Nigeria’s security challenge appears destined to become an interminable war for the government to fight. It has not only defied all known military strategies, but has also endured successive governments over the past two and a half decades.

Despite the declaration of national emergency on security, some security experts have expressed scepticism over the new measures authorised by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to improve the situation.

In the past, insurgency, terrorism and banditry were largely localised crimes. Now they have evolved into a national menace, spreading fairly across various regions, prompting analysts to challenge the Federal Government to move beyond rhetoric and expose the sponsors of these criminalities.

In the past couple of weeks, there has been a worsening trend in the security situation in the country, which has been exacerbated by the recurring spate of abductions. The latest in the series of kidnappings and ransom-taking by bandits was the reported abduction of 315 students of St. Mary’s Catholic School in Niger State. Before that, 25 students had been abducted from Government Girls Comprehensive Senior Secondary School in Maga, Kebbi State. The attack on Christ Apostolic Church, Eruku, Kwara State, where 38 worshippers were abducted by kidnappers, further added to the list.

With banditry and kidnapping surging, President Tinubu and security agencies have stepped up strategy reviews. However, national discourse is already shifting from a containment approach to exposing the sponsors of these criminal elements.

The Federal Government has been widely blamed for shielding alleged financiers of these heinous crimes, yet it makes vague promises to expose those behind insurgency, terrorism and banditry. Opposition parties have criticised the government’s response as political theatre, alleging that security measures are cosmetic while the real sponsors remain untouched.

Failed promises

Despite the repeated promises, the government failed to publicly name and prosecute any high-profile political or wealthy sponsors in Nigeria. Under the late former President Muhammadu Buhari, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, made the assertion that the government knew the financiers. In 2022, the Federal Government publicly stated that it had uncovered a large number of terrorism sponsors, with officials often citing 96 financiers and 424 associates of Boko Haram. AGF Malami repeatedly insisted that the prosecution process was underway. “We have the list of 96 financiers, prosecution is ongoing. We will attack the roots of financing; no more excuses,” he said. Beyond the verbal pronouncement, nothing happened.

The only significant convictions that happened took place in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where six Nigerians were sentenced to life imprisonment or 10 years for transferring hundreds of thousands of dollars to Boko Haram. The Federal Government’s subsequent action was limited to sanctioning these individuals after the UAE had already secured the convictions.

The succeeding Tinubu administration inherited the same security crisis and continued the pattern of strong assertions. In 2024, the Federal Government through the National Security Adviser (NSA) made repeated assurances that there was a renewed political will to dismantle the financing networks and clear out terrorism sponsors. The then Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) also affirmed that the process of naming financiers was ongoing. In March 2024, the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) released a list of 15 entities including individuals and firms designated as terrorism sponsors. When eventually released, the list was criticised because it primarily contained the names of the same six individuals already convicted in the UAE, essentially recycling old intelligence. The list conspicuously failed to include any high-ranking political or wealthy figures, leading to public cynicism.

The widespread public cynicism that the powerful individuals were being protected has intensified pressure on the government to name the suspected sponsors of terrorism, banditry and kidnapping.

A security expert, Jackson Olalekan-Ojo, who spoke with Sunday Sun, alleged conspiracy of some government officials shielding the sponsors. “If the government truly knows the people who are sponsoring terrorism and they are still hiding them, it means they are protecting them for their political future.

“It could also be that government officials are benefitting from the security crisis we are facing today. For one reason or the other, some of them may have religious sympathy for these bad guys. If not, why will they be reluctant to name and shame the sponsors of this insecurity? For them to refuse to name them, it means they are benefitting from it.

“I urge the government to name them and shame them. They should be prosecuted and face the penalty prescribed by the law. These are the worst enemies of the country, they should name them and shame them,” he stated.

Opposition parties criticised the government’s response as political theatre, alleging that security measures are cosmetic while the real sponsors remain untouched.

The argument the government has always put for the reluctance to unveil the sponsors of terrorism is that releasing the names might compromise highly sensitive security operations or reveal the identity of informants, putting their lives at risk and drying up future intelligence sources.

Nevertheless, public pressure remains high for the government to move beyond merely naming groups supporting terrorism and focus on the Nigerian individuals who fund them.

