Dealing with insecurity beyond campaign rhetoric

Whoever controls the insecurity narrative in Nigeria today often controls the political momentum. Ahead of the 2015 presidential election, the All Progressives Congress (APC) built a formidable campaign around this reality and took the Jonathan-led administration to the cleaners. In doing so, it fundamentally altered the complexion of Nigeria’s political landscape.

Historically, Nigeria has grappled with violence. The instability that crippled the Western Region in the First Republic was severe. Yet, it pales in comparison to the scale of terrorism, banditry, and kidnapping for ransom that gripped the nation in the lead-up to 2015. The country was, by all practical measures, under siege.

Against this backdrop, the opposition weaponised language—cluelessness and incompetence—turning insecurity into the central campaign issue. It worked. The promise was clear: fix insecurity, restore order, reclaim the state. But nearly a decade later, the results tell a more troubling story—we have slid deeper into the abyss.

At the time, many Nigerians believed that General Muhammadu Buhari, a former military ruler and civil war veteran, possessed the discipline and strategic depth to end the crisis swiftly. His supporters reinforced this belief, insisting that the problem persisted only because the incumbent government lacked both will and integrity. The electorate bought into that narrative.

With strong international alignment and a relentless domestic campaign, the message resonated. Power changed hands. But more importantly, a precedent was set: insecurity had become a decisive electoral weapon—a trump card to be deployed from one political dispensation to the next.

Since then, the crisis has not only persisted; it has metastasised. What was once concentrated in parts of the North-East and North-West has spread across the country, assuming new forms and labels. No region is entirely insulated.

For the average Nigerian, this raises a fundamental question: how can a problem so central to national survival remain so resistant to solution, despite massive budgetary allocations and repeated political promises? Increasingly, insecurity has become less of a governance priority and more of a seasonal campaign tool—recycled, repackaged, and redeployed during elections.

Government narratives continue to emphasise progress—terrorists neutralised, territories reclaimed, threats degraded. Yet, on the ground, a different reality unfolds: resurgent attacks, rising kidnappings, and communities routinely displaced. The disconnect is stark.

It is therefore not unreasonable to ask: why does insecurity appear to intensify around electoral cycles? Some analysts point to longstanding allegations that political actors have, at various times, enabled or exploited armed groups for strategic advantage. Whether through tacit tolerance, political patronage, or outright complicity, the consequences have been devastating. When such forces outlive their political usefulness, they mutate into enduring national threats.

For the electorate, the implications are sobering. Campaign promises are no longer sufficient. What is required is transparency—identifying and exposing networks that finance and sustain violence. Where the state appears reluctant, opposition forces and civil society must step in to demand accountability.

Ultimately, Nigerians are not just weary—they are disillusioned. Kidnapping has evolved into a multi-billion-naira enterprise. Terror operates with alarming regularity. Insurgency shows signs of resurgence rather than retreat. Yet, the political class continues to frame the crisis in convenient soundbites.

This must change.

Any government genuinely committed to ending insecurity must begin with introspection. It must strengthen intelligence architecture, address the complex realities of conflict infiltration, and decisively dismantle the financial and logistical pipelines that sustain violent groups. Equally critical is tightening border controls and curbing the proliferation of small arms.

Until these structural issues are confronted head-on, insecurity will remain what it has increasingly become—a tool of political convenience rather than a problem of urgent resolution. And Nigerians will continue to pay the price.