Editorial: Nuhu Ribadu,s glib talk on insecurity

The ridiculous “warning” by the National Security Adviser, (NSA), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, to bandits, terrorists, and other criminal groups to surrender or face dire consequences is nothing more than a hollow ultimatum devoid of substance, that is laughable and should attract no further comment. For years, Nigeria has been grappling with a deep-rooted insurgency that has devastated communities, displaced millions, and claimed thousands of lives. Yet, Ribadu’s blanket threat is overly simplistic in the face of a multifaceted security crisis that demands thoughtful, comprehensive solutions, not bombastic rhetoric. Speaking at a lecture organized by the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Abuja, the NSA, who represented President Bola Tinubu declared that Nigeria would no longer tolerate insecurity, and the government will take all necessary actions to restore peace. “Enough is enough. This has to stop. And it will stop. This is a warning to them. They have limited time,” Ribadu noted, adding: “Our windows are open, our doors are open if they are ready to come and surrender and stop, otherwise they know what is going to happen to them.” Given the under-resourced, poorly coordinated military and the endemic corruption within Nigeria’s security agencies, it stretches credulity that the government has the capacity to back up these threats. If anything, Ribadu’s statement feels more like an attempt to score political points and create the illusion of leadership than a serious, actionable approach to national security.

As the current NSA, Ribadu’s comments reflect a concerning lack of depth and seriousness in addressing the country’s most pressing crises, and are painfully reminiscent of similar empty threats made by past Nigerian leaders. Former President Muhammadu Buhari, for instance, issued countless threats to Boko Haram and other violent groups during his tenure. These warnings achieved little in the way of curbing the insurgency, leaving Nigerians to endure the horrors of banditry, kidnapping, and terrorism. Ribadu’s call for terrorists to surrender seems to echo this tired, ineffective playbook, demonstrating a striking lack of innovative thinking or strategic direction. In the end, Ribadu’s empty threat will likely be ignored by those it was meant to intimidate; further eroding public confidence in a government that has yet to show it can tackle Nigeria’s greatest challenges with the urgency and competency they require.

Nigeria’s battle against terrorism and insecurity has been long and painful. Groups like Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) continue to wreak havoc in the northeast, displacing millions and causing untold devastation. Beyond the insurgency, there are worsening incidents of banditry, kidnappings, and ethnic violence, spreading from the northern regions to virtually all corners of the country. Terrorists, militants, and opportunistic criminals have terrorized communities, exploited a weak state, and flourished in environments where governance has faltered. Over a decade of conflict has claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions, yet Nigeria’s leadership has often responded with surface-level reassurances rather than decisive, sustained action. This alarming disconnect between government officials’ statements and the lived experiences of Nigerians is embodied in the comments from Ribadu, whose recent assertions fail to reflect the reality on the ground.

Furthermore, Ribadu’s message lacks credibility: “We have developed both kinetic and non-kinetic strategies in considerably eliminating the threats of Boko Haram, banditry, kidnapping for ransom, and violent extremists…Our citizens can now heave a sigh of relief. We shall continue to provide our armed forces with the needed human and material resources to achieve success.” Ribadu also highlighted the “progress” made, noting the elimination of over 300 Boko Haram commanders and a decline in cases of kidnapping for ransom. He warned that criminal leaders have been used to set examples, stating “If they refuse to surrender, the same fate awaits them.” What “fate” can these terrorists realistically expect?

In various public appearances, Ribadu has asserted that the Nigerian government is “on top of the situation” regarding terrorism and insecurity. He has also downplayed the persistent threat posed by violent groups, suggesting that the worst is over or that the situation is being handled effectively. These statements are not only misleading but dangerous, as they ignore the continuing violence, kidnappings, and daily insecurities that millions of Nigerians face. Such glib assurances reflect a pattern of tone-deafness from officials who have consistently failed to acknowledge the depth of Nigeria’s security crisis. Instead of offering clear, tactical solutions or even an admission of the complexity of the challenges, Ribadu and other Tinubu administration officials have resorted to rhetoric that suggests a misguided optimism. This is not the time for public grandstanding or empty platitudes; Nigeria faces an existential security crisis that requires realism, actionable steps and concerted effort, not empty reassurances.

One of the most glaring issues highlighted by Ribadu’s approach is the absence of strong, decisive leadership in Nigeria’s security apparatus. As NSA, Ribadu holds one of the most critical roles in shaping national security policy, coordinating military and intelligence efforts, and advising the president on strategies to combat terrorism and insecurity. Yet, his public statements offer little in terms of concrete solutions, reforms, or a clear roadmap to tackle these issues. Rather than presenting robust, long-term strategies, Ribadu has leaned on generic assertions about success and progress. But if progress is indeed being made, where is the evidence? Where are the metrics showing reduced violence, lower casualty numbers, or greater stability in affected regions? These are the kinds of hard facts that Nigerians deserve, not hollow assurances. Moreover, Ribadu’s lack of a comprehensive plan exposes the wider institutional failures in Nigeria’s security sector. The military, intelligence services, and police force have all faced accusations of corruption, inefficiency, and inadequate resourcing. Yet, instead of tackling these core issues head-on, Ribadu’s comments suggest a level of complacency that is deeply concerning.

While officials like Ribadu talk in abstractions, ordinary Nigerians bear the brunt of the insecurity crisis. Across the country, families are torn apart by kidnappings, communities are displaced by conflict, and children are deprived of education as schools are targeted by terrorist groups. The economic toll is just as dire – farmers abandon their farms, businesses shut their doors, and entire regions are destabilized, leading to food insecurity, job losses, and widespread poverty. Take, for example, the banditry crisis that continues to terrorize the northwestern region of Nigeria. In 2023, after Tinubu took power, reports indicated armed bandits carried out hundreds of attacks, kidnapping thousands for ransom and killing scores of civilians. Communities are left vulnerable and hopeless, waiting for government intervention that rarely materializes in any meaningful form. Yet, Ribadu’s public comments remains startlingly detached from these realities. The constant downplaying of insecurity, the failure to acknowledge the true scale of suffering, and the absence of a clear, coordinated response underscore how disconnected the government’s narrative is from the experiences of ordinary Nigerians.

One of the most dangerous aspects of Ribadu’s glib talk is the lack of accountability it fosters. By presenting a false sense of progress or downplaying the severity of the crisis, the government erodes public trust and emboldens the very groups that continue to terrorize the nation. When officials refuse to confront the full scale of the problem, they also evade responsibility for failures that have allowed terrorism and criminality to flourish. Nigeria’s security agencies have been riddled with inefficiencies and corruption for years. The military is known for mismanaging resources, and failing to act on credible intelligence. These systemic issues require bold reforms, yet Ribadu’s rhetoric does nothing to address these root causes. Instead, it perpetuates a cycle of complacency and superficial responses, where the focus is on managing the narrative rather than tackling the crisis head-on.