By Cajetan Osisioma[i]
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
There are institutions whose work is so closely intertwined with national security that much of what they do must necessarily remain outside the public gaze. The Department of State Services (DSS) is one such institution. Its successes are often classified, its operations cannot always be publicly explained, and its officers work in circumstances in which a great deal is demanded of them, but little can safely be disclosed. It is, therefore, significant when the leadership of such an institution chooses to make certain aspects of its institutional reform visible.
Since assuming office as Director-General of the Department of State Services in August 2024, Mr. Adeola Oluwatosin Ajayi, has pursued an agenda that, by his own description, is built around five principal areas: law enforcement, inter-agency cooperation, institutional accountability, respect for human rights, and infrastructural and administrative reforms, aimed at improving operational efficiency. Taken together, these measures suggest an important evolution in the philosophy of domestic intelligence administration: an effective security institution need not derive its authority from fear, it can derive strength from professionalism, legality, discipline, welfare, and public trust.
A Career Intelligence Officer reforming the Institution from within
Ajayi’s appointment is noteworthy partly because he is not an outsider attempting to understand the DSS from the outside. He is a career intelligence officer who spent decades within the Service before attaining its highest professional position.
That experience matters. Institutional reform is often more sustainable when the person leading it understands both the strengths that must be preserved and the weaknesses that require correction. Ajayi has repeatedly spoken about drawing on lessons from his long career within the Service to change practices that, in his assessment, could have been handled better. The reform that has emerged under his leadership is consequently not presented as a repudiation of the DSS mandate. Rather, it is an attempt to make the exercise of that mandate more professional and accountable. Perhaps, nowhere is this clearer than in the Service’s approach to the relationship between civil disputes and criminal or national security matters.
From Coercion to the Rule of Law
One of the clearest reforms carried out by Ajayi is the deliberate separation of civil disputes from criminal matters. The Director-General (DG) has maintained that the Service should not use arrest as an instrument for resolving civil disputes and that matters requiring judicial determination should be taken before the courts. The proceedings involving Professor Pat Utomi and the dispute involving the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) are instances in which judicial processes were preferred to coercive intervention.
This is more than a procedural adjustment. It reflects a fundamental principle of constitutional governance: the possession of coercive power does not eliminate the obligation to exercise that power within the law. For an intelligence organisation, this distinction is particularly important. National security is undoubtedly a legitimate and weighty state interest. But, the protection of national security and the protection of individual rights are not necessarily competing objectives. A professional security or intelligence institution must be capable of pursuing both.
Restorative Justice: When the State gets it wrong
Perhaps, the most striking innovation associated with the current DSS administration is its emphasis on what the DG describes as restorative justice. Security institutions, like every other human institution, can make mistakes. The important question is: what happens after an innocent person suffers because of one?
Under the current DSS administration, where the Service makes an unavoidable operational error, victims are not allowed to wait for litigation before receiving redress. The DSS has paid more than N300 million in compensation for operational errors during Ajayi’s tenure. In fact, in cases where courts have awarded compensation to victims, the Service has gone beyond the judgment to ensure adequate assistance to the victims. The case of a businessman who was mistakenly shot during a DSS operation quickly comes to mind here. Although a court had ordered N10 million in compensation, the DSS under Ajayi went further by providing additional compensation and fully covering the victim’s medical treatment. The Service also assisted him in rebuilding his livelihood.
The significance of such an intervention lies not merely in the amount of money involved. It is the institutional attitude behind it. There is a profound difference between an institution saying, “We have complied with the court judgment,” and one saying, “An error occurred; a citizen suffered; we must take responsibility and help restore what was damaged.” The latter is an important expression of institutional accountability.
Cleaning the House: Discipline and Accountability within the DSS
Reform cannot be credible if accountability is demanded from the public but not from personnel exercising state authority. The Ajayi administration has, therefore, paired welfare and professional development with a stated zero-tolerance policy toward unethical conduct. The DSS announced in November 2025 that 115 personnel had been dismissed over a period as part of its ongoing reforms, while warning members of the public about dismissed individuals who continued to impersonate DSS personnel.
