Politicization of Insecurity and Its Implications for National Stability in Nigeria.
By
Aliyu Dalhatu Adamu
One troubling dimension of Nigeria’s security challenges is the tendency for insecurity to become highly politicized as election periods approach. During such times, incidents of violent attacks, kidnapping, insurgency, armed banditry and other security threats often receive intensified political and media attention. Social and traditional media platforms become inundated with narratives attributing security failures solely to the incumbent government, flooded by calls for political change.
While its both legitimate and essential in every democratic dispensation holding government accountable for its constitutional responsibility to provide security, concerns arise when insecurity is exploited primarily as a partisan instrument rather than addressed as a complex national challenge requiring collective action.
However, the politicization of security challenges constitutes one of the most significant impediments to the attainment of sustainable peace, national cohesion and democratic consolidation in Nigeria. The manipulation for partisan and electoral purposes frequently undermines collective efforts aimed at addressing the structural drivers of violence and conflict entreprenuership. Consequently, insecurity ceases to be merely a governance challenge and instead becomes a political instrument employed by competing actors to advance their divergent interests within the broader political theatre.
Nigeria’s security challenges can often be viewed and analysed through a political lens. Many observers argue that Nigeria had never faced such intense political exploitation of insecurity as it did during the 2015 election period. Some even contend that political actors directly or indirectly, contributed to the escalation of the Boko Haram crisis, allowing it to grow into a threat that exposed the government’s inability to protect citizen’s lives and properties.
Within the Nigerian context, the nexus between insecurity and politics has become increasingly pronounced over the past decade. The period preceding the 2015 general elections witnessed an unprecedented securitization of political discourse, particularly with respect to the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East. During this period, the deteriorating security environment was widely interpreted as evidence of government’s failure during the era of former President Goodluck Jonathan which became a central theme in 2015 political campaigns and public debates.
The opposition’s slogan, “Babu tsaro a Najeriya, muna son canji” meaning (“There is no security in Nigeria; we need change”), was strategically deployed to mobilise political support, especially in Northern Nigeria and gained substantial traction among the electorates during 2015 elections, contributing to the eventual defeat of former President Goodluck Jonathan.
Following the election of President Muhammadu Buhari in 2015, many of those key influentials including media commentators, academics and politicians who had previously criticized the government’s nonchalant of insecurity became more restrained in their criticism, largely because the new administration enjoyed ceaseless regional supports and loyalties.
While the large-scale of armed banditry had not reached its current magnitude before Buhari assumed office in 2015, his administration witnessed a significant escalation of armed bandit’s attacks across several northern states, including Zamfara, Katsina, Sokoto, Kebbi, Kaduna, Niger and parts of Kogi State. The situation became so severe that many communities adopted unusual survival strategies. In some areas, residents would leave their villages at night and seek refuge elsewhere, only to return during the day for their daily activities due to fear of armed bandit’s attacks. Ironically, many of the communities that suffered most from insecurity were located within the same region “arewa”
Despite the emergence and expansion of the new security threats in northern Nigeria, accompanied by large-scale of armed bandit’s attacks, kidnapping and rural violence across several northern states, public perceptions, public criticism and political responses to insecurity appeared to undergo a notable transformation. Notably, public criticism often became conditioned by regional, party support and partisan loyalties. This phenomenon demonstrates the extent to which political affiliations can shape public interpretations of security crises, resulting in inconsistent standards for evaluating and assessing governmental performance and policy effectiveness from security challenges. The selective amplification of security challenges for partisan advantage raises important questions regarding the effort of political actors, conflict entrepreneurs to national security and national stability.
From a theoretical standpoint, the politicization of insecurity may be understood through the framework of political instrumentalism, which suggests that political actors frequently exploit societal challenges to mobilize support, delegitimize opponents and consolidate political power. Within this framework, political actors must ensure insecurity is no longer perceived solely as a threat to human security and national development; rather, it becomes a strategic resource in the contest for political influence. Such a development is particularly problematic in fragile democracies, where partisan competition can eclipse broader national interests and national unity.
Furthermore, the recurring association between election cycles and heightened security concerns has generated widespread public suspicion regarding the motivations of political elites. Although empirical evidence may not always substantiate claims of deliberate manipulation, the persistence of such perceptions reflects a growing crisis of trust between citizens, political institutions and government. The government will be characterized by weak institutional legitimacy, poor and declining public confidence, conspiracy narratives frequently gain traction, thereby complicating policy implementation and shaping public perceptions in ways that generate uncertainty about the effectiveness of national security strategies.
The recent incidents involving the targeting of prominent national figures have further intensified public concern regarding the scope and severity of insecurity in Nigeria. The kidnapping and subsequent death of the Emir of Gobir in captivity, the abduction and reported killing of retired Major General Rabe Abubakar while in captivity and the earlier kidnapping of former Director-General of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), Maharazu Tsiga and several kidnappings of secondary schools children have reinforced public anxiety regarding the operational reach and growing sophistication of criminal groups. These incidents underscore the capacity of non-state armed actors to challenge both traditional and modern institutions of authority.
