substantially affirmative, they argue, then performance should remain the dominant criterion for evaluating the contract. And this position sits well with all right-thinking people and all men of conscience.

The company itself has consistently maintained that its assignment is national rather than sectional. Operating across difficult terrains inhabited by diverse ethnic communities, pipeline surveillance cannot succeed through confrontation alone. It requires cooperation with local populations, traditional institutions, security agencies and government regulators.

Supporters point to the company’s workforce, which reportedly cuts across several ethnic nationalities, arguing that operational effectiveness depends more on local collaboration than ethnic exclusivity. That is perhaps why many observers caution against reducing a national security assignment into an ethnic contest.

Recent allegations against Tantita and its founder, Chief Government Ekpemupolo, popularly known as Tompolo, have further heightened public tension.

Among the latest claims are accusations relating to alleged unlawful detention of individuals. Those allegations have attracted considerable public attention, with maverick Itshekiri leader and activist, Eyiri Amani trumpeting the purported development.

However, as with any serious accusation, they remain allegations unless established through competent investigation and due legal process. In a constitutional democracy, allegations should neither be dismissed without examination nor accepted as proven without credible evidence and lawful adjudication.

That principle protects both complainants and those accused. The danger lies in allowing unresolved accusations to become instruments of ethnic mobilisation or political pressure.

Nigeria has experienced too many conflicts fueled by suspicion, stereotypes and collective blame. The Niger Delta itself bears painful memories of decades of mistrust between communities, government institutions and multinational oil companies.

Many believe the country should avoid returning to those divisive patterns. Tompolo’s own public journey has been remarkable.

From his years as a prominent figure during the Niger Delta militancy to his subsequent acceptance of the Federal Government’s amnesty programme and eventual emergence as a key participant in efforts to protect oil infrastructure, his story reflects one of the most significant transformations in contemporary Nigeria’s security landscape.

Whether viewed as a controversial figure or as a pragmatic nationalist, few would dispute that his current role carries immense national responsibility.

Supporters frequently describe him as someone who has chosen engagement over confrontation, economic protection over conflict and dialogue over militancy.

His critics disagree. Such disagreements are inevitable in democratic societies. What should remain non-negotiable, however, is that public debate must rest on verifiable facts rather than ethnic hostility or inflammatory rhetoric.

There is also a broader lesson for Nigeria. Every time competence becomes secondary to ethnicity, the nation risks weakening institutions that ought to serve everyone equally.

Public contracts should certainly be scrutinized. Private contractors should remain accountable. Government should insist on transparency. Citizens should demand value for public expenditure.

But accountability should not become a euphemism for ethnic exclusion. Nor should legitimate criticism descend into collective hostility against communities or regions. Nigeria’s unity has often been tested by the temptation to interpret every national issue through ethnic lenses.

Pipeline surveillance should not become another casualty of that habit. Ultimately, the Federal Government owes Nigerians regular, transparent assessments of all surveillance contracts, including measurable outcomes, costs, operational efficiency and value for money.

Such objective evaluation would reduce speculation while allowing facts, not sentiments to determine future policy decisions.

If any contractor fails, the evidence should justify termination. If a contractor succeeds, performance should speak louder than prejudice. Perhaps that is the larger lesson emerging from the continuing debate surrounding Tantita.

Nations grow stronger when merit consistently outweighs primordial considerations. The struggle against crude oil theft is not an Ijaw project.

Neither is it an Itsekiri project, an Urhobo project or a Yoruba, Hausa or Igbo project. It is a Nigerian project.

Protecting the country’s economic lifeline requires cooperation rather than suspicion, inclusion rather than division, and evidence rather than emotion.

In the end, history rarely remembers those who amplified ethnic divisions. It remembers those who strengthened the institutions that held the nation together.