The significance of this should not be overlooked. A security organisation entrusted with sensitive intelligence, substantial powers, and access to citizens, must maintain particularly high standards of discipline. Personnel misconduct does not merely injure an individual victim; it can damage public confidence in the institution and compromise legitimate security operations. There is, therefore, an important balance emerging from the present administration’s approach: better welfare for personnel, but greater accountability from personnel. The two are not contradictory. Indeed, professional welfare and professional discipline can reinforce each other. Personnel who are properly trained, equipped, housed, and supported, can reasonably be expected to meet demanding ethical and operational standards.
Welfare as a Component of National Security
The welfare measures reported under Ajayi’s leadership deserve particular attention because they demonstrate an understanding that intelligence capability ultimately depends upon people. Under the current administration, the DSS has completed a modern office building, as well as the constructed and renovated staff quarters and transit accommodation. Other measures include the establishment of Creches at State Commands and National Headquarters, upgraded sporting facilities, improved medical equipment and facilities, and the provision of operational vehicles, surveillance equipment, and modern armament.
These may appear, at first glance, to be ordinary administrative matters. They are not. An intelligence officer who works without adequate accommodation, healthcare, equipment, or family support, operates under unnecessary pressure. Institutional welfare, therefore, has an operational dimension. As DG Ajayi put it, “a modern, professional Service must have infrastructure that matches its mandate. When officers work in an environment that respects their dignity, productivity and morale naturally improve.”
This philosophy is worth recognising. National security is not produced only by sophisticated surveillance technology or weapons. It is also produced by motivated human beings who believe that the institution they serve values their contribution.
Expanding Opportunity within the Service
The current administration has also been associated with changes in career progression and inclusion. The appointment of Folashade Adekaiyaoja as the first female Deputy Director-General of the DSS in January 2025 was an important institutional development. Beyond its symbolic significance, the creation of greater opportunities at the senior levels can strengthen morale and provide personnel with a clearer sense of professional progression.
A related initiative that attracted considerable public attention was the reported recruitment of 27 qualified orphans into the Service. The initiative reflects another aspect of Ajayi’s philosophy: human beings who have experienced difficult circumstances should not necessarily be defined by those circumstances; they can become productive contributors to national security. This is consistent with the broader human capital philosophy that runs through the DG’s public statements: technology may strengthen intelligence operations, but people remain at the centre of intelligence.
Cleaning the Slate: The Review of Old Watchlists
Few reforms demonstrate institutional housekeeping as vividly as the review of the old Watchlist Actions (WLA). In June 2026, the DSS announced that the current management had directed a review of the old watchlists, some dating back to the military era, with the stated purpose of preventing citizens from being unnecessarily embarrassed by outdated restrictions. The Service cited the case of Lanre Arogundade, a journalist, whose delisting was approved in May 2025 after more than a decade on the watchlist. The DSS said the broader review was intended to ensure that old WLAs remained justified by current circumstances rather than simply being perpetuated indefinitely.
This is precisely the kind of reform that may receive little attention because it does not involve an arrest, raid, or dramatic security operation. Yet, institutional maturity is often demonstrated through such quiet exercises. A professional intelligence Service must not only know when to place a person on a watchlist; it must also know when the reasons for doing so have ceased to exist.
A New Relationship with the Media
Perhaps, the most visible change under Ajayi has been the DSS’s relationship with the media. This is particularly noteworthy because intelligence organisations and journalists operate from very different institutional perspectives. One protects information; the other seeks information. One is concerned with secrecy; the other with disclosure. Yet, both have legitimate roles in a democracy.
Under Ayayi, the relationship has received recognition from several important media organizations. In December 2025, the Nigerian National Committee of the International Peace Institute (IPI) recognised Ajayi for what it described as his commitment to press freedom and respect for journalists and media organisations. The Presidency subsequently congratulated him, noting the emerging atmosphere of dialogue between the DSS and the media. In April 2026, the Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria (BON) honoured him with its “Friend of the Media” award. Also, in June 2026, the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) recognised him as its “Man of the Year” citing his efforts to strengthen cooperation between security agencies and the media.
Three recognitions from significant media sector organisations constitute a notable record. More important, however, is the philosophy behind them. Ajayi has always maintained that where a journalist publishes information with which the DSS disagrees, the preferred response should be dialogue, clarification, and, where necessary, judicial intervention, not reflexive arrest. He has also said that where concerns arise about journalists, the Service can engage through recognised professional bodies, such as the NUJ and IPI. The principle is simple but powerful: journalists are partners in a democratic society, not enemies of the state. A security institution does not become weaker because journalists ask difficult questions. Indeed, responsible scrutiny can strengthen public institutions.
