As the smoke of renewed violence rises once more over Nigeria’s northeastern skies, an old debate has returned to the national stage—one that questions whether the country has truly done everything possible to end the Boko Haram insurgency that has tormented it for over 15 years. The call for a State of Emergency on insecurity, recently revived by retired General Lucky Irabor, a former Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), has reopened a deep national conversation about political will, military coordination, and the limits of leadership in the face of a relentless insurgent threat.
A General’s Warning from Experience
In his new book, “Scars: Nigeria’s Journey and the Boko Haram Conundrum,” General Irabor reflects on the lessons learned from years of battling insurgency in the Sahel corridor. He argues that Nigeria’s failure to decisively end the insurgency is not rooted in lack of manpower or firepower, but in a chronic deficit of political will. “The government had not yet mustered the political will and instruments to declare a war against Boko Haram,” he wrote. To him, the missing element is not military strength but strategic coherence, the unification of all elements of national power—economic, political, diplomatic, informational, and military—under a singular command structure driven by an emergency mindset.
Irabor’s position is clear: the Nigerian state must declare a formal, legislatively backed state of emergency on insecurity—one that would allow the armed forces to act with the full authority and coordination necessary to dismantle Boko Haram’s remaining structure. “With an emergency proclamation, backed by the National Assembly, there will be greater and more focused attention by the government to galvanise all the elements of national power towards the war,” he wrote.
For Irabor, the issue is strategic. “Success at the tactical and operational levels will never translate to victory if there is failure at the strategic level. Tactical operations alone rarely bring about the desired outcome in political situations,” he warns—a subtle but sharp critique of how successive governments have treated the insurgency as a series of disconnected battles rather than a national emergency.
The Alarming Resurgence of Boko Haram
His warning could not have come at a more critical time. Despite claims by the Nigerian military that Boko Haram has been “technically defeated,” recent events tell a different story. Over the past two months, Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) factions have reasserted their presence across several flashpoints in Borno State. Last week, the group overran Kirawa, a border town near Cameroon, in a brazen daylight assault that left four soldiers dead, a military barracks razed, and the palace of the district head in ruins. Over 5,000 residents fled into Cameroon, many of them on foot, clutching children and meagre belongings.
Just days earlier, another coordinated attack targeted a military base near Banki, where insurgents stormed in from three directions. Although the army successfully repelled the assault, one police constable sustained injuries. These attacks underline a disturbing reality: the insurgents, far from being defeated, are reorganising and testing the boundaries of Nigeria’s defensive lines once again.
Governor Babagana Zulum of Borno State, visibly shaken by the latest attacks, called for increased military presence in border towns and renewed collaboration with the Multi-National Joint Task Force (MNJTF). Over 2.2 million Nigerians remain internally displaced in the northeast, with thousands more forced to seek refuge in neighbouring Chad, Niger, and Cameroon.
Generals Rally Behind Irabor’s Proposal
General Irabor’s bold proposal has triggered an outpouring of support from several retired senior military officers who share his frustrations about the handling of national security. Brigadier General Peter Aro (retd.) described Irabor’s call as “apt and deeply informed by experience,” emphasizing that only a genuine state of emergency—not a politically diluted version—could restore coordination and urgency.
“But it must be a genuine state of emergency,” Aro warned. “Not the kind where governors and local government chairmen still operate as if it were business as usual. When politics steps aside and security takes full command, coordination improves, resources flow faster, and the chain of authority becomes clear.”
Similarly, Major General Dayo Olukoju (retd.), who once served in Maiduguri during some of the fiercest battles against Boko Haram, supported Irabor’s idea but urged that it be paired with a multilateral approach that includes community leaders, clerics, and traditional institutions. “We have the elite, traditional, spiritual, and military leaders — all of them have roles to play,” Olukoju said. “The root causes are there — have we been able to look into them? Issues of freedom, identity, and social alienation are still unresolved. If these things are not looked into, we risk a resurgence.”
For Olukoju, declaring a state of emergency is necessary but not sufficient; Nigeria must also wage a psychological and social war—one that confronts radicalization, unemployment, and the ideology that fuels terrorism.
The Arms Problem and Internal Sabotage
Another respected voice, Colonel Saka Folusho (retd.), supported the proposal but sounded a different alarm: the illicit trade in arms and ammunition that sustains the insurgency. “For you to decide to sell ammunition, it means there is a lot of interest you are getting from the other side you are selling to,” Folusho said. “If somebody decides to sell what is supposed to be used to defend himself, that’s like the person wants to commit suicide.”
Folusho’s comments point to a disturbing undercurrent within Nigeria’s military-industrial complex—allegations that some rogue actors profit from the very conflict they are meant to end. He called for stricter oversight of arms procurement and distribution, emphasizing that without plugging the leakages in logistics and supply, no declaration of emergency will achieve meaningful results.
He also underscored the issue of soldier welfare, lamenting that underpaid and ill-equipped troops cannot deliver optimal performance. “When you are paying somebody ₦50,000 and not giving them all the equipment to operate, what do you expect? They are human beings too,” he said.
