IN the theatre of Nigerian governance, there exists a peculiar, chilling performance art: the systematic gaslighting of a populace under siege.
For the current political echelon, the tragedy of the Nigerian state—defined by the daily harvest of lives to banditry, terrorism, and unchecked criminality—is not an emergency to be resolved, but a narrative to be managed.
At the helm of this administration, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, alongside Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Minister of Defence General Christopher Musa, have elevated the minimization of national suffering to a level that transcends mere political incompetence. It is, in every sense, a descent into absolute institutional madness.
The 70% Illusion: A Statistical Insult
The administration’s recent insistence that security in Nigeria has improved by “65 to 70 percent” is a metric that exists solely within the sterilized corridors of Aso Rock and the National Assembly.
To the family in a village in the North-West, the farmer in the Middle Belt, or the traveler on a highway in the South-East, such percentages are not just inaccurate; they are an act of psychological violence.
By quantifying the survival of citizens as a “scorecard,” these leaders reduce human existence to a spreadsheet of acceptable loss. When the Minister of Defence claims the nation is 70% secure, he is effectively telling the 30%—the grieving, the displaced, and the bereaved—that their tragedy is merely a rounding error in the administration’s quest for a positive public relations victory.
The Architecture of Arrogance
The rhetoric emanating from the leadership displays a level of status-induced arrogance that suggests a profound disconnect from the reality of the average Nigerian.
Senator Godswill Akpabio’s tendency to dismiss legitimate concerns about insecurity as “politically sponsored” is a masterclass in deflection. It is a convenient shorthand for delegitimizing the dissent of a hungry, harassed, and terrified populace.
By framing the carnage as a byproduct of 2027 electoral posturing, Akpabio does not just insult the intelligence of the citizenry; he effectively absolves the state of its primary responsibility: the protection of lives and property. It is the height of insolence to suggest that a citizen’s fear of being kidnapped is a partisan act.
The Defence Minister: Strategic Paralysis
General Christopher Musa’s tenure as Minister of Defence has been defined by a jarring mismatch between his optimistic pronouncements and the grim reality on the ground. His recent grandstanding, implying that the citizenry is to blame for the persistence of insecurity, is the ultimate abdication of duty.
To suggest that security would be restored if only citizens would stop “supporting criminals” is a convenient, victim-blaming narrative that masks a fundamental failure in military planning.
Modern global security architecture is built on advanced intelligence, the psychology of human evolutionary trends, and proactive, technology-driven counter-insurgency.
Yet, the Nigerian military apparatus under this administration continues to rely on archaic strategies that seem oblivious to the sophisticated, transnational nature of the threats they face. The claim that the country has “avoided military paralysis” rings hollow when the state’s inability to secure its own borders and internal routes is plain for all to see.
Dancing on Graves: The Rhetoric of Contempt
Perhaps most damning is the language used by President Tinubu and his lieutenants. When the leadership frames terrorism of the nation through platitudes of “love of humanity” while the country bleeds, it is perceived by many as a calculated assault on the dignity of the dead.
For a government that ascended to power amidst profound questions of legitimacy, the failure to prioritize the safety of the people is not just a policy failure—it is a moral catastrophe.
The perception of a rogue state, where power is wielded with such blatant disregard for the sanctity of life, creates a spiritual and physical exhaustion that permeates the entire Nigerian project. When leaders characterize the slaughter of their people as an aberration or a political plot, they are not governing; they are dancing on the graves of the fallen.
The Failure of the “Purposeful” Narrative
The administration’s “purposeful leadership” narrative is an exercise in manufacturing consent where none exists. There is no “purpose” in a leadership that views its citizens as pawns in a long-game of political survival. The “scalded-earth” reality is that while the elite enjoy the security of high fences and armed convoys, the rest of the country is left to fend for themselves in an environment where the state has essentially vacated its social contract.
To label the country 70% secure while the remaining 30% lives in constant terror is to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what a nation is. A nation is not a collection of oil production statistics or highway projects; it is a compact of safety and dignity between the state and the citizen. When that compact is shattered, as it currently is, the leaders who persist in claiming success are not merely “out of touch”—they are the architects of a state of permanent insecurity, presiding over a systemic decline that threatens to unravel the very fabric of the Nigerian state.
Erasmus Ikhide contributed this piece from Lagos, Nigeria via: ikhideluckyerasmus@gmail.com.