“Nigerians don’t need any more condolences; they have had enough in the last three years,” former Vice President Atiku Abubakar said recently after the abduction of 39 people in Oyo. Perhaps, he spoke directly from the lips and frustrations of millions of Nigerians who have watched kidnapping, banditry, abduction and terrorism become frighteningly normal without corresponding decisive action.
I recently searched through the presidential State House releases to see how many condolence statements President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has issued to victims of terrorism, kidnapping, banditry and violent attacks since assuming office. The answer was dozens. In context, President Tinubu has publicly empathised with Nigerians more than 24 times in less than three years over violent incidents and insecurity-related tragedies. Condolences have become routine. Statements have become predictable. But perhaps it is now safe to conclude that repeated sympathies alone cannot stop the gruesome murder of Nigerians.
What Nigerians seek now is action, calculated, strategic and measurable action.
Not merely summoning service chiefs to Abuja after every massacre. Not merely directing security heads to “relocate” to troubled communities for a few days after public outrage has peaked. Such gestures increasingly appear typical, almost theatrical, as though government is more concerned with calming public anger than dismantling the machinery of terror itself. If Nigeria truly possesses the military strength and international partnerships it often speaks of, including security cooperation with the United States and other allies, why then does insecurity continue spreading with such audacity?
This conversation is not about political parties. It is not about Atiku Abubakar or the opposition. It is about Nigerians. It is about the less-than-two-year-old child currently trapped in a kidnappers’ den somewhere in Oyo State. It is about teachers and schoolchildren forced into forests, exposed to rain, fear and starvation. It is about ordinary Nigerians abandoned between government assurances and criminal brutality.
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle once argued that “the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” In Nigeria today, the government appears to respond to organised terror with the same bureaucratic language it uses for routine crimes. Terrorism is not ordinary criminality. It requires extraordinary urgency, superior intelligence and overwhelming deterrence.
Teacher Michael Adeyemo, brutally murdered following the recent abduction in Orire Local Government Area of Oyo State, should never become another forgotten statistic. Nigerians cannot continue to wait endlessly for victims to “eventually return.” This has become one too many. The pattern has become painfully familiar.
The handwriting on the wall was already visible months earlier. In January 2026, reports emerged that suspected bandits attacked and killed five people around the Old Oyo National Park axis. Many dismissed the reports, as has often happened whenever insecurity begins to creep into previously “safe” regions. Then came the abduction of dozens more people. Soon after, the Defence Headquarters reportedly stated that there were no terrorist enclaves in the South-West. Yet days later, those same attackers were described as terrorists fleeing military pressure from other regions of the country. The contradictions in official communication have raised difficult questions.
To many Nigerians, it increasingly sounds less like clarity and more like damage control, an attempt to prevent panic rather than confront reality. But is that truly what citizens voted for? Parents now fear sending their children to school. Teachers earning meagre salaries must suddenly become ransom commodities worth millions of naira. Entire communities live under psychological siege. It is pathetically appalling and wholly unacceptable.
The Oyo State Police Command dismissed reports claiming that abducted students, pupils and teachers in Orire Local Government Area had been rescued. The Command, through its spokesperson DSP Ayanlade Olayinka, stated that the victims remained in captivity while security agencies intensified rescue operations.
Yet one aspect of the statement remains deeply troubling: the repeated emphasis on “arresting those behind the act.” Nigerians increasingly expect stronger body language and stronger resolve. A nation facing terrorism should project force, urgency and deterrence, not merely procedural vocabulary.
After all, how many terrorists have truly been arrested, prosecuted and permanently neutralized since these operations intensified across Nigeria? Too often, citizens hear of arrests without convictions, crackdowns without lasting outcomes, or rehabilitation programmes that seem to blur the line between justice and appeasement.
Political philosopher Thomas Hobbes warned centuries ago that the primary responsibility of government is security; without it, society descends into what he described as a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” We cannot afford such conditioning.
The Governor of Oyo State, Seyi Makinde, cannot entirely escape scrutiny either. Public pressure has intensified, especially as local vigilante networks and prominent figures such as Gani Adams and Sunday Igboho have openly demanded permission to confront the terrorists directly and rescue the abductees.
Governor Makinde, much like the federal government, responded by launching a violent crime unit under the Nigeria Police shortly after the incident. But many Nigerians are asking difficult questions: Is this truly the right move? Can another unit solve what years of poor coordination, weak intelligence systems and reactive security policies have failed to address?
The governor blamed intelligence failure between citizens and security agencies. Yet critics argue that intelligence itself cannot thrive where trust is weak and response systems are ineffective.
Sadly, Nigeria has developed a dangerous national pattern: violence occurs, leaders condemn it, relief funds are announced, condolences are issued, and the cycle repeats itself. Meanwhile, terrorists adapt faster than the state responds. What Nigerians now demand is stronger strategic action and a more forceful national posture against terrorism in all its forms.
Ironically, Nigerian politicians often display remarkable sophistication during elections. They build alliances, calculate voting blocs, negotiate power structures and execute political strategies with precision. Yet when it comes to governance, security and nation-building, that same strategic depth often disappears.
If only the tactical brilliance used in winning elections were redirected toward protecting lives and rebuilding institutions, Nigeria would be a far safer nation.
Unfortunately, many political actors view insecurity through the lens of political advantage. Some avoid speaking firmly about terrorism because they fear offending potential supporters or political interests. Others are accused of enabling, financing or shielding violent actors for electoral convenience. In such an atmosphere, national security becomes vulnerable to political compromise.
And while the executive arm dominates public attention during crises, questions must also be asked of the legislature and judiciary. Nigeria supposedly operates three arms of government, yet citizens rarely feel the coordinated force of all three against terrorism.
Where is the urgency from the National Assembly beyond routine condemnations? Where is the legislative innovation around “Community Policing,” intelligence reform and local security architecture? Where is the judiciary’s speed in prosecuting terror-related crimes?
The Senate and House of Representatives have, as usual, condemned the attacks. But condemnation without structural reform is no longer enough.
As we speak, many parts of northern Nigeria continue to experience deadly attacks almost every six hours. The violence is no longer regional; it is becoming nationalised.
Sad, but true.
At PSJ UK, efforts have already begun to contribute meaningfully as a concerned body with active engagement across affected territories. Questions are being asked. Advocacy is ongoing. Recommendations are being developed not merely for headlines, but for practical implementation.
Among them are the following:
- Close vulnerable borders and infiltration routes frequently exploited by bandits, while establishing early-warning security systems in high-risk areas.
- Invest heavily in surveillance technology, including manned and unmanned drones, while training security personnel to deploy them effectively across rural and urban communities.
- Increase visible and permanent security presence around schools and vulnerable learning environments.
- Improve intelligence gathering and surveillance through both mobile and stationary security control room systems.
- Strengthen collaboration between local communities and security agencies through trust-based reporting systems.
- Establish rapid emergency response mechanisms specifically designed for schools and educational institutions.
- Provide stronger psychological, financial and social support systems for affected families and victims.
- Sustain continuous monitoring of forests, border communities and identified high-risk corridors.
- Increase government investment in school security infrastructure nationwide.
- Pursue stricter legal consequences for convicted terrorists to reinforce deterrence and public confidence in justice.
Ultimately, Nigerians are exhausted by speeches without outcomes. The country is mourning, grieving and bleeding. Citizens are not merely asking for empathy anymore; they are demanding competence, urgency and visible results.
Because in moments like this, silence from leadership is dangerous but repetitive condolences without decisive action may be even worse.
