By Mohammed Yahaya Katamba
Nigeria today stands at a crossroads in its national security journey. From terrorism and banditry to kidnapping, communal conflicts, separatist violence, armed robbery, and transnational organised crimes, the proliferation of small arms, ammunition, and light weapons has become one of the gravest threats confronting the country’s peace, sovereignty, and developmental aspirations. It is against this frightening backdrop that the establishment of the National Commission (NATCOM) for the Coordination and Control of the Proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons has become not merely desirable, but absolutely indispensable to Nigeria’s security architecture and regional obligations under the ECOWAS Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons signed in 2006.
Recognising the urgency and strategic importance of creating a legally empowered national institution to combat the illicit circulation of arms, the Chief Proponent of the NATCOM initiative, Dr Baba Mohammed, FCNA, patriotically sponsored two private member bills before the 9th National Assembly in 2020. The essence of the proposed legislation was to establish a full-fledged national commission capable of coordinating Nigeria’s response to the growing menace of illicit weapons proliferation in accordance with the ECOWAS Convention, which mandates member states to establish national commissions through legal and regulatory frameworks. Nigeria, being a leading signatory and one of the most influential countries within the West African sub-region, was expected to take the lead in domesticating and implementing the provisions of the treaty in both letter and spirit.
However, while deliberations on the private member bills were ongoing, the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) in 2021 forwarded an executive bill to the National Assembly seeking essentially the same mandate. The executive proposal aimed at converting the National Centre for the Coordination and Control of the Proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons, domiciled within ONSA, into a full-fledged commission. This development, though seemingly complementary, gradually exposed an undercurrent of institutional rivalry and bureaucratic competition over control, influence, and operational authority within Nigeria’s security governance framework.
Nevertheless, the 9th National Assembly rose above institutional sentiments and approached the matter with commendable patriotism and statesmanship. Having carefully considered the strategic implications of the proposed legislation for national security, regional stability, and international treaty compliance, the National Assembly wisely harmonised the two private member bills alongside the executive bill into one comprehensive legislation establishing NATCOM. That singular legislative action reflected a rare demonstration of national interest superseding institutional ego and bureaucratic turf protection.
Consequently, in June 2022, the harmonised NATCOM Bill was duly passed by the National Assembly and transmitted to former President Muhammadu Buhari for presidential assent. The expectation among security experts, civil society stakeholders, international partners, and advocates of arms control was that the President would promptly assent to the bill, thereby granting the proposed commission the legal authority, operational independence, and institutional legitimacy required to effectively discharge its responsibilities. Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming national importance of the bill, presidential assent was withheld throughout the remainder of the Buhari administration, leaving the proposed commission in legal limbo until the expiration of that government.
Driven by patriotism, institutional continuity, and the urgent need to strengthen Nigeria’s security response mechanism, the 10th National Assembly reconsidered the bill and courageously passed it once again. The bill was subsequently transmitted to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, for assent. Yet, despite the renewed legislative endorsement and the worsening security realities across the country, the NATCOM Bill has continued to suffer from avoidable bureaucratic inertia, institutional resistance, and administrative torpidity. What should ordinarily have been treated as a national security emergency requiring accelerated executive attention has instead become trapped within the web of inter-agency rivalry and bureaucratic power struggles.
This delay has had serious implications not only for Nigeria’s domestic security management but also for the country’s credibility within the ECOWAS framework. The ECOWAS Convention clearly envisions the establishment of autonomous and legally recognised national commissions with sufficient operational powers to coordinate arms control policies, facilitate intelligence sharing, monitor arms transfers, strengthen border control mechanisms, support disarmament initiatives, and collaborate with regional and international partners in combating illicit weapons proliferation. Without a fully operational NATCOM backed by law, Nigeria risks undermining both its treaty obligations and its leadership position within West Africa.
Beyond treaty compliance, the necessity of NATCOM cannot be overstated in practical security terms. Nigeria’s current security challenges are deeply interconnected with the unchecked movement of illicit arms across porous borders and conflict-prone regions. Terrorist groups, armed bandits, insurgents, kidnappers, cult groups, and criminal networks continue to exploit institutional gaps, weak coordination, and fragmented enforcement structures. A properly established and legally empowered NATCOM would serve as a central coordinating authority capable of harmonising intelligence, policy formulation, strategic interventions, data management, weapons tracing, and stakeholder collaboration among security agencies, customs authorities, border institutions, civil society organisations, and international partners.
More importantly, NATCOM would provide the legal and institutional framework necessary to transition Nigeria’s arms control efforts from fragmented administrative operations into a coordinated national strategy backed by law, accountability, and operational clarity. This is precisely why the commission must not be reduced to an internal bureaucratic contest between an existing centre under ONSA and a proposed independent commission established by statute. National security should never become a casualty of institutional rivalry.
Indeed, one of the major issues surrounding the prolonged delay appears to be the subtle but persistent contest over institutional supremacy between the existing National Centre within ONSA and the proposed independent NATCOM structure envisioned by the harmonised legislation. While the National Centre may currently perform certain coordinating functions administratively, it lacks the full statutory powers, institutional permanence, financial autonomy, and legal authority required under the ECOWAS framework to function as an effective national commission. The reality remains that administrative arrangements, no matter how well intentioned, cannot substitute for a legally established commission backed by an Act of Parliament.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu now has a historic opportunity to break this cycle of delay and institutional uncertainty by granting assent to the NATCOM Bill. At a time when Nigeria faces escalating security threats and increasing pressure to strengthen national and regional security coordination, signing the bill into law would represent a bold demonstration of leadership, commitment to security sector reforms, and fidelity to Nigeria’s international obligations. It would also send a powerful message that national interest takes precedence over bureaucratic rivalry and institutional protectionism.
The establishment of NATCOM is not about creating another layer of government bureaucracy; it is about building an effective national mechanism capable of addressing one of the most dangerous drivers of insecurity in Nigeria and across West Africa. The proliferation of illicit arms fuels violence, weakens governance, destroys communities, undermines economic development, and threatens national unity. Nigeria cannot afford to continue delaying the operationalisation of a commission specifically designed to confront this menace with legal authority and strategic coordination.
The implementation of NATCOM would provide the institutional legitimacy, coordination, and international interface required to effectively control and monitor the flow of illicit arms across the country. It is, therefore, imperative that the presidency gives this matter urgent attention and facilitates the prompt assent of the bill to enable its full implementation. Beyond security, the proposed Commission also holds the potential to productively engage over 300,000 youths and operate as a self-sustaining, revenue-generating arms regulatory agency, thereby contributing to the government’s revenue.
History will ultimately judge institutions and leaders not by the volume of their promises, but by the courage of their actions in moments of national necessity. The NATCOM Bill has already passed through extensive legislative scrutiny, bipartisan harmonisation, and repeated parliamentary approval. What remains now is the decisive executive action required to bring the commission into existence and allow it to contribute meaningfully to Nigeria’s security stability, regional obligations, and national survival.
The time for bureaucratic hesitation has passed. The time for NATCOM in Nigeria is now.
Yahaya Katamba, public affairs analyst, writes from Minna