Northern Elders Echo the Call
Beyond the military circles, Irabor’s proposal has found resonance among civilian leaders, particularly in northern Nigeria where the brunt of the violence has been felt. The Northern Elders Forum (NEF), through its spokesperson Prof. Abubakar Jiddere, reiterated its long-standing demand for a state of emergency on insecurity in the region.
“In one of our press releases, we called for this twice,” Jiddere said. “It is important now that the government should declare a state of emergency on security. That does not mean suspending any government but rather massively deploying security agencies — police, military, all armed forces — to take very serious action.”
The NEF’s statement came after yet another wave of coordinated attacks in Zamfara, Katsina, Niger, Benue, and Kwara States, where armed bandits have killed and kidnapped scores of civilians. “Until the Federal Government takes serious action and deploys massive security personnel, this issue will continue to worsen. It’s a matter of national emergency,” Jiddere said.
Divergent Voices: State Policing and Civilian Solutions
However, not everyone agrees that a federal state of emergency is the answer. Kwamoti Laori, a member of the House of Representatives from Adamawa State, believes that only state policing can sustainably address insecurity.
“In the 1960s, we had state police in my area, called the ‘Friday Police,’ because they worked on market days,” he said. “They knew everyone in the community by name and could easily identify criminals. We need that kind of system again.”
Laori’s argument centers on community intelligence and accountability—an approach that many security experts have described as Nigeria’s most realistic path forward. He proposed a legal framework where communities nominate recruits for state police to avoid political interference and ensure that local officers serve in their home areas.
Political Reactions: ADC vs. APC
The debate has spilled into the political arena, with the African Democratic Congress (ADC) accusing President Bola Tinubu’s administration of negligence and insensitivity. In a strongly worded statement, Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, castigated the government for attending social and political events while insecurity worsens across the nation.
“Over 180 schools in northern Nigeria have been shut due to insecurity,” Abdullahi wrote. “Nine local government areas in Kwara State, once known for peace, were recently attacked by bandits who demanded food, drinks, and money from residents. In Kogi, travellers were killed and others abducted. Yet, the President attends parties and photo ops. This is unacceptable.”
He accused the administration of living in denial: “The President’s claim of progress in the fight against insecurity is a tragic denial of reality. Nigeria is under attack. This administration must stop pretending otherwise.”
The ADC urged the Federal Government to provide transparent reports on military operations and spending, arguing that only openness can rebuild public trust in the government’s counterterrorism strategy.
The All Progressives Congress (APC), however, dismissed the ADC’s accusations as “confused and desperate.” Bala Ibrahim, APC’s Director of Publicity, told DOYA News that the opposition party was merely seeking relevance. “Nigerians know that the country is moving from insecurity to greater security,” he claimed. “Yes, there are challenges here and there, but look at the speed with which these challenges are being confronted. Recently, the government announced the arrest of the most high-profile kidnappers and gangsters in the West African region. That’s progress.”
The Strategic Dilemma: Political Will vs. Operational Reality
As Nigeria’s security debate deepens, the tension between political authority and military necessity remains unresolved. Experts argue that while declaring a state of emergency may centralize control and quicken response, it could also test Nigeria’s fragile democratic framework if not properly defined.
What Irabor and his supporters envision is not a suspension of civil governance but a national war posture—one that unites ministries, military branches, and state authorities under a unified command. In contrast, critics fear that without clear boundaries, such a move could become a tool for political suppression.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the insurgency, now in its second decade, continues to evolve. Boko Haram and ISWAP have adapted to changing conditions, leveraging technology, local grievances, and porous borders to sustain their operations. The displacement of millions, the closure of hundreds of schools, and the collapse of local economies have created a fertile ground for extremist recruitment.
The Human Toll
Behind the policy debates are real human stories—displaced families in IDP camps, children without schools, soldiers fighting with inadequate supplies, and farmers who can no longer till their land. In Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa, entire communities live under curfews, relying on humanitarian aid that is often delayed or insufficient.
The humanitarian agencies estimate that over 2.2 million Nigerians remain internally displaced, with many still living in temporary shelters that lack basic amenities. As one aid worker told DOYA News: “Every new attack resets the clock on recovery. Families who had just started rebuilding must flee again.”
The Road Ahead
As discussions around Irabor’s proposal intensify, the federal government remains noncommittal. The Minister of Information, Mohammed Idris, has yet to issue an official position, while the Borno State Commissioner for Information, Prof. Usman Tar, dismissed the matter tersely: “He is entitled to his opinion; we have nothing to say about that.”
Yet, as the flames of insecurity spread beyond the northeast to the north-central and even southern regions, many Nigerians are beginning to wonder if Irabor’s warning will once again be ignored—until it is too late.
For now, the country stands at a crossroads. Between the choice of decisive, coordinated action and the inertia of bureaucracy lies the fate of millions. The question is not whether Nigeria can win the war against Boko Haram; it is whether it is finally willing to fight it as if it must.
Post a Comment