At the weekend, President Bola Tinubu gave a marching order to the nation’s security agencies to clear terrorist camps and rescue all abducted Nigerians across the country. The order, which, according to the Defence Minister, Christopher Musa, was issued during a security meeting at the Presidential Villa, instructed service chiefs and other security heads to go all out to rescue abducted Nigerians and dismantle terrorist and bandit camps.
There is little doubt that the directive is welcome to all law-abiding Nigerians after living for so long under the reign of terror by these criminals who have practically turned the country’s highways into hunting grounds, schools into abduction targets and rural communities into enclaves of fear. Moreover, the arrival of the Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant General Waidi Shuaibu, in Maiduguri, the Borno State capital, barely 48 hours after the directive, has lent some credence to the intention of the government to rid Nigerians of the trauma of living under the environment of uncertainty. No responsible administration will standby and allow the citizens live under such situation.
However, there is something troubling about the directive, especially the President reportedly directing security agencies to guarantee a safe environment for Nigerians to vote in the elections scheduled for January. That inclusion, aside reinforcing the suspicion that political calculations may be influencing the sudden intensity of the government’s move also raises legitimate questions about the government’s commitment to ending insecurity beyond the election season. In a country where insecurity has been a persistent national emergency, the urgency of this presidential command has become particularly pronounced as the country approaches another election season.
There is no doubt that Nigeria desperately needs a decisive offensive against terrorists, bandits and kidnappers. The question is why a crisis that has tormented the country for years appears to require another presidential order to galvanize the security establishment into action—and whether the latest directive represents a sustained change of policy or a politically expedient demonstration of resolve of the government to conduct free and fair elections.
As commendable as the objectives of the presidential directive may be, the fact remains that Nigeria’s insecurity did not begin yesterday. For years, terrorism in the North-East, banditry in the North-West, kidnappings across major highways and attacks on vulnerable communities across the country have exposed the limitations of the country’s security architecture. Families have endured the agony of waiting for news of abducted relatives. Farmers have abandoned their fields, businesses have suffered, and communities have been displaced from ancestral homes.
The scale and persistence of these crimes have made insecurity one of the most consequential tests of successive administrations. It is therefore difficult to understand why the government should now appear to be raising the stakes with a sweeping presidential command when the rescue of abducted citizens and the dismantling of criminal camps should have been standing priorities from the beginning. If the security agencies possess the intelligence, manpower, equipment and operational plans required to accomplish these directives, why have they not done it before now? If they lack the necessary resources or coordination, what concrete steps has the government taken to address those deficiencies to ensure success this time?
While not intended to undermine the President’s initiative, these are questions any serious assessment of the country’s security predicament must confront. The danger is that the government may mistake the issuing of a tough order for the achievement of its objectives. Nigerians have heard assurances before. They have witnessed security meetings, operational declarations, troop deployments and repeated promises to defeat insurgency. What they need now is not another cycle of official pronouncements followed by the familiar return of attacks and abductions. They need measurable, sustained improvements in their safety.
The truth remains that an election cannot be safer than the country. The President’s insistence on a safe environment for the forthcoming elections is legitimate. No democracy can function properly where voters fear being attacked on their way to polling stations, where candidates cannot campaign freely, or where entire communities are prevented from participating in the political process by armed groups. But electoral security must not be treated as a special assignment that takes precedence over the everyday safety of Nigerians.
A farmer who cannot return to his farm, a trader who fears travelling to market, a student who dreads being abducted from school and a family living under the threat of armed invasion are all entitled to the same protection as a voter approaching a polling unit. Their security cannot be deferred until election preparations begin. Indeed, a government that is unable to protect citizens in their homes, schools, workplaces and communities throughout its tenure cannot credibly claim success merely because polling stations are secured on election day.
Besides, if the latest offensive is perceived as an election-driven operation, opposition parties and skeptical citizens may interpret it as an attempt to improve the government’s political standing rather than as a genuine turning point in the national security crisis. In that case, the credibility of the move stands the chance of suffering even before its effectiveness can be assessed. The government must recognize this risk and address it through action. And the best response to suspicions of political motivation is to demonstrate that the operation will continue with the same intensity before, during and after the elections.
Again, the presidential order that no terrorist or bandit camp should remain anywhere in Nigeria sets an ambitious objective whose credibility will only depend on how it is implemented and measured. In the first place, terrorist organizations operate through mobile units, informants, supply networks, clandestine hideouts and dispersed cells. Some exploit difficult terrain and porous borders; others survive by coercing local populations, collecting illegal levies and maintaining networks of collaborators. Kidnapping gangs may move their captives repeatedly, while criminal groups can abandon one hideout and establish another.
Consequently, while clearing known camps is necessary, the operation must go beyond that to disrupt its supply routes, financing, intelligence networks and recruitment channels otherwise it may just deliver only temporary relief. The camps may reappear elsewhere, and the violence may resume once military pressure subsides. The military must therefore combine offensive operations with reliable intelligence, inter-agency coordination, surveillance, effective border management and sustained control of recovered territory. Communities liberated from criminal groups must not be abandoned to their fate once troops move elsewhere.
Equally important is the need to distinguish between terrorists and innocent civilians caught in conflict zones. Operations must be conducted professionally, with respect for civilian life and the law. An offensive that inflicts avoidable harm on the very people it is intended to protect risks alienating communities whose cooperation is essential to successful intelligence gathering. The President’s order should be understood not as a declaration that the problem can be solved by a single sweep, but as a demand for a comprehensive campaign that dismantles the structures sustaining organized violence.
The directive to rescue all abducted persons also deserves particular emphasis. Government must always bear in mind that the families whose loved ones are abducted live through uncertainty, fear and often unbearable psychological distress. Some families are pressured to sell property or borrow money to meet ransom demands. Others endure the anguish of receiving no credible information about their loved ones. They deserve more than assurances that their relatives will be rescued. They must see coordinated rescue operations, credible communication, intelligence-led investigations and sustained support.
Finally, the presidential directive would be better appreciated if it results in the prevention of abductions in the first place. Prevention requires identifying threats before they materialize, protecting vulnerable schools and communities, securing transport corridors, disrupting kidnapping networks and ensuring that actionable intelligence is acted upon promptly. Therefore, the success of this operation must be measured, not only by the number of camps destroyed or suspects arrested. It must also be measured by reductions or total eradication of abductions, attacks on communities, attacks on schools and deaths; by the safe return of displaced residents; and by safe travel of citizens to their farms, learning and safe conduct of their businesses across the country.
If the President’s latest order marks the beginning of a sustained national offensive, it could become a defining achievement of his administration. If, however, it produces only a temporary flurry of activity before the elections, it will deepen public cynicism and reinforce the suspicion that security becomes a political priority only when votes are at stake.
