Opinion

Tinubu help – Our brothers, our prodigal sons are killing our generals, troops

Published

3 months ago

April 13, 2026

Tinubu insecurity criticism Nigeria grows as concerns mount over rising violence, military losses, and government response to national security challenges

BOLA Ahmed Tinubu regales in his absurdities, wears them like badges of honour, and dares others to understand his devoted departure from logic to inclinations for inexactitudes that mask insensibilities and insensitivities.

Also read: Tinubu Expands CNG Initiative to Include Electric Vehicles

The land is drenched in blood, fears, and at the zenith of deadening uncertainties that flow from a President, Commander-in-Chief, who from day one in office has been more interested in the importance of his office than “the security and welfare” of the people, unless they are about his immediate family and his acolytes.

From the beginning, President Tinubu’s major interest has been a second term.

That is all he has been working on since 29 May 2023. Any issue that does not contribute to his re-election is deemed marginal.

Tinubu has been a failure in absolute terms. He cannot deny it. He is so afraid to lose the election that he has sleepless nights over facing the same people he has ignored.

He has resorted to hushed reactions to issues. Scared to annoy anyone, ready to accept any suggestions that would secure a semblance of peace as he heads gingerly to 2027.

Ours is a President in hiding. Jos was the proof. He has a shortage of words to address the issues which he has been afraid to deal with in any meaningful way since 2023.

Pointing to infrastructure, whatever infrastructure that is, and tax reforms as major achievements of an administration that cannot secure the lives of Nigerians is insulting and absurd.

Is Tinubu building a Nigeria for the dead? Terrorists and bandits routinely kill Nigerians without consequences. The killings are daily news headlines from different parts of Nigeria.

Tinubu’s best responses from his series of security briefings are, “we will ensure this does not happen again,” “this is one killing too many,” “the perpetrators of the killings will not go unpunished,” and “I have ordered our security agencies to go after them”.

All empty words that have emboldened the killers to more brutality because they know there would be no consequences for killing Nigerians, sometimes setting communities ablaze while they sleep and shooting those who dare to escape.

The killers are acquiring territories and have additional interests in direct attacks on our military bases. The casualty figures of troops and security agents are rising. Equipment is burnt if the terrorist cannot take it away.

Who cares? Not the Commander-in-Chief who believes that the solution to the insecurity in Plateau State is 5,000 drones.

The mindset is contracts over command and control, intelligence management, and decisive stand on how to treat terrorists who have turned parts of Nigeria into war theatres.

In the last couple of months, the conversations have been more on the number of troops that we are losing, including senior officers.

Normal conversations. There is no anger not even embarrassment at such losses. They are announced as if they do not mean a thing. Sometimes the reluctance to announce them tell another story.

How can terrorists destroy our military facilities, kill our troops, including officers, kill and abduct our people, and the Commander-in-Chief is not angry enough to order a major offensive that would profoundly damage the ability of terrorists to attack us?

Nigerians are not interested in the Commander-in-Chief’s hollow words. He should act to rescue Nigeria from the tragic, crippling consequences of insecurity that are making the country unliveable.

Tinubu’s remarkable lack of care seeps into how he addresses the people, overlooks their needs and the mental abuses that riddle the utterances of his officials who expect us to be deferent to terrorists.

Is this not rather confounding?
The Nigeria Army, through Operation HADIN KAI, has a different account of the terrorist attack on the 29 Task Force Brigade Headquarters in Benisheikh, Borno State. Only four personnel: two officers and two soldiers, were killed, according to Lt-Col Sani Uba, Media Information Officer, Headquarters Joint Task Force (North East) Operation HADIN KAI, about 22 hours after the Commander-in-Chief commented on the battle.

“OPHK categorically refutes the claim that 17 soldiers, including a Brigade Commander, lost their lives during the incident.

“The military remains the only credible source of verified information on its operations and will continue to provide timely and accurate updates through official channels.

“Members of the public are therefore advised to rely on such sources and refrain from spreading unverified information.”

Could this be another confirmation of the distance of the Commander-in-Chief from verified information from the battlefield? Tinubu had named Brig-Gen Oseni Omoh Braimah as the killed Brigade Commander and hailed the bravery of the soldiers who died fighting the terrorists in Benisheikh.

Let it not be that the Commander-in-Chief and his troops are indicting each other through these contradictions.
More confusing is the national policy of treating terrorists as “brothers”, as National Security Adviser, NSA, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, says, and “prodigal sons” who deserve the “repentance window” to be left open for them, according to Lt-Gen Olufemi Oluyede, Chief of Defence, CDS.

How do our troops manage these orders that compromise their own safety? While the assumption is that both men speak for Tinubu, time is overdue for the Commander-in-Chief to tell our troops, and Nigerians, in general, if terrorists are “our brothers”, “our prodigal sons”, or our enemies.

The matter demands urgent attention as the President’s answer will determine how we treat terrorists.

Finally…
THE State House, more known as the Villa, has an AI chatbot that as you read a press statement dares you thus, “Hi, I am State House AI, ask me anything”.

When you ask “anything”, it retorts, “This chatbot is currently unavailable. If you are the owner, please check your account”. The answer typifies a government that is currently unavailable.

