PIA, does not give host communities power to directly execute surveillance operations - Coalition

A Coalition of Itsekiri groups; Itsekiri Grassroots Coalition, Hostcom, Itsekiri chapter, Delta State Peace Movement, DSMP, Itsekiri Youth for Good Governance, IYGG, Itsekiri Liberation Group, ILG, Warri Social, Iwere Indigenous Voice, IIV and Oil Producing Host Community Voice, OPHCV, have argued that under the Petroleum Industry Act, PIA, host communities do not have the power to directly execute surveillance operations.

According to the groups, while Section 257 acknowledges the role of host communities, principally through the Host Community Development Trust, the participation is situated within governance and benefit-sharing mechanisms, not the direct execution of surveillance operations.

Addressing newsmen in Warri, Delta State, Wednesday April 8, on behalf of the coalition of Itsekiri groups, Comr. Mone Oris, argued that surveillance, by its nature, demands technical capacity, coordination, and accountability standards, that extend beyond informal or fragmented community-based arrangements.

He postulated that under the PIA, surveillance is not treated as a distributable community benefit, but as a specialised security function, requiring professional competence, operational discipline and unified command.

A cross section of members of the different Itsekiri groups present

The groups, explained: “Nigeria's pipeline surveillance architecture has evolved through both experimentation and correction. The early model under Oil Facility Surveillance Limited, involving prominent regional actors, reflected an attempt to integrate local influence into asset protection. However, its limited success necessitated a transition to Ocean Marine Solutions Limited (OMS) in 2014, a private security firm with demonstrable operational capacity. Crucially, OMS's contract incorporated a strict accountability mechanism: any pipeline damage under its watch was repaired at its own cost, aligning financial incentives with performance outcomes.

“Between 2014 and 2022, OMS operational responsibilities expanded under a Host Community Contractor, covering community relations, logistics, maintenance, and workforce management. While the structural model remained viable, deficiencies in execution particularly regarding worker welfare and payment irregularities-undermined confidence. These failures were managerial rather than systemic, but their impact was sufficient to trigger a restructuring of contracts, with Pipeline Infrastructure Nigeria Limited and Tantita Security Services assuming responsibilities across different regions.

“It is against this historical and legal backdrop that current calls for decentralising pipeline surveillance to community-based actors must be critically assessed. While advocates frame such proposals as enhancing local ownership, they risk introducing fragmentation into a domain that depends on coherence and command integrity. Disaggregating surveillance responsibilities across multiple community groups would complicate coordination, dilute accountability, and potentially expose critical infrastructure to greater risk.

“This is not to dismiss the importance of host communities. On the contrary, sustainable security outcomes depend on their inclusion, cooperation, and economic participation. However, the PIA channels this inclusion through structured mechanisms designed to complement not replace-professional surveillance operations.

“Ultimately, the issue is not whether communities should benefit or participate. but how that participation is structured. The PIA provides a clear answer. community engagement must operate alongside, not in place of. professionally managed security systems. Efforts to reinterpret the law in favour of fragmented control do not strengthen pipeline protection; they undermine the very coordination such protection requires.” 

Audio/Video Credit: Nkanteen Juliet

×