ByTheophilus Komolafe
On November 27, President Tinubu’s declaration of a security emergency, accompanied by a directive to recruit police and military personnel in large numbers, represents a significant policy response to Nigeria’s protracted security crisis. While this action signals governmental resolve, a critical examination reveals that a strategy predicated primarily on quantitative augmentation of security forces is fundamentally misguided.
This paper argues that the Nigerian Armed Forces are institutionally compromised and that the nature of the conflict is inherently ideological. Therefore, the prescribed way forward is not expansion, but a dual strategy of rigorous internal reform and a concerted ideological campaign to undermine the support base of non-state actors.
Empirical evidence strongly suggests that there is a severe institutional compromise within the Nigerian military apparatus. This is not merely a matter of operational failure but points to systemic issues of infiltration and intelligence leakage. Instances such as the calculated capture of Brigadier General Musa Ubah and the controversial withdrawal of forces from the Kebbi school abduction site are not isolated tactical errors. Instead, they form a pattern of ambushes and security breaches that indicate the presence of a “fifth column” (a subversive element within the security architecture itself).
These recurring incidents necessitate a paradigm shift in strategy. Before any expansion of personnel, a thorough, forensic investigation and vetting of the existing force is imperative to identify and excise compromised elements.
The efficacy of a military force is contingent not only on its operational capability but also on its legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry. Historically, the Nigerian military commanded significant public reverence, making service a coveted honour. This prestige has demonstrably eroded. The contemporary societal sentiment is characterised by pity for military families and active discouragement of service, reflecting a profound crisis of confidence. This decline in institutional stature has a direct operational consequence: it diminishes the pool of motivated, patriotic candidates. In this environment, a mass recruitment drive carries a high risk of inadvertently enlisting individuals with sympathies for, or direct links to, insurgent groups.
The Federal Government is not merely combating discrete terrorist organisations but a pervasive ideology; expanding the military under these conditions risks further institutionalising this very ideology within the state’s security apparatus.
The security challenge is misdiagnosed if viewed solely through a militaristic lens. The existence of an estimated 30,000 bandits and militants, operating within extensive logistical networks involving sponsors, arms dealers, and local sympathisers, underscores that this is a socio-ideological war. The state’s persistent lack of credible intelligence is not solely a failure of collection but a symptom of deep-seated communal acquiescence or active support for anti-state elements.
While fear is a factor, it is an oversimplification to attribute all support to coercion. Evidence of brazen operations and the free movement of militants suggests a degree of ideological alignment or societal alienation that a purely kinetic approach cannot address.
A sustainable solution requires a fundamental reorientation of strategy, moving beyond troop numbers to address core institutional and ideological vulnerabilities.
The mass recruitment must be suspended pending a comprehensive internal audit. Military intelligence should employ data triangulation to investigate personnel associated with operations that resulted in ambushes, particularly those who survived under inexplicable circumstances.
Furthermore, to rebuild public trust, the tradition of opaque military justice should be reconsidered. Public trials for personnel found culpable of treason or collusion would serve as a powerful deterrent and a critical step towards restoring institutional credibility.
The government must launch a strategic communication (StratCom) campaign to counter the enemy’s narrative and dismantle its support base. A historical precedent can be found in the Vietnamese conflict, where the strategic use of media turned American public opinion against the war effort by highlighting its financial and human costs.
Similarly, the Nigerian government can deploy media to: Create narratives that pit local communities and suppliers against the militants, highlighting how banditry devastates local economies and livelihoods; Systematically strip these groups of any perceived legitimacy, consistently labelling them as economic saboteurs and mass murderers; and cultivate a public sentiment of vehement opposition so potent that it surpasses the community’s fear of the militants, thereby crippling their intelligence and logistical networks.
While President Tinubu’s security emergency declaration acknowledges the severity of Nigeria’s crisis, the reflexive policy of mass recruitment might not be the best or optimal response to this strategic problem. In my opinion, it risks compounding the existing issues of institutional compromise and ideological vulnerability.
A more prudent and effective path involves a temporary pause on expansion, a ruthless internal cleansing of the security services, and the immediate initiation of a sophisticated ideological campaign. The conflict for Nigeria’s future will not be won by numbers alone, but through the dual victory of institutional integrity and the conquest of the ideological battlefield.
Komolafe, a PhD candidate at the Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, writes via [email protected]
