Last Updated on 26/12/2025 by Rasheed Busari
Nigeria has been bedeviled by decades of insecurity, with no sustainable solution in sight. What began as a jihad against Western education, popularly known as Boko Haram, has gradually evolved into a full scale hegemony, a dangerous cankerworm eating deep into the fabric of both Christianity and Islam in Nigeria.
For decades, Nigeria has been described as the “Giant of Africa,” a label anchored in population size, economic potential, and regional influence. Yet the persistence and geographic spread of insecurity increasingly call that designation into question. A state that struggles to secure its territory, protect its citizens, and enforce the rule of law cannot credibly claim continental leadership, regardless of demographic or economic weight.
itsWhat began more than a decade ago as Boko Haram, an insurgency framed as opposition to Western education, has since transformed into a complex ecosystem of jihadist factions, bandit networks, and criminal enterprises. Once largely confined to the northeast part of Nigeria, insecurity now stretches across northern Nigeria and has, in recent years, spilled into parts of the southwestern part of the country, bringing more states, towns, cities, and villages into its enclave.
This insecurity has lasted this long largely due to the absence of political will, particularly from sections of the Northern political elite, influential Islamic clerics, and successive governments. Even more troubling are reports suggesting complicity within security formations through sabotage, intelligence leakage, and selective enforcement. Allegations of intelligence leakage, selective enforcement, and internal sabotage within security agencies, though difficult to prove, have become persistent features of public discourse and have further weakened trust in the state’s capacity to act.
What initially appeared as an ideological battle against education gradually morphed into a political weapon: a tool for negotiating power at the center. Insurgency became currency, and violence became leverage, making national stability a sacrifice on the altar of political relevance. In such a conscious political environment like Nigeria, the line between defeating insecurity and managing it for political advantage persists dangerously, making the human cost, borne overwhelmingly by ordinary Nigerians, secondary.
Past governments reportedly invested billions of dollars in counter-insurgency efforts, yet insecurity only deepened and spread across villages, cities, and towns. Since 2015, budget allocation to defense and security has always taken a larger share of the Nigerian budget, more than thirty percent (30%) of the country’s budget. The persistence of violence despite rising budgetary allocation to defense and security suggests that the challenge has been less about resources and more about governance, coordination failures, weak accountability, and inconsistent strategic direction. This raises a fundamental question: was Nigeria truly fighting insurgency, or merely managing it?
Against this backdrop, recent reports of Christmas Day coordinated airstrikes against insurgent enclaves in Sokoto and Zamfara State, undertaken with Nigerian forces and supported by the United States, mark a notable departure. Beyond the immediate tactical value, such actions carry symbolic weight, which signals that insurgency is not immutable when political commitment aligns with operational clarity and external partnerships are leveraged decisively. It sends a strong message that insurgency is not invincible when decisive political will meets decisive action.
Equally deserving of commendation is President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, whose administration has demonstrated readiness to confront the clog in Nigeria’s wheel of progress, regardless of political backlash or vendetta. Leadership is ultimately about choices, and Nigeria urgently needs leaders willing to make difficult ones.
Critics will argue that foreign involvement risks undermining sovereignty, that airstrikes alone cannot defeat insurgency, and that Nigeria’s security crisis is rooted primarily in poverty, inequality, and weak local governance. These objections are valid but incomplete. Structural reforms are essential, yet they cannot substitute for immediate, credible force against armed groups that challenge the state’s sovereignty on violence. Development without security is unsustainable; security without reform is brittle.
Ultimately, Nigeria’s claim to continental leadership cannot rest on size or potential alone. It depends on the state’s ability to secure lives and property, enforce the rule of law without fear or favour, and demonstrate that political authority is not negotiable through violence. Until insecurity is treated as a governance failure rather than a political variable, the title of “Giant of Africa” will remain more illusion than reality.
For more tips on economy, policy and governance, visit the financial thrive
The latest tips and news straight into your inbox!
Join teeming subscribers for exclusive access to newsletters for tips, and actionable strategies to understand finance, economy, business, policy, and career development
