The Department of State Service has a rich history that dates back to Nigeria’s pre-colonial era. However, the modern DSS began taking shape in 1948. This modern version started with the establishment of the “E” Department, also known as the Special Branch, within the Office of the Inspector General of the Nigeria Police Force. A significant milestone in the evolution of the DSS was the 1976 abortive coup, which led to the assassination of General Murtala Mohammed, prompting General Olusegun Obasanjo to promulgate Decree No. 16, establishing the Nigerian Security Organization (NSO)⁵.

The NSO was later revised in 1986 by General Ibrahim Babangida’s military administration, creating three separate agencies, including the DSS. The DSS is responsible for domestic intelligence, while the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) handles external intelligence and counterintelligence, whilst the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) is responsible for military-related intelligence. The DSS’ headquarters was initially located at 15, Awolowo Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, but was later moved to Abuja during General Sani Abacha’s military regime and is known as the “Yellow House”⁶.

Although the DSS operates under the control of the National Security Adviser (NSA), it reports directly to the President⁷. Today, the DSS remains a critical component of Nigeria’s national security architecture, working assiduously to protect the country and its citizens from domestic threats. Ultimately, the Department of State Services has evolved significantly over the years, shaped by Nigeria’s complex history, and continues to play a vital role in the country’s national security framework.

2.2.1. Investigative Powers

Investigative powers refer to the legal authority granted to individuals, agencies, or organizations to collect, examine, and analyse information for uncovering facts, solving problems, or enforcing laws ([7]). This authority is typically exercised in criminal investigations, regulatory enforcement, or intelligence-gathering efforts. Investigative powers encompass actions such as surveillance, search and seizure, interrogation, summons, and accessing digital or financial records to uncover evidence. Law enforcement agencies within governmental organizations are often granted these powers to collect evidence, interview witnesses, and gather intelligence for solving crimes and preventing future ones.

2.2.2. Human Rights

Human rights are inherent, universal, and inalienable rights possessed by all individuals simply by being a human. They are universal, applying to every person everywhere, and inherent, not granted by any government or state. Human rights are also inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away or given up ([8]).

These rights belong to individuals or groups simply for being human, protecting them from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Examples include the right to freedom of expression, the right to personal liberty, and the right to freedom of movement. Human rights impose duties on others to respect and protect these rights, which are essential for a rational and just society. In the case of Niger Delta Power Holding Company Limited v Ulonna Michael (2025)⁸, the Supreme Court held that Fundamental rights are intrinsic to the dignity and liberty of individuals, and are protected to ensure a just and equitable society. They are guaranteed under the Constitution to ensure protection from arbitrary actions by the State and other entities. Even though the courts are enjoined to protect human rights, it must be mentioned that where national security is threatened, the human rights of citizens become secondary. In Ogwuche v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2021)⁹, the Supreme Court held that where national security is threatened or there is a real likelihood of it being threatened, the courts must be circumspect in handling issues of human rights of persons standing trial in such cases.

2.2.3. Rule of Law

The Rule of Law is a governance principle where all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to publicly promulgated laws that are equally enforced and independently adjudicated. This principle is underpinned by four core principles: accountability, which ensures that everyone, including state actors and governments, is answerable to the law; just laws, which are clear, publicized, and applied evenly; open government, which ensures that principles governing the law are accessible, fair, and efficient; and impartial justice, which is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives ([13]).

The Rule of Law emphasizes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, equality, and impartiality. It ensures that all citizens are equal before the law, prevents arbitrary government, and safeguards against the arbitrary use of power. Ultimately, the Rule of Law asserts that everyone, including governments, is subject to the law and must obey it. Consequently, the need for the investigatory powers of all security agencies and indeed the DSS to be conducted within the ambit of the law was recently re-echoed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajuwon v. Governor of Oyo State & Ors (2021)¹⁰. The court held on the actual meaning and import of the rule of law as follows:

“The Nigerian Constitution is founded on the rule of law, the primary meaning of which is that everything must be done according to law. It means also that government should be conducted within the frame-work of recognized rules and principles which restrict discretionary power as opposed to the uncertain and crooked cord of discretion. Rule of law means that disputes as to the legality of acts of government are to be decided by Judges who are independent of the executive”.

