The security personnel sent to comb the city in a night of security operation had all the moral and justified rights to go on about their duties.
This is because when it comes to the securities of a people, an area or a state, the government of the day has to, on an express card, call the day.
This is the basic, fundamental and primary incumbency of the administration of the day.
In other words, the government reins supreme in all matters of security, whether breaches are from within or without.
This guardianship role has to, without question fall on a government’s lap -primarily- for, or on, behalf of her subjects.
The subjects for that matter read -the people- ought to play as secondary vigilantes.
Together, or both, therefore makes a fortification that enables the security of an area, zone or location, be watertight.
We today emphasize this because it is rather important to sway voices of discord seen last week when a short spate of security check was done blanketly overnight.
In the same breath we take to dissuade media fraternity who abetted in the misinformation to a similar repeat.
The servicemen have to deal with tentative security management while on patrol just as when they have to or are dealing with pre-ordained tasks on security risks. Ensuing cases are handled as they unfold.
Whatever the case we ought to have been on our toes all along, before, just as we have to be vigil now and in the future.
When such operations are done, members of the public also ought to know the significance hence dutifully have to duly support all through.
It is not only sad but quite disgusting when there abounds distorted information which are tailored towards either belittling, demeaning damaging or vilifying the actual noble act of combing the towns off security breaches.
To see allegations that falsely claim that security personnel plucked off patrons from a given inn which never happened is breach of peace in itself.
Anyhow we acknowledge the fact that the majority of the populace saw, felt and basked in noble faith of their security services, something which speaks a lot in as far as trust in their country is concerned.
As concerns one or two cases of assumed heavy-handedness on the part of expediency, the impact seems negligible as far as the general overview is concerned. However, even for the couple of presumed arbitrary specks of tinges in security management, whatever resultant blots have a set of regulatory addressing to be adhered in thrashing out any discrepancies.
In any case we support security operations regularly done as necessity applies hence decry the tendency of the few who are bent on creating mountains out of mole hills.
M A EGGE