The broader significance of these events lies not merely in the status of the victims, but in their victimization and perception about being secured in the contemporary security landscape. When individuals who once occupied strategic positions within the military establishment, possessed extensive security expertise, or exercised traditional authority become victims of violent crime, fundamental questions emerge regarding the capacity of the state to guarantee the security of its citizens. Under such circumstances, ordinarily, citizens are compelled to reassess their own vulnerability within an increasingly uncertain security environment.
Available estimates suggest that armed bandit groups were responsible for over 10,000 deaths of innocent lives across Northwestern Nigeria between 2015 and 2023, although the precise figure remains contested due to variations in reporting mechanisms, methodological approaches and limitations in conflict data collection. Regardless of the exact number, the human, social and economic consequences of armed banditry have been profound, ironical and far-reaching beyond comprehension.
Nevertheless, it would be analytically inaccurate to conclude that insecurity has rendered all citizens equally vulnerable. Millions of Nigerians continue to conduct their daily activities without becoming direct victims of violent crime. The concern, however, is that insecurity has become sufficiently pervasive to affect virtually every socioeconomic category, irrespective of social class; including farmers, traders, traditional rulers, politicians, business leaders, academics and retired military officers. Consequently, the longstanding assumption that social status, wealth, influence, or professional experience can guarantee protection and provides immunity from insecurity has increasingly been called into question.
In essence, the issue is not that retired generals, traditional rulers, or other prominent individuals are uniquely vulnerable. Rather, their victimization symbolizes the extent to which insecurity has penetrated Nigerian society. When those once entrusted with safeguarding national security become victims themselves, insecurity can no longer be perceived as a problem affecting only remote communities; it becomes a matter of national significance with profound implications for governance and state legitimacy.
From a security studies perspective, this situation becomes particularly alarming when criminal actors demonstrate the capacity to target both ordinary citizens and various elite groups including corporate, political, military/security, intellectual/academics, traditional, religious and media elites. This security situation is no longer a localized phenomenon limited to peripheral communities; rather, it has evolved into a systemic challenge that undermines state authority, institutional legitimacy and public confidence in governance.
Perhaps the most consequential implication of this development is psychological rather than physical. When citizens begin to ask whether anyone is truly safe in a society, it signals a profound erosion of confidence in the state’s ability to provide security. Restoring such confidence requires far more than military deployments. It necessitates effective intelligence gathering, responsive law enforcement institutions, an efficient justice system and comprehensive socioeconomic policies aimed at addressing the structural drivers of violence and criminality.
It has become increasingly necessary for Nigerians, particularly those in Northern Nigeria, to resist the temptation of politicizing security challenges in pursuit of partisan interests. The effects of such actions extend far beyond the present generation and may continue to affect the country for decades to come.
The repercussions of politicizing insecurity are multifaceted. First, it undermines public trust in state institutions by creating the perception that security challenges are exploited for political gain rather than addressed as matters of national urgency. Second, it discourages the formulation and implementation of long-term, evidence-based security strategies as policymakers become increasingly preoccupied with short-term electoral calculations. Third, it contributes to social polarization by encouraging citizens to interpret security crises through ethnic, regional, religious, or partisan lenses rather than as collective national challenges. Finally, it weakens democratic accountability by transforming legitimate criticism into partisan rhetoric, thereby obscuring objective assessments of policy effectiveness.
Beyond its political ramifications, insecurity imposes severe socioeconomic costs on affected communities. Persistent violence disrupts agricultural production, discourages domestic and foreign investment, weakens educational systems, strains healthcare infrastructure and exacerbates poverty and unemployment. These conditions, in turn, create a self-reinforcing cycle in which socioeconomic deprivation contributes to further insecurity. Consequently, sustainable solutions require a holistic approach that extends beyond military responses to encompass justice, economic development, social inclusion, national unity agenda, institutional reform and good governance.
It is therefore imperative that Nigerians, particularly political elites, civil society actors, media practitioners and opinion leaders should adopt a more responsible and constructive approach to security discourse. While governments must remain accountable for their successes and failures, security challenges should not be weaponized for partisan advantage with the aim of weakening the incumbent government and gaining electoral leverage.
Security is a collective responsibility that transcends the duties of state institutions alone. As citizens, our actions, statements, and online engagements can have significant implications for the security architecture of our country. In an era of rapid information dissemination, even a seemingly innocuous post may influence public perception, social cohesion, and national stability inadvertently undermine it. It is therefore imperative that we exercise discretion, responsibility and civic consciousness in all forms of communication, recognizing that sustainable security is a product of both institutional efforts and responsible citizen participation. We must exercise cautioned and patriotism in our engagements, both online and offline.
Sustainable peace and security can only be achieved when insecurity is treated as a national challenge requiring collective action rather than as an instrument of political mobilization and conflict entrepreneurship. A depoliticized, development-oriented and institutionally grounded approach to security governance remains essential for fostering enduring stability, economic prosperity, educational development and national integration in Nigeria. Public discussions should prioritize evidence-based policy recommendations and their implementation strategies, institutional reforms and bipartisan cooperation in pursuit of sustainable solutions rather than hyping the issue for political or media gain.