Furthermore, in the case of National Agency for Food and Drug Administration v Reagan Remedies (2019)¹¹ the admonition of the Court of Appeal on the need for government agencies to act within the scope of the law that created them, and with human face, in dealing with fellow humans/citizens when they exercise their discretion in service is apt when it opined as follows:

“I also think this case should serve as useful caution or warning to government agencies, to act within the scope of the law that created them, and with human face, in dealing with fellow humans/citizens when they (institutions) exercise their discretion in service.

Sealing up the respondent for about 5 years, in the circumstances that appellant did, grounding respondent’s business and services, and hounding down the company, as shown in the unsuccessful prosecution of the respondent in the courts, in my view, smacks of high-handedness, prosecution, impunity and misuse of statutory powers. With a little show of sensitivity and due care, appellant would still have discharged its oversight function over the respondent without so much injury, and saved the situation and the huge damages it has now caused itself and the Nation by its misadventure.

Appellant is expected to learn from this decision and pronouncement of court in its conduct and services, and be properly guided in the discharge of its duties.”

2.2.4. Transparency

Transparency refers to the quality of being open and honest, allowing for easy detection, appraisal, or criticism ([14]). In governance and civil responsibility, transparency builds trust and confidence by making policies, procedures, data, information, and decision-making open to the public. Transparency is essential for accountability and detection of corruption, peace, conflict evasion, and security cooperation, as well as confidence and security building. By making information more accessible and understandable, transparency lowers the information barrier, enabling citizens, organizations, and governments to scrutinize, monitor, and deter corrupt behaviour, ultimately promoting a more secure and peaceful environment.

2.2.5. Internal Security

This refers to the measures a government takes in order to maintain peace, law and order within its territorial border by ensuring the protection of all persons, institutions and infrastructures within its borders from internal threats like terrorism, organized crime, ethnic cleansing, religious crimes, cyber-attacks, and insurgency¹². This paper believes that it is the responsibility of every sovereign to ensure through just means the maintenance of peace and order by the deployment of security agencies to superintend over the security architecture of the State. Such agencies include, Police, paramilitary forces and in exceptional cases the military. Section 14 (2)(b) of the Constitution provides that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government¹³. Part of the key functions of the DSS whose action and modus operandi is the subject of this research is to collate, analyze, and disseminate intelligence on potential threats to Nigeria’s stability to other security agencies¹⁴.

The Abuse of Power Theory, Institutional Theory, Principal-Agent Theory, and Human Rights Theory collectively provide insight into the complexities of institutional behaviour, particularly in the context of the DSS.

According to the Abuse of Power Theory, institutions with unchecked power tend to misuse it for personal gain or political advantage, as seen in the DSS’s disregard for court orders and intimidation of opposition figures ([16]). Similarly, the Institutional Theory posits that institutions shape behaviour and decisions based on deeply embedded norms, such as secrecy, political loyalty, and disregard for judicial independence, which can lead to resistance to change ([9]).

Furthermore, the Principal-Agent Theory explains that when authority is delegated from a principal (such as the government or president) to an agent (like the DSS), the agent may prioritize its own interests or act based on incomplete information, leading to decisions that may not align with the principal’s intentions or the public’s best interests ([5]). Ultimately, the Human Rights Theory provides a moral and legal foundation for holding institutions like the DSS accountable for human rights violations, emphasizing the importance of respecting, protecting, and fulfilling inherent human rights ([12]).

The DSS in Nigeria operates under various laws. Here are some key ones:

National Securities Agencies Act of 1986

The National Securities Agencies Act which came into effect on 5^th, June 1986 was created to disband the Nigerian Security Organisation and in its Section 1, it created three security agencies such as the Defence Intelligence Agency, the National Intelligence Agency, and the State Security Service. The Act sets out the functions of these agencies in Section 2 and particularly, the functions of the State Security Service are set out in Section 2(3):

(a) The prevention and detection of crime of a military nature against the security of Nigeria;

(b) The protection and preservation of all non-military classified matters concerning the internal security of Nigeria;

(c) Such other responsibilities affecting internal security within Nigeria as the National Assembly or the President, as the case may be, may deem necessary.