Myths surrounding insecurity

There is a range of perspectives on the escalating waves of terrorism, banditry and kidnapping. A particular school of thought links the sudden wave of attacks and abduction of students to the new cycle of election, alleging political sabotage and conspiracy against the Tinubu administration. According to the proponents of this theory, these attacks are not random acts of banditry but a consistent historical pattern in Nigerian politics. For instance, in 2014, the abduction of Chibok girls during the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan came on the heels of presidential election.

History repeated itself again on February 19, 2018, preparatory to the 2019 general election, when Boko Haram struck and abducted110 schoolgirls from the Government Girls Science and Technical College, Dapchi, in Yobe State.

With the trend of abductions, the sabotage theory is now gaining traction and how it connects to the upcoming elections. Some political actors have flagged a disturbing correlation between the ramping up of political activities for the 2027 election cycle and the spike in sophisticated attacks.

Former governor of Abia State, Senator Orji Uzor Kalu, while featuring on Channels Television, openly accused politicians of sponsoring bandits and terrorists to create chaos, arguing the violence fits a pattern of trying to weaken Tinubu before the next election cycle. He said the attacks were orchestrated by some members of the international community and local people who wanted to destabilise the government.

In his own case, General Ishola Williams (rtd), while speaking with Sunday Sun, argued “there is a deliberate intention on the part of the government to allow these criminalities to continue, including the insurgency in the North East.

He said: “I don’t know whether you read a story about a community in Katsina where kidnappers abducted some people and demanded ransom. The community in turn arrested relatives of those kidnappers and threatened to kill them. As a result, the kidnappers released the abductees and gave them some money. What does that tell you about the funny situation in Nigeria? It means the community knows the kidnappers.

“Kidnapping has become a booming trade in Nigerua. People make a lot of money from it. The question is: where do these kidnappers keep the money they get as ransom? Who are the people withdrawing this money from the banks? We are not serious about resolving the public safety situation.

“To me, those calling on the government to unveil the identity of the sponsors of banditry and kidnapping are just wasting their time. They know them already. If we continue to use the same tactics, nothing will change. Apart from sponsors of this banditry, communities know who these kidnappers are.

“Have you asked yourself how they secured the release of Eruku and Kebbi abductees? If a government spokesperson can come out to say that security agencies negotiated with the kidnappers, what emergency are you declaring? People are making us a laughing stock.”

From the point of view of civil society groups, the current escalating spate of banditry and kidnapping could be a disenfranchisement strategy. They maintain that security threats are being used to manipulate where elections can hold. For instance, if a specific zone is deemed unsafe, INEC may be forced to cancel voting in those areas or restrict movement.

Additionally, they say the distraction of insecurity allows politicians to stockpile funds often diverted from security votes without public scrutiny. According to them, the escalation is not a mere coincidence. As the race for 2027 heats up, they allege, money meant for security logistics is likely being siphoned off for campaign war chests.

Some analysts even link the surge in banditry and kidnapping to external threats, especially Trump’s threats of military action that embolden groups to act out of defiance or to extract concessions.

Consensus is that banditry, kidnapping, and illegal mining have become multi-billion naira enterprises. The money flows through legitimate and illegitimate channels, creating powerful vested interests who profit from the chaos—including corrupt security officials and local government actors who benefit from protection rackets or ransom negotiation.

State of emergency on national security

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Wednesday, November 26, 2025 declared a nationwide security emergency in response to escalating insecurity across Nigeria.

The declaration came with a series of measures intended to increase security presence and capacity. He authorised the Nigerian Police Force to recruit an additional 20,000 officers, bringing the total planned intake to 50,000 personnel. Additional recruitment was also ordered for the Armed Forces and the Department of State Services (DSS).

To facilitate the process, the use of National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) camps was authorised as temporary training facilities for police recruits.

Police officers withdrawn from VIP guard duties are to undergo crash training before being deployed to security-challenged areas.

The DSS was empowered to deploy trained forest guards immediately to flush out terrorists and bandits operating in the nation’s forests. State governments were cautioned against establishing boarding schools in remote or poorly secured areas. Churches and mosques were advised to constantly seek security protection for large gatherings, especially in vulnerable areas. Herders were urged to embrace ranching and surrender illegal weapons to curb farmer-herder conflicts.

Expectedly, varied reactions have been trailing the declaration. An elder statesman from Kano, Alhaji Tanko Yakasai, described it as a welcome development in a telephone Interview with Sunday Sun. “The declaration of a state of emergency is a good development. We need it,” he declared.