PROUD factional leader of Africa Democratic Congress, ADC, Nafiu Bala Gombe, has admitted he has sponsorship to keep fighting ADC.

He lives in one of Abuja’s most expensive hotels, has a retinue of security personnel. How long will the sponsorship last?

THE darkness and sadness all over Nigeria demand immediate attention.

Also read: EU, Tinubu Deepen Strategic Ties in Security Push

They are too imminent to ignore.

Up Next

Beyond oil: Niger Delta attracts new investments for economic growth and development

Don't Miss

The Insecurity Triad: Money, Land and Mind — The Capstone

Mariam Balogun

Click to comment

Opinion

Seven prime ministers in a decade: What Nigeria can learn from Britain’s chaos

Published

1 week ago

July 2, 2026

Mariam Balogun

By Dr Toju Ogbe,

The resignation of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, less than two years after leading the Labour Party to a landslide electoral victory, was dramatic, yet reflected a pattern we have become familiar with in recent British politics.

Also read: Abolish state of origin: A prerequisite for true national integration

Starmer now joins a procession of fallen prime ministers stretching back to 2016 – from David Cameron to Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak.

None of these prime ministers was ousted through military intervention, popular insurrection, or a court order. Rather, each was ultimately brought down by the same political system that elevated them to electoral glory.

To the casual observer, the rapid turnover of British Prime Ministers in the last decade may appear chaotic, or even a symptom of political instability. Some argue that the British electorate has become ungovernable.

However, beneath the apparent chaos at Westminster lies an uncomfortable truth that African democracies would do well to examine, particularly Nigerians who wonder why our democracy has delivered so little despite almost three decades of uninterrupted civilian rule.

The turbulence of British politics over the last decade, presents an important lesson on democratic accountability beyond successful elections.

Once the prime minister is deemed a liability by their own political party, the mechanics of accountability are activated. The daggers are quietly drawn and the ruthless pressure to resign begins.

Every poll and survey on public opinion is closely monitored, local election results are taken as a referendum on leadership. Cabinet resignations begin to gain momentum and backbenchers get restless.

Once the news media smells an internal uprising, they amplify scrutiny of the prime minister, subjecting every move – speech, public appearance, political misstep etc to relentless examination.

Pressure gradually mounts until the prospect of bitter internal leadership challenge becomes impossible to resist. The Prime Minister falls.

For every British Prime Minister, winning an election is merely the beginning of examination, not the end. Political survival lasts only for as long as the prime minister maintains the confidence of his party and the parliament.

This is the muscle of British democratic accountability; a political culture that prioritises institutional survival over individual ambition. Starmer recognised this reality in his resignation speech:

“The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election. I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer with good grace.”

That closing sentence alone is a masterclass in British institutional democracy. The party spoke. The leader listened. The correction comes from within.

Nigeria presents a strikingly different political logic.

Nigeria on the other hand, presents an interesting contrast with a different political logic and culture.

The notion that a governing party would overtly interrogate the performance of its own leader and engineer a transition to someone better equipped to maintain public confidence, is in most cases politically unthinkable in Nigeria.

Political parties in Nigeria do not coalesce around ideological principles; rather, they operate more as electoral instruments organised around powerful individuals.

Internal dissent is often dealt with as betrayals rather than as part of healthy democratic engagement. Godfatherism and transactional loyalties shape political succession and leadership retention.

Once elected in Nigeria, there is an inherent assumption that a governor or president has a fixed two-term lease on power.

While 10 Downing Street is preparing to welcome its seventh Prime Minister in a decade, Nigeria, in contrast, has had only two democratically elected presidents during the same period – one of whom is still serving.

Social and economic conditions may deteriorate. Insecurity may worsen. Campaign promises may be ignored.

Public frustrations may become unbearable. Yet, incumbent governors and presidents often remain insulated from meaningful internal scrutiny and are even routinely anointed as ‘consensus’ candidate for second terms provided loyalties to godfathers, rather than the electorates are maintained.

The consequence is that loyalty, instead of performance is often rewarded at the expense of accountability.

This is not an argument for a revolving door at Aso Rock, as frequent leadership changes, by themselves, do not guarantee good governance.

Rather it is a case for making accountability an integral aspect of party politics in Nigeria.

Although the Nigerian presidential system provides for a fixed four-year term regardless of party confidence, political parties should however, be more than instruments for election campaigns, activated to simply retain or take over power every four years.

Electoral victory, should not be the ultimate goal, but the starting point of public service where democratic legitimacy must be continuously earned.

Equally important, political parties must develop the institutional maturity to honestly evaluate their own leaders. They must prioritise public interest and institutional credibility over loyalty to ‘Godfathers’.

The ultimate lesson from Westminster’s revolving door is clear: the true strength of a democratic system, lies not in the ability to produce leaders, but the capacity to effectively replace them, when they no longer command confidence.

Protecting failing leaders from accountability weakens democracy and political parties must ensure that no leader is more powerful than the institution.

Also read: Madugu Targets Strong WAFCON Title Defence for Super Falcons

As political parties gear up for the 2027 general elections, the political class must decide what matters more: we can continue to reward blind loyalty and endure predictable decline, or discover the courage to demand accountability from those who seek to lead us.