Section 3(2)(a) of the Act is to the effect that the State Security Service shall report directly to the President. This reinforces the president’s power to confer other responsibilities on the DSS as may be deemed necessary. The ambiguous scope of powers granted to the State Security Service raises significant concerns about accountability and potential abuse of power. The Act allows the President to confer additional responsibilities on the Service, which may justify actions that encroach on the powers of other arms of the government such as the Legislature or Judiciary. This concern is highlighted by the case where the DSS invaded judicial officers’ homes at night, allegedly on corruption grounds in October 2016¹⁵, and it was argued that they can lawfully carry out directives given by the President ([1]). However, complaints against judicial officers should be directed to the National Judicial Council (NJC), which is empowered to investigate such allegations under Paragraph 21 of Part One of the third schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. Condemning the invasion of the residences of judicial officers and their arrest the National Judicial Council in its emergency meeting of 11^th October 2016 unequivocally said amongst others that no Judicial Officer shall be invited by any Institution including the DSS, without complying with the Rule of Law and Due Process¹⁶. If the President authorizes the DSS to probe judicial officers, it may be inconsistent with the Constitution, which established the National Judicial Council and its functions¹⁷. While the agency has recorded successes in maintaining national security, its actions must be balanced against potential constitutional inconsistencies and respect for other arms of government. The NJC in condemning the invasion said that the action of the DSS is a denigration of the entire Judiciary, as an institution¹⁸.

Expansion of the Powers and Duties of the Department of State Services

Meanwhile, pursuant to Section 6 of the National Security Agencies Act, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, the former Head of State, issued the State Security Service Instrument No. 1 of 1999 ([6])¹⁹. This instrument expanded the agency’s duties to include preventing, detecting, and investigating economic crimes that threaten national security, among other responsibilities. This marks a significant expansion of the agency’s mandate, and effectively positions it as a key player in Nigeria’s national security framework, with far-reaching implications for the country’s economic and political stability. The inevitable question that will agitate the mind is what nature of offence can be classified as an economic crime that threatens national security? It seems that offences of economic sabotage, official corruption by public and political office holders, vandalization of oil pipelines, oil theft (bunkering), human trafficking, illegal arms dealing, smuggling, narcotic drug trafficking, and kidnapping for ransom could be an example of economic crime of national security dimension ([2]). The National Securities Agencies Act, which predates the 1999 Constitution, is effectively given constitutional backing by Section 315 (5)(c) of the Constitution as an existing law. This provision effectively validates the continued relevance and authority of the National Securities Agencies Act, ensuring its provisions remain enforceable alongside the Constitution.

Notably, Section 2(4) of the National Securities Agencies Act provides that “this section shall have effect notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, or any matter therein mentioned.” This clause may be perceived as an attempt to shield the State Security Service from judicial scrutiny, potentially enabling them to operate without accountability despite conflicting laws. However, it remains subject to the supremacy of the Constitution, which takes precedence over any inconsistent legislation²⁰.

The State Security Service and the DSS are indeed two sides of the same coin. Although the Act does not explicitly mention the DSS, the agency’s website indicates that they are interchangeable terms²¹. This ambiguity has sparked debate, particularly since the Act does not explicitly mention the DSS. A legal practitioner has pointed out that this omission means that the DSS cannot be sued, as it is not recognized by law ([3]). This raises significant concerns about the DSS’s accountability. With its broad mandate and authority to investigate crimes of national security significance, the DSS wields considerable power. However, without explicit legal recognition, it is unclear how the agency can be held accountable for its actions. It is beyond dispute that a non-juristic entity cannot be sued or sue in Nigerian courts so held the Nigerian Supreme Court in Socio-Political Research Development v Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory & Ors (2018)²². This research contends that the SSS can be sued even though it is not formerly incorporated as a juristic person or corporate body. It appears that the style of suing the agency as in ‘Director-General SSS’ whilst also joining the Attorney-General of Federation seems to be an acceptable practice²³ since his functions of the Director-General of the agency are as provided in section 2(3) (a), (b), and (c) of the NSA Act.

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999(as amended 2023)

The Nigerian Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and its provisions have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Specifically, Section 1(3) states that if any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail and that other law shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency. In Ude Jones Udeogu v. Federal Government of Nigeria & 2 Ors (2022)²⁴ in nullifying section 296(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, the Supreme Court emphasized that any law, including the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, that contradicts the 1999 Constitution is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.

Chapter IV of the Nigerian Constitution guarantees fundamental human rights, including:

a) Right to Life (Section 33);

b) Right to Personal Liberty from arbitrary detention (Section 35);

c) Right to Fair Hearing (Section 36);

d) Right to Dignity of Human Person (Section 34);

e) Right to Freedom of Expression (Section 39);

f) Right to Privacy (Section 37);

g) Right to Freedom of Movement (Section 41).

