Akure, Ondo State Tension is rising within the Ondo State Security Network Agency (Amotekun) after operatives petitioned the Ondo State House of Assembly complaining of years-long denial of formal appointment letters and raising sharp ethical questions about leadership decisions that they say undermine the corps’ credibility and operational integrity.
The petition submitted in early September and widely reported by national outlets accuses the state command of treating Amotekun personnel as casual workers by refusing to issue written letters of appointment since the corps was inaugurated in 2020.
Officers say the absence of formal documentation leaves them without job security, exposes them to arbitrary treatment and denies them the protections that exist for their counterparts in other South-West states.
1) “Making a murderer/ex-convict the State Head of Operation is a crime against security ethics” allegation or fact?
A number of critics and some rank-and-file operatives have voiced alarm after media coverage showed Amotekun arresting ex-convicts and parading suspects actions that opponents have used to raise a loaded allegation: that an ex-convict or someone with a tainted past was given an operational leadership role. Proponents of the corps say the arrests demonstrate Amotekun’s effectiveness; critics say appointing anyone with a criminal past to a leadership role would be a serious breach of security ethics and law. Media reports confirm that Amotekun in Ondo recently paraded suspects that included escaped or previously convicted offenders, but they do not independently verify any appointment of an ex-convict to a senior command post.
Legal and ethical experts say the distinction is crucial: if the allegation is that a known ex-convict has been appointed to a position of authority, that would raise questions about vetting, fitness for office and public safety. If, as the public record currently shows, Amotekun has arrested ex-convicts as part of operations, that is evidence of activity, not evidence of compromised leadership. Reporters and officials contacted so far have not produced a verifiable appointment document supporting the claim that an ex-convict was made head of operations.
2) Is requesting an appointment letter an offence and how do other states compare?
Officers who petitioned the Ondo Assembly insist that asking for an appointment letter is not a criminal act but a reasonable demand for formalization of terms of service. Their petition points out that Amotekun personnel in neighbouring states notably Ekiti, Osun, Ogun and Oyo have received letters of appointment or have functioning recruitment/registration portals and public recruitment exercises, and therefore operate under documented terms of engagement. The operatives in Ondo argue that withholding letters amounts to discriminatory and unlawful casualisation.
State government sources and the Ondo Amotekun command have pushed back in some public statements and video responses, contending that different states handle regularisation differently and that issuance of letters is an administrative matter. A short video and public comments attributed to the state commandant indicate a refusal to frame the demand as a criminal act, but also a resistance to the timing or basis for issuing letters. That response has not satisfied aggrieved officers who insist the matter is both lawful and urgent.
3) Would issuance of appointment letters reveal anything the commander might be hiding?
Operatives and civil society actors argue that issuing appointment letters promotes transparency by clearly recording who is on the payroll, the chain of command, terms of engagement, rank structure and accountability lines all details that strengthen institutional integrity rather than expose it to secret risks. Critics, however, speculate that the refusal to issue letters could be used to allow ad-hoc arrangements: informal hirings, uneven pay, lack of promotion pathways, or the preservation of patronage networks. Media reporting and the petition stop short of claiming direct evidence of corruption tied to appointment-letter issuance, but they do suggest that formal documentation would reduce opportunities for abuse and clarify personnel numbers which is the core of the officers’ demand.
The command’s defenders say certain operational details (deployments, intelligence attachments, undercover roles) cannot be captured in a public appointment letter for security reasons. Observers counter that appointment letters normally record only basic conditions of service and rank not operational secrets and that the benefit of formalising employment outweighs speculative security objections. No independent evidence has been published to show that issuing letters would fundamentally compromise ongoing operations.
4) Government should carry out a head-count of Amotekun officers why operatives want this
A recurring theme in the petition is the call for a verified head-count and a transparent personnel register. Officers say an official census would:
Clarify how many operatives are actually on duty across the 18 local government areas;
Prevent ghost or “paper” personnel on the payroll;
Allow fair distribution of welfare, training and protective equipment; and
Provide a basis for a clear rank structure, pension planning and disciplinary oversight.
Advocates note that other states have run formal recruitment and registration drives and maintain online portals for Amotekun recruitment, strengthening personnel accountability.
The petitioners want the Ondo House of Assembly to mandate a head-count and a forensic audit of personnel records steps they say would address grievances and restore morale.
Reactions: command, Assembly and civil society
Ondo Amotekun Command: The command has defended operational decisions and denied some of the more incendiary claims circulating on social media, while also saying appointment paperwork is an administrative issue they are addressing in line with state policy. A command video defending the refusal to issue letters has itself become part of the debate.
Amotekun Officers (petitioners): The petitioners, through counsel, have demanded formalisation, pointing to the Labour Act and principles of non-discrimination. They argue that the absence of letters is tantamount to casualisation of dangerous work.
Ondo State House of Assembly: The petition has been lodged with the Assembly; lawmakers are under pressure to open an inquiry or to compel government regularisation. Media reports indicate the issue is on the legislative radar.
Civil society and commentators: Some analysts urge caution: they call for verification of any allegation that a person with a criminal past was appointed to a command role, and for processes that strengthen Amotekun’s institutional status rather than politicise it. Others urge immediate issuance of appointment letters and a transparent head-count.
What’s next — options and stakes
Observers identify a few constructive steps that can defuse the crisis and professionalise the corps:
- Independent personnel audit / head-count: A neutral verification of active personnel, payroll and ranks would address the “ghost-worker” worry and give operatives a clear basis for claims.
- Issuance of appointment letters (where appropriate): Standard appointment letters that state rank, conditions of service and reporting lines — while excluding tactical details — would regularise employment and reduce litigation risk.
- Transparent vetting records: If there are allegations about the background of senior appointees, an independent vetting report (respecting due process) can settle the matter and protect public trust.
- Legislative oversight: The Ondo Assembly can summon officials, demand documentation and, if necessary, recommend reforms to the legal status of the State Security Network Agency.
Bottom line
The dispute in Ondo State is less about the existence of Amotekun than about how to institutionalise it in a way that protects both security and the rights of those who serve. Officers’ demand for appointment letters and a head-count is backed by documented petitions and comparison with practices in neighbouring states. Allegations about appointing criminals to leadership go to the heart of public trust but currently rest on more hearsay than verified documents in the public domain. What is clear from press reporting is that without transparent personnel records and clear terms of service, the corps risks erosion of morale, public confidence and the very operational gains it has recorded.