Intelligence through Trust
Perhaps, the most profound element of Ajayi’s leadership philosophy is his apparent recognition that intelligence gathering ultimately depends upon public trust. A domestic intelligence agency cannot be everywhere. It cannot see everything. It depends substantially on information from human beings – citizens, communities, institutions, and professional networks. That means public confidence is itself an intelligence asset.
The DG has spoken about humanitarian interventions and community engagement that are not always publicised. His explanation is revealing: when citizens see security institutions as institutions that care about their welfare, they are more likely to cooperate and provide information. The equation is, therefore, straightforward: trust produces cooperation; cooperation produces information; good information produces prevention; prevention strengthens national security. This is arguably one of the most important ideas emerging from the current DSS leadership under Ajayi.
From Arrest to Prevention
The operational side of the Service has not disappeared beneath the reform agenda. The DSS under Ajayi continues to focus on terrorism, kidnapping, violent extremism, arms trafficking, and other threats to national security. The DG has emphasised intelligence-led operations, cooperation with sister security agencies, and collaboration with international partners. He has also linked intelligence gathering to successful investigation and prosecution, rather than treating arrest as the endpoint of an operation.
This distinction matters. A mature security architecture should ultimately be judged not merely by how many people it arrests, but by how effectively it identifies threats, prevents harm, builds admissible evidence, supports prosecution, and protects innocent citizens. That is the direction in which the current reform narrative points.
A Work Still in Progress
No serious assessment of an intelligence institution should suggest that every problem has disappeared. The DSS operates in one of the most difficult security environments in the world, confronting terrorism, kidnapping, violent extremism, cybercrime, organized crime, separatist agitations, and other complex threats. Moreover, reports of alleged misconduct or controversy involving security personnel have not disappeared during the present administration. Consequently, the strongest case for recognising Ajayi’s leadership is not the claim that the DSS has become perfect. It is that there is evidence of a deliberate institutional effort to improve the way power is exercised. The review of old watchlist, disciplinary measures against erring personnel, compensation for operational errors, investment in staff welfare, increased engagement with the media, emphasis on judicial processes, and attention to human rights, all point in that direction. Reform, after all, is not a destination. It is a continuing institutional process.
The Quiet Transformation
Two years is a relatively short period in the life of a national intelligence organisation. Yet, the record of the Ajayi administration presents an interesting proposition: the effectiveness of a security or intelligence service need not be measured only by the secrecy of its operations or the number of threats it neutralizes. It can also be measured by the professionalism with which it exercises its power, the welfare of the people who serve within it, the discipline it demands of its personnel, the willingness to compensate citizens who suffer because of its mistakes, the respect accorded to the courts, the relationship it maintains with the media, and the trust it builds within the population. It may be an attempt to redefine the relationship between security and society.
A strong intelligence service must undoubtedly be capable of confronting those who threaten the Nigerian state and its citizens. But, it must equally possess the institutional confidence to distinguish a threat from a critic, a criminal from an innocent citizen, a legitimate security concern from a civil dispute, and an outdated watchlist entry from a continuing security risk. That balance requires intelligence. It requires discipline. It requires professional courage. It also requires leadership.
Under DG Adeola Oluwatosin Ajayi, the DSS has embarked on a visible effort to institutionalize those values while strengthening the capacity of the Service to fulfil its constitutional and statutory responsibilities. For that reason, his tenure deserves to be recognised not merely for the operations that the public has seen, but also for the quieter reforms that may ultimately prove more enduring: restoring dignity to personnel, accountability to power, legality to coercive authority, dialogue to institutional relationships, and trust to relationship between Nigeria’s intelligence Service and the citizens it exists to protect. That may prove to be the most important legacy of Ajayi’s administration.
[i] Cajetan Osisioma is a Hubert H. Humphrey Fellow/Fulbright Scholar, seasoned legal professional, and human rights lawyer, and writes from Abuja. Email: cjosisioma@gmail.com and Tel: +2348063640152
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
