Understanding the security provided for Seyi Tinubu, exploring international precedent and rationale for presidential family protection in Nigeria

The appropriateness or otherwise of security protection for a president’s family can be a subject of public debate.

Also read: We will get it right with security, Obasa says

This debate is centred on the complex challenge of ensuring the safety of people connected to the presidency while being mindful of public accountability and the effective use of government resources.

This writer will focus solely on the provision of security for the president’s family, as understood, in layman’s terms.

Recently at a public function, President Tinubu’s son, Seyi’s ‘excessive’ security escort was criticized by Nobel laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka.

The respected leader had argued that such resources were needed elsewhere.

From my study, it is standard international practice for a country’s president’s immediate family, including the children, to receive significant security protection.

This is due to the high profile of the president and the potential national security risks that could arise from threats and various forms of harm to the president’s family members.

Nigeria is currently confronted by multiple security challenges like kidnapping and banditry, with the primary threat coming from the Islamic State of West Africa (ISWA) and Boko Haram.

On that score, threatening or harming a president’s son, daughter or wife could be used to blackmail the president and compromise his ability to perform state duties, thereby creating a national crisis.

Thus, the goal of ‘excessively’ protecting the president’s family is to ensure the stability and continuity of the president’s function and, by extension, the nation, by mitigating high-level threats to the First Family.

I am not familiar with the local laws on the protection of private individuals; but, based on my research, in developed countries whose model of democracy Nigeria especially practices, such as the US, the provision of security by agencies like the DSS to the president’s immediate family is a federal law, not a discretionary choice.

The president’s family members often attend public schools or travel, requiring extensive, pre-planned security measures and advance team to ensure their safety in such environments.

Even the US law specifies that children of former presidents receive protection until they are 16 years old, unless declined.

In other climes, a sitting president can issue an executive order to extend protection to members of his family, including individuals not automatically covered by law.

I will support this argument with two empirical evidence.

Just before departing the White House finally in January 2025 after the expiration of his constitutional two terms as president of the United States, Joe Biden extended protection for his adult children through the next seven months via an executive order.

That presidential order was critiqued by his successor, Donald Trump, and subsequently revoked by him.

However, Trump himself did the same for his four adult children and two of their spouses before his first term ended in 2021, when they were given six months additional protection beyond their stay in the government house.

Also read: Senator Husain criticises Adeleke in bold security warning

Thus, my interpretation of this subject is that, if it’s not unusual for a president before he leaves office to authorize an extended period of protection for their immediate family members, giving them a full time protection while holding the power is justified and not inappropriate.