The Constitution’s provisions underscore the importance of protecting human rights and upholding the rule of law, which is particularly relevant when considering the powers and limitations of national security agencies like the DSS, whose enabling law is preserved by Section 315(5)(c) of the Constitution. These constitutional provisions are further fortified by the provisions of Article 1-13, in Part 1, Chapter 1 of the ACHPR which Nigeria is a signatory having ratified same on 22^nd June 1983²⁵.

1) The National Assembly : The National Assembly plays a crucial role in regulating the activities of the DSS through the enactment of laws. The Nigerian Constitution and the National Security Agencies Act are two key laws that govern the operations of the DSS. The National Assembly has the power to amend these laws and enact new ones to clearly define the extent of the powers of the DSS. For instance, the National Assembly can pass a law that outlines the specific circumstances under which the DSS can conduct searches, arrests, and detain some persons assuming without conceding that the copious provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act²⁶, on arrest and searches are inadequate or inferior to the status of the DSS.

2) The President : The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria also exercises major significant control over the DSS. Pursuant to Section 2(3) of the National Security Agencies Act, the President has the power to confer on the DSS other responsibilities as may be deemed necessary. Furthermore, the DSS reports directly to the President, which underscores the President’s oversight role. This direct reporting line enables the President to exercise control over the DSS’s activities and ensure that they align with national security objectives.

3) The Judiciary : The judiciary plays a vital role in regulating the activities of the DSS through case law. Judicial decisions have the effect of interpreting the laws governing the DSS, thereby limiting or expanding their powers. For instance, in Director of SSS & Anor v. Agbakoba (1999)²⁷, the Supreme Court held that the State Security Service (SSS) had no power to impound or withdraw a citizen’s passport as such action violates the constitutional right to freedom of movement and the right to travel outside Nigeria. This landmark decision demonstrates the judiciary’s ability to curb the excesses of the DSS and ensure that their actions comply with the Constitution. Through judicial review, the courts can hold the DSS accountable for any violations of human rights or breaches of the law.

The Rule of Law

The rule of law is a fundamental principle that emphasizes that no individual or institution, including government agencies, is above the law. It requires that laws are applied fairly, consistently, and without bias. In democratic societies, upholding the rule of law is necessary because it ensures that public authorities like the DSS act within legal limits, respecting citizens’ rights and freedoms. The researchers however commends the action of the DSS in handling the matter of Professor Patrick Utomi, who had announced plans to form what he described as a shadow government under the banner of the Big Tent Coalition Shadow Government³². The agency rather than use brute force to intimidate, harass and arrest him resolved to approach the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/937/ 202 to constitutionality of such action arguing that such action was intended to create chaos and destabilize the country³³. The Federal High Court in a considered judgment declared the proposed shadow government initiate unconstitutional³⁴.

The Need for Accountability

Effective security and the protection of human rights require that the DSS is held accountable for its actions. This accountability is crucial to prevent abuses of power and ensure that the agency operates within the bounds of the law. The following highlights the importance of accountability in the DSS:

Preventing Abuse of Power: Transparency in DSS operations helps ensure that its powers are not used to suppress dissent, infringe on human rights, or intimidate political opponents.Safeguarding Citizens’ Rights: Accountability mechanisms help to protect citizens from unlawful surveillance, arbitrary arrests, and detention.Public Trust and Legitimacy: When the DSS is held accountable, it fosters public confidence in the agency’s commitment to national security while respecting democratic norms.

Therefore, achieving a balance between effective security operations and accountability is vital for maintaining the rule of law, public trust, and the protection of fundamental rights.

Balancing national security with human rights and civil liberties is essential for maintaining a democratic society. The DSS, tasked with protecting the nation from internal threats, must operate within legal boundaries to prevent the abuse of power. While it is necessary for the DSS to gather information to prevent terrorism and other threats, this must not come at the expense of fundamental rights of citizens or the rule of law in society. Unchecked surveillance or arbitrary detentions can lead to violations of fundamental rights and foster public distrust.

To maintain this balance, there must be clear legal frameworks that guide the agency’s actions and ensure that any restrictions on civil liberties are justified, necessary, and proportionate. Additionally, mechanisms for judicial review and legislative scrutiny of the laws are crucial to prevent abuses of power and ensure accountability. Transparency and accountability measures, such as regular reporting and public disclosure of DSS activities where it will not endanger classified information, can also help build trust and credibility. Furthermore, the DSS should prioritize de-escalation techniques and proportional responses to threats, rather than relying on excessive force or coercion. It is a truism that threat to national security can override the observance of certain rights³⁵, but when the DSS operates transparently and within the law, it strengthens public trust while effectively safeguarding national security.

