Nigerians are weary of promises. After two decades of banditry, kidnapping, and insurgency, the question is no longer whether the state has capacity. The question is whether it will deploy that capacity when it matters most. In the first instance, recent history shows Nigeria can act decisively when the political cost of inaction is high. The COVID-19 lockdown restricted movement for 200 million people in days. Similarly, financial institutions froze accounts within hours during the #EndSARS protests. Moreover, legislation and budgets tied to executive priorities have passed through approval processes far faster than ordinary governance matters. These examples do not suggest insecurity is simple to resolve. They show that speed, coordination, and prioritisation are already part of Nigeria’s administrative repertoire, even if applied unevenly.
In the first instance, many armed groups depend on continuous access to financial resources, communications, and armed protection to sustain operations. Furthermore, Nigeria maintains several institutions and databases designed to track financial transactions, including the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit, Bank Verification Number systems, and mobile network records. These tools were deployed rapidly in past domestic operations. Applying comparable urgency to identified financiers of violent crime, illegal mining operators, and ransom networks could disrupt cash flow for recruitment, logistics, and informants. Also, records of unauthorised police and military personnel attached to private individuals are maintained by security agencies. A directive to recall such personnel would reduce the protective cover available to non-state actors and increase their operational risk.
Moreover, the challenge of inter-agency coordination affects response time. Nigeria’s security, financial, and communications agencies each hold distinct data sets relevant to tracking movement and transactions in affected regions. Countries facing similar security threats have reduced response cycles by integrating databases and establishing centralised information-sharing protocols under executive directive. In the Nigerian context, establishing a temporary unified dashboard using existing data from NFIU, NCC, NIBSS, and security agencies could shorten the time between intelligence gathering and operational response. This would address a documented administrative gap without requiring new legislation.
Also, civilian data and community-level information represent an underutilised resource. Through NIN-SIM linkage, BVN registration, and tax records, Nigeria has mapped a significant portion of its population and economic activity. Furthermore, communities are typically the first to observe unusual movement, accumulation of motorcycles, or changes in local behaviour. Countries such as Colombia and Indonesia improved rural security outcomes by formalising community reporting channels and protecting informants. Similarly, telecom operators already generate geo-tagged call data. If distress calls from affected areas were triangulated in real time with call logs and movement patterns, response coordination could improve. This approach relies on administrative prioritisation rather than new technology.
Furthermore, deterrence depends not only on enforcement but on the certainty and speed of judicial consequences. Under existing laws such as the Terrorism Prevention Act, special courts can be designated to handle cases of kidnapping, terrorism financing, and illegal mining on accelerated dockets with limits on adjournments. Nigeria has previously created fast-track judicial processes for election petitions and other time-sensitive matters. Extending a similar model to violent crime cases could alter risk calculations for perpetrators by reducing the gap between offence and consequence.
Moreover, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2022 provides legal authority for asset forfeiture even without a full criminal conviction. This non-conviction-based forfeiture has been applied globally against drug trafficking and terrorism networks. In Nigeria, the law is used more frequently for corruption cases than for insecurity-related crimes. Also, assets such as vehicles, landed property, hotels, and businesses suspected to be purchased with ransom proceeds can be traced and frozen using existing financial intelligence. When the risk extends beyond cash to property, the cost of participation in violent crime increases. The legal framework exists; its application to insecurity cases would test prioritisation.
Similarly, mobility and logistics remain critical to armed operations. Border areas and forested regions with limited surveillance have been identified in security reports as transit points for arms, fuel, and abducted persons. Redeploying existing personnel from Customs, Immigration, NSCDC, and the military to identified chokepoints could temporarily restrict these movements. Comparable measures have been applied in regional conflicts to reduce logistical capacity. Such actions would involve short-term disruption to trade and movement but would target the operational infrastructure that sustains violence.
In the first instance, detention facilities also influence the security cycle. Reports from civil society organisations and the Nigerian Correctional Service indicate that prisons have at times functioned as points for coordination and recruitment by criminal networks. Furthermore, congestion and slow case processing contribute to periodic jail breaks. During the COVID-19 pandemic, administrative measures were used to decongest facilities. Similarly, a rapid audit of high-risk inmates, separation of terrorism suspects from general populations, and expanded use of virtual court sittings could reduce internal command structures and lower the risk of mass escapes. These are administrative actions within existing authority.
Also, economic factors influence recruitment at lower levels of armed groups. For individuals whose participation is driven by limited economic opportunity, parallel measures that offer immediate alternatives may reduce the available pool of recruits. A time-bound programme providing stipends and vocational enrolment, funded by reallocating a portion of existing security allocations, could create an exit option. Additionally, public communication strategies that disclose the identity of financiers and highlight operational losses of criminal networks can affect morale and internal cohesion. These measures complement enforcement by addressing incentives beyond the use of force.
Moreover, responsibility for security also rests with subnational leaders within constitutional limits. State and community policing structures provided for in Nigerian law have produced results in several regions where they received legal recognition and funding. Strengthening these structures and tying accountability for local security outcomes to elected officials could improve response at the community level. This would align with existing provisions while increasing direct responsibility for security outcomes.
Finally, transparency in security spending affects public trust and operational effectiveness. Section 13 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act and the Public Procurement Act already require accountability, though security expenditures are often exempted from detailed reporting. Similarly, countries such as Ghana and Rwanda publish redacted but audited summaries of security spending to demonstrate that resources reach intended operations. In Nigeria, an executive directive requiring the Office of the National Security Adviser and the Ministry of Finance to publish categorised security spending within twenty-four hours would not compromise operations but would increase public confidence and reduce opportunities for diversion.
Taken together, these measures do not promise an end to all insecurity overnight. What they do is test a simple proposition: that the Nigerian state already possesses the legal, institutional, and technological tools to alter the trajectory of violence within a single day of coordinated action. The record of rapid response during health emergencies and political crises proves that capacity is not the barrier. The barrier is choice. For citizens trapped between bandits and broken promises, the demand is no longer for new theories. It is for the same urgency applied to other national emergencies to be applied to their lives. Until that happens, insecurity will remain less a failure of capacity and more a failure of prioritisation.
Copyright © 2026 Fẹ́mi Akínṣọlá. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author.