However, Gen Williams (rtd) did not see any reason for the declaration, dismissing it as an unnecessary waste of time. His words: “The President does not need to declare any emergency. To me, declaring a state of emergency is unnecessary, it’s a waste of time. It will change nothing because they are not doing the fundamental changes that are necessary. So, it will not produce any result because there seems to be a conspiracy of some people not to stop banditry.

“The President ordered the withdrawal of police from VIP. He is not the only President to give such order. He said the military should recruit more people into the army. Who told him the problem is about manpower?”

In his slightly different opinion, Olalekan-Ojo expressed concerns about the implementation of the emergency declaration. He argued: “A state of emergency is a presidential declaration which is normal. But is it the President that is going to implement? No. The President may have good intention to make the declaration but the success or failure of it will depend on those who are going to implement it.

“The President gave an order for police to recruit 20000 people. Will the political actors who are going to implement it not recruit political thugs?

“Implementation is our problem in this country. The President has good intention but how they are they going to implement it is the problem.”

State policing

The declaration of a nationwide security emergency coincided with the meeting of the Southern Governors along with the Southern Nigeria Traditional Rulers Council held in Abeokuta. These initiatives were closely linked to the prevailing security crisis and the push for decentralised policing.

The governors’ meeting concluded with a communiqué that strongly reiterated the call for state police, describing it as a non-negotiable component for effective grassroots security.

The President backed the call for state policing and urged the National Assembly to begin reviewing relevant laws to allow states that require it to establish their own police forces.

While the President’s declaration was prompted by the overall deteriorating national security situation, especially the mass abductions, the timing and the inclusion of support for state policing indicate a strong and immediate alignment with the resolutions passed by the Southern Governors’ Forum in Abeokuta.

The National Assembly is now debating a constitutional amendment to move policing from the exclusive list to the concurrent list, which would let states set up their own police forces.

The bill, sponsored by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu and 14 others, proposes State Police Service Commissions separate from the Federal Police Service Commission to handle recruitment, training and discipline. Commissioner of Police for each state to be appointed by the governor on advice from the Federal Police Service Commission and confirmed by the state House of Assembly. Removal of Commissioner of Police only by the governor on recommendation of the Federal Police Service Commission with two thirds House of Assembly approval. Federal grants or aid if a state can’t fund its police, subject to National Assembly approval.

Deputy Speaker Kalu argued that the current centralised model is overstretched and that quicker, locally aware response is needed . The bill is in second reading, public hearings are scheduled, and the constitutional amendment needs two thirds of the National Assembly and approval by 24 states.

Concerns mount

Concerns raised by analysts include fear of governors weaponising police for political ends, financial viability – many states may be unable to fund their forces, risk of fragmented command and intelligence breakdown.

IG Kayode Egbetokun has warned that Nigeria isn’t yet ready for state police, urging better funding and autonomy for the existing force instead.

Though Gen Williams (rtd) supported the proposed creation of state police, he wondered why the President had to wait till this time to do the needful. “Why does the President need to wait until Southern Governors met in Abeokuta before urging the National Assembly to pass a law on state police,” he quipped.

He said Amotekun could serve as a model for state police in Nigeria.

Yakasai also added his voice to the initiative for effective policing of the country. “I also welcome the idea of state police because one single police seems not to be enough for Nigeria. Nigeria is a big country and therefore we need state police to go along with the federal police to maintain law and order in the country. So, I support it. The only thing I do not support is local government police. It will be abused,” he stated.

He accused the media of not helping the government enough in educating Nigerians about the efforts being made to contain the threat of insurgency, banditry, and kidnapping. “I think the media is not doing enough in reporting or educating Nigerians about what the government is doing to contain insecurity in the country. Certainly, government is not laying back. They are doing their best.

“If anybody knows the people doing banditry, he should assist the government by exposing them. It will be a good idea,” Yakasai posited.

For Olalekan-Ojo, state police could be an antidote for our security challenge if properly implemented. “Like I did say, implementation will be a problem in the respective states. In APC state, for instance, you will discover that they are going to recruit political thugs. Also in PDP-controlled states, they will recruit PDP thugs and loyalists. That is why we may not get it right,” he concluded. (The Sun)