A few days ago, Governor Seyi Makinde tried unconvincingly to justify the spending of N63.4 billion on the renovation of the Oyo governor’s lodge, a project that could not have cost more than a few billion naira. The governor mentioned another wasteful and self-serving spending that went under the radar in the heat of the controversy surrounding the governor’s lodge renovation.
And that was the intention of his government to purchase two aircrafts for the purpose of surveillance to tackle insecurity. For sure, insecurity is an issue that requires urgent solution but the idea of purchasing aircraft for that purpose is not only unnecessary but another of the round of profligacy and self-serving that has been the hallmark of the Makinde administration. Unless the aircrafts are meant for a different purpose such as the impending presidential campaign by the governor and his traveling.
There are obvious reasons why drones offer a better surveillance strategy than aircraft for curbing insecurity in Oyo State if the proper homework is done and the whole issue is about altruistic goals rather than personal aggrandizement and comfort. Deploying drones for surveillance presents a more efficient, cost-effective, and adaptable strategy compared to purchasing conventional aircraft. While both tools serve the purpose of aerial monitoring, drones offer significant advantages that align better with the geographical, economic, and operational realities of Oyo State.
First, drones are far more cost-effective and cheaper than aircraft. Purchasing and maintaining fixed-wing aircraft involves substantial capital investment, maintenance costs, and a trained crew. In contrast, drones are relatively inexpensive, require less fuel or battery power, and can be operated by a smaller, locally trained workforce. This makes drones an accessible option for sustained surveillance, especially in resource-constrained environments like Oyo State.
Second, drones provide greater flexibility and precision in monitoring both urban and rural areas. They can fly at lower altitudes, hover in place, and maneuver through narrow or hard-to-reach areas such as forested terrain or informal settlements. This makes them ideal for tracking movements, identifying criminal hideouts, monitoring herder-farmer conflicts, and even patrolling border communities where insecurity often begins.
Third, drones reduce risks to human life. Unlike manned aircraft, drones can be deployed in dangerous situations without putting pilots at risk. This is particularly important when dealing with armed criminal groups or in areas experiencing the presence of bandits and terrorists. Drones equipped with infrared cameras and night vision can also operate in low-light conditions, providing 24/7 surveillance capability that is difficult and expensive to achieve with aircraft.
Finally, drone surveillance enhances rapid response. Real-time data from drone feeds can be transmitted to security agencies for immediate action. Integration with artificial intelligence can further improve target recognition and predictive policing.
In conclusion, for a state like Oyo grappling with diverse security challenges, drones offer a smarter, safer, and more sustainable surveillance solution than traditional aircraft. Unless the aircraft are meant for the use of the governor rather than for the purpose of security of the state as it is being whispered on government corridors.
Adewuyi, an economist, writes from Eruwa, Oyo State.
