Insecurity governors need to take burden off federal govt igp
I think there may be a few typos or unclear phrases in your statement. Could you please rephrase or provide more context so I can better understand what you're trying to say?
That being said, I'll do my best to provide a response based on my understanding.
It seems like you're suggesting that state governments (insecurity governors) need to take some burden off the federal government, specifically the Inspector General of Police (IGP). Here are a few possible interpretations:
- Decentralization of security responsibilities: You might be suggesting that state governments should take more responsibility for maintaining law and order within their jurisdictions, reducing the burden on the federal government and the IGP. This could involve state governments establishing their own police forces or working more closely with the federal government to address specific security challenges.
- Support for federal security efforts: Alternatively, you might be suggesting that state governments should provide support to the federal government and the IGP in their efforts to combat insecurity. This could involve providing resources, intelligence, or other forms of assistance to help the federal government address national security challenges.
- Reform of the security architecture: Another possible interpretation is that you're suggesting that the security architecture in your country needs to be reformed to better allocate responsibilities and resources between the federal government and state governments. This could involve creating a more decentralized system, where state governments have more autonomy to address local security challenges, while the federal government focuses on national security threats.