This paper argues that abuse of powers by security agencies is not peculiar to Nigeria as same occurs frequently in most countries outside Nigeria and such must be addressed for the benefit of humanity. According to a 42 page report by the Human Rights Watch, it contends that Tunisian Government has turned arbitrary detention into a cornerstone of its repressive policy, aimed at depriving people of their civil and political rights to crush dissent³⁶. Again, a recent report by Amnesty International, the Rwandan-backed March 23 Movement (M23) has killed, tortured and forcibly disappeared detainees, held some as hostages, and subjected them to inhumane conditions at detention sites in Goma and Bukavu in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)³⁷. A South African 2023 Human Rights Report indicated that arbitrary arrest, arbitrary detention of suspects, lack of prosecution of officers involved in these violations by the government, Police use of torture and physical abuse on detainees which at times results in death were replete in that country³⁸.

Ajuwon v. Governor of Oyo State & Ors (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt.1803) 485.

Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 320.

Babatunde v State (2022) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1837) 83 at 114-115 (CA).

Dasuki v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1627) 320.

Director of SSS & Anor v. Agbakoba is [1999] 12 NWLR (Part 680) 1.

Federal Republic of Nigeria v Nganjiwa (2022) 17 NWLR (Pt.1860) 407 at 460 (SC).

Inspector General of Police v Ikpila (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 236.

Mr Imonikhe Murtala v Director-General SSS & 4 Ors. Appeal No: CA/L/770/2018.

National Agency for Food and Drug Administration v Reagan Remedies (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1700) 57-58 CA.

Niger Delta Power Holding Company Limited v Ulonna Michael (2025) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1983) 489 SC.

Ogwuche v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2021) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1773) 540.

Peter Olawole Olur v The Director-General Department of State Security Service Suit No: NICN/LKJ/06/2017.

Saraki v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1646) 405.

Socio-Political Research Development v Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory & Ors (2018) LPELR-45708 (SC).

The State Security Service & Or. v. The Incorporated Trustees of the Peace Corps of Nigeria CA/OW/171/2016, delivered on 12/4/19.

Ude Jones Udeogu v. Federal Government of Nigeria & 2 Ors (2022) 3 NWLR [Part 1816] SC 41.

Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights, 1981.

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (Fifth Alteration) Act, 2023.

National Security Agency Act, Cap. 218 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/528267_SOUTH-AFRICA-2023-HUMAN-RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf accessed 3rd March 2026.

https://thenationonlineng.net/dss-a-gradual-departure-from-old-self/ accessed 3^rd March 2026.

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/824539-court-declares-pat-utomis-proposed-shadow-government-initiative-unconstitutional.html 3^rd March 2026.

https://nials-nigeria.org/pub/OkayBenedictAgu.pdf accessed 5th March 2026.

https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/illlr109&section=26 accessed 26 March 2025.

https://achpr.au.int/en/charter/african-charter-human-and-peoples-rights/ accessed 29 January 2026.

https://businessday.ng/opinion/article/emefiele-dss-defiance-of-court-order-approves-lawlessness/ accessed 04 February 2026.

https://placng.org/i/the-position-of-the-national-judicial-council-on-the-recent-invasion-of-the-residences-and-arrest-of-judicial-officers-by-the-department-of-state-services-dss/ accessed 30 January 2026.

https://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/docs/African_Charter_Human_Peoples_Rights.pdf accessed 31 January 2026.

https://www.thisdaylive.com/2016/10/08/dss-operatives-invade-judges-homes-in-abuja-rivers-gombe/ accessed 30 January 2026.

https://www.channelstv.com/2023/08/03/dss-not-an-island-efcc-cant-continue-to-disobey-court-orders-fagbemi/#:~:text=Headlines-,DSS%20Not%20An%20Island%2C%20EFCC%20Can't%20Continue%20To%20Disobey,the%20AGF%20should%20be%20involved.accessed 03 February 2026.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/04/16/tunisia-arbitrary-detention-crushes-dissent accessed 26 February 2026.

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/05/pat-utomi-forms-shadow-govt/ 3^rd March 2026.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/05/drc-m23-kill-torture-and-hold-civilians-hostage-at-detention-sites-new-investigation/ accessed 26 February 2026.