President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has described the recent killings in Jos and Kaduna as “unacceptable.” That position is shared by many Nigerians. What is increasingly difficult to accept, however, is the widening gap between official condemnation and measurable outcomes. Over time, a pattern has emerged: when violence escalates, the state responds with strong rhetoric, emergency deployments, and high-level directives, yet the cycle of attacks persists with troubling regularity.
Recent incidents in Jos illustrate this concern. Following the killing of at least 28 people, state authorities acknowledged the arrest of an individual accused of inciting violence, but offered limited clarity on the actual perpetrators. Eyewitness accounts, including from youth leaders in areas such as Ugwan Rukuba, suggest that attackers often operate in coordinated formations, arriving in vehicles and on motorcycles, sometimes wearing military-style uniforms without identification. These accounts raise serious questions about the proliferation of arms, impersonation of security forces, and the ability of perpetrators to move with relative freedom across vulnerable communities.
This disconnect between the visibility of attacks and the opacity of accountability fuels public frustration. When perpetrators are neither clearly identified nor prosecuted, deterrence weakens. Citizens begin to question whether the state’s posture is sufficiently proactive, or whether it remains largely reactive, responding after harm has occurred rather than preventing it.
From a policy standpoint, the trend is clear. Between mid-2023 and early 2026, Nigeria has experienced dozens of major security incidents: mass killings in Plateau, Benue, and Kaduna; persistent banditry in the North-West; insurgent activity in Borno; and periodic urban security breaches. In many of these cases, the federal government has issued statements reaffirming its commitment to security and directing immediate responses. By reasonable estimation, such renewed assurances have occurred between 20 and 40 times within this period, depending on how “major incidents” are defined.
The recurring sequence: attack → condemnation → assurance → temporary deployment → repeat incident, has been described by analysts as reactive security governance. While such responses are necessary in the immediate aftermath of violence, they are insufficient as a long-term strategy. Effective security architecture requires anticipation, intelligence integration, sustained local presence, and consistent accountability mechanisms.
There is also a broader governance dimension. Public trust is eroded when repeated assurances do not translate into visible progress. Security is not only about force deployment; it is about leadership integrity, timely justice, and institutional reliability. Without these, communities may resort to self-help measures, further complicating an already fragile security landscape.
The Bottom line is that it’s not that promises are lacking; they are frequent.
The real question policymakers are asking is: Why do these repeated assurances not translate into lasting security outcomes?
If Nigeria’s security challenge is, as often described, multi-layered and evolving, then the response must be equally adaptive, coordinated, and forward-looking.
As the President himself has stated, the killings are unacceptable. The implication of that statement must go beyond rhetoric. It must translate into a shift from episodic reaction to sustained prevention, one that is supported by intelligence-led operations, control of arms proliferation, clear rules of engagement, and transparent prosecution of offenders.
Ultimately, the cost of delay is measured in human lives. A nation already under strain cannot afford a security approach that resets after every crisis. The urgency now is not just to respond, but to resolve decisively, consistently, and with accountability at its core.
