Bloody Encounter Averted As DMI, DSS Operatives Face-Off Inside Presidential Villa

A bloody encounter between operatives of the Department of State Security, DSS and Directorate of Military Intelligence, DMI was averted today at the presidential villa, Abuja when the DMI agents blocked an attempt by the DSS agents to gain access into the offices. The face-off came even as a comprehensive audit of security personnel deployed to the presidential villa commenced today. The DSS operatives were last week expelled from the villa and their services restricted to the outside corridors of the villa.

?A memo signed by the Aide-De-Camp to President Muhammadu Buhari, Lt.-Col. Lawal Abubakar, the exercise was needed for “accountability and deployment.” The memo dated June 25, 2015 was titled “Request for strength returns of security personnel/forces deployed within the Presidential Villa, Abuja.”

The ADC requested that the required information should be forwarded to his office latest by today, Monday. The memo reads, “The need for proper accountability by all security forces/personnel deployed within the Presidential Villa cannot be over-emphasised.

“This has made it imperative to collate an updated nominal roll for all security forces/personnel deployed within the Presidential Villa performing physical security duties for proper accountability and deployment.

“Based on this, and in the spirit of enhancing general security within the Presidential Villa, you are requested to submit a comprehensive nominal roll of security personnel/security forces in your department/offices to office of the ADC for further necessary action.”

Meanwhile, the battle of supremacy on who is or not allowed to protect President  Buhari was finally settled today, as the personnel  of the Directorate of State Services (DSS) have returned to their duty posts at the Presidential Villa.?

This followed another round of near exchange of blows between the personnel of DSS and men of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) posted to protect President Buhari, as the DSS personnel attempted to gain access into the offices.

Following a memo from the Chief Security Officer (CSO) to the president, Abdulrahman Mani, directing his men back to their posts, ?the DSS personnel who reported for work in the morning were prevented from passing through the front entrance of the premises by the DMI men manning the point. But the DSS agents insisted that they would go in to report at their duty posts, thus leading to a heated argument which nearly led to fisticuffs.

It was learnt that the news of the encounter reached the Aide de Camp (ADC) to the President, Lt. Col. Mohammed Abubakar, who then came to resolve the differences between men of the two agencies and subsequently allowed in the DSS personnel.

The rivalry between the two security agencies ?it will be called started, when Buhari’s ADC in a recent memo barred DSS personnel from locations inside the Presidential Villa, stating that the Armed Forces and the police, trained as Presidential Body Guards (PBGs), were to “provide close/immediate protection for Mr. President henceforth.” 

He had warned that DSS personnel should stay away from specific areas in the premises including “Admin Reception, Service Chiefs Gate, Residence Reception, Rear Resident, Resident Gate, Office Reception, C-In-C Control Office, ACADE Gate, C-IN-C Control Gate and Panama”.

Abubakar added that the personnel of the DSS would however man other duty beats/locations located within the immediate outer perimeter of the Presidential Villa alongside other security forces. 

Mani, had in a counter circular in which he directed the DSS personnel to disregard the order of the ADC saying that the relevant Statutes give DSS the responsibility of close protection for the president. 

The CSO had argued: “Though further actions have been initiated in this regard, including routine redeployment of close body guards out of the villa, and deployment of new ones, it is important to state that the duties hitherto performed by the personnel of the DSS (SSS) in the Presidential Villa and/or any other Key Vulnerable Points (KVPs) are backed by relevant Statutes and Gazetted Instruments of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“Among others, these roles include close body protection of the President in line with standard operational procedures and international best practices.

“For the avoidance of doubt, Section 2 (1) (ii) of Instrument No. SSS 1 of 23rd May, 1999, made pursuant to Section 6 of the National Security Agencies (NSA) decree of 1986 which has been re-enacted as Section 6 of NSA Act CAP N74 LFN 2004, empowers personnel of the DSS to provide protective security for designated principal government functionaries including, but not limited to the President and Vice President as well as members of their immediate families.

“It also mandates the DSS to provide protective security for sensitive installations such as the Presidential Villa and visiting foreign dignitaries. For this reason, personnel of the DSS who are on this schedule are carefully selected and properly trained both locally and abroad. Furthermore, continued background checks are maintained on them to confirm suitability and loyalty.

“In fact, the issues raised in the aforementioned circular tend to suggest that the author may have ventured into a not-too-familiar terrain. The extant practice, the world over, is that VIP protection, which is a specialised field, is usually handled by the Secret Service, under whatever nomenclature. They usually constitute the inner core security ring around every principal. The police and the military by training and mandate, are often required to provide secondary and tertiary cordons around venues and routes.

“However, all over other security agencies including the army, the police and others have their roles to play. It is on this note that heads of all security agencies currently in the Presidential Villa and their subordinates are enjoined to key into the existing command and control structure. They are to work in harmony with each other in full and strict compliance with the demands of their statutory prescribed responsibilities.”