Opinion
Is Soyinka, the god, unraveling?
Kongi, Nigeria’s Nobel Laureate, a deity before whom many Nigerians tether goats, sprinkle oil, pour libations and offer ekuru of appeasement, is going through ferment. It is a period comparable to that low moment which, the Yoruba say, when big misfortunes wrestle one down, smaller travails defecate into one’s mouth – Ti iya nla ba gbe’ni san’le, kekeke a ma g’ori eni. In an elegy to Adegoke Adelabu who died in a 1958 road crash, his NCNC political party bard, Ilorin, Kwara State-born Odolaye Aremu, narrated his sudden death and the emergence of voices of diatribes against this Oluyole petrel and the sorry fate that bedeviled him posthumously more brilliantly. Awon osa kekeke wa nsope Sango o ponmo’re – Smaller gods with less vibes and lesser grits, on account of his misfortune, now clamber on Sango, god of thunder, lord of the storms, commander of lightning. As they mocked him, they claimed that this god, feared at home and in villages, lacked the bravura of a god. This was the fate of Sango as he walked to Koso, where he was believed to have committed suicide.
Rather than enter into the anti-climax which Odolaye, the poet, went into by cursing these voices of dissent – Olohun o dajo, ile o yan’ka! – this piece will seek to study the Kongi’s unraveling.
Only puerile revisionists will fail to give Soyinka his rightful worth in the politico-historical development of Nigeria. He earned his badge as a General among crusaders for a just society. Aside being a playwright, novelist, poet and essayist, Soyinka became the first sub-Sahara African to be conferred a Nobel for his “wide cultural perspective and with poetic overtones fashioning the drama of existence.” Like his cousins, the Ransom-Kutis of Abeokuta, Soyinka is weird, iconoclastic and a certified non-conformist. In the 1960s, Soyinka transited from being a man of the theatre and literature into taking active role in Nigeria’s political history. Indeed, he played a sizeable part in Nigeria’s campaign for independence from colonial rule, most of which was done through the vehicle of literature and the activism of the theatre.
In 1965, however, Soyinka sidestepped theory into praxis by seizing the Western Nigeria Broadcasting Service studio, from where he broadcast a call for the cancellation of the Western Nigeria Regional Elections. He wasn’t done. Upon being discharged of this allegation in court, he followed this path. When it was becoming clear that the Nigerian civil war was looming, coming immediately after being conferred with the Chair of Drama at the University of Ibadan where he taught, Soyinka’s political activism became more noticeable. After the January 1966 coup, Soyinka surreptitiously and unofficially held a meeting with Odumegwu Ojukwu, who was the military governor of the Eastern State in Enugu in August, 1967, with a view to averting the war. The military government of Yakubu Gowon interpreted this to be an affront and set out dragnets to arrest the theatre teacher. At long last, the Gowon government got him arrested and locked him in solitary confinement for two years. The charge against him was that he volunteered as a non-government mediating actor between Odumegwu’s nascent Biafra and the Federal Government.
In all these and over the years, Soyinka had been something of a mascot among Nigerians, venerated with the sacredness of a deity. He was almost without blemish, even when those who knew him spoke of his sundry human frailties. For instance, Soyinka is reputed to have had multiple liaisons, marrying three times and getting divorced twice. From the three marriages, he begot eight children and had two other daughters. The first marriage was to late British writer, Barbara Dixon. The two of them had met and fell in love in the 1950s while Soyinka was teaching at the University of Leeds, with Barbara giving him his first son, Olaokun and his daughter, Morenike. In 1963, Soyinka got married again to the librarian, Olaide Idowu and had three daughters – Moremi, Iyetade (deceased), Peyibomi – and a second son, Ilemakin, from her. If you want to know the seismic nature of that marriage, read Soyinka’s memoir, about how Olaide dropped his child by the prison doorpost. In 1989, Soyinka married Folake Doherty, a far younger lady and from that marriage, three sons – Tunlewa, Bojode and Eniara – emerged. Soyinka is also an unapologetic connoisseur of wine.
His heroism notched up when in November, 1994 he fled Nigeria by its border with Benin, to the United States. The dictator, General Sani Abacha, had sought his flesh for barbecue. The playwright fled for his life. Perhaps, if he hadn’t, Abacha would have, like the Fourth Citizen retorted in Shakespearean Julius Caesar about Cinna the poet, had him torn into pieces for his “bad verses.” Soyinka then aligned with Nigerians of similar persuasions to form the anti-military coalition, the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) which, unarguably, was one of the major planks that birthed democracy of the fourth republic that Nigeria currently enjoys. It was that association which got Soyinka yoked with some characters that many Nigerians see as having defanged the roar of Soyinka the lion. I will paint this canvas presently.
No one can be allowed to mis-plot the graph of Soyinka’s trajectory as a major voice of the voiceless in Nigeria. On several occasions, whether convenient or otherwise, Soyinka had looked autocracy and barbarism in their faces and spat on them. In 1986, when a small embankment separated him from death, Soyinka, John Pepper Clark and Chinua Achebe had paid a plea visit to General Ibrahim Babangida at the Lagos Dodan Barracks to plead with him to spare the life of General Mamman Vatsa, the highly scarified Bida, Niger State-born soldier who also doubled as a poet. Of that plea visit, Clark had written: “He (IBB) duly received us at Dodan Barracks the next day, and was his charming self and all attention. A difficult case, he told us. Some junior officers were the problem, but not to worry. He would take care of it. So we left, walked straight into the arms of the press, and on to a restaurant to toast and treat ourselves to a lunch we all thought we thoroughly deserved. We were still savouring our wine, when that same afternoon, General Domkat Bali, Chief of Defence Staff, came on air, announcing Vatsa and the other accused had already been executed. As a matter of fact, the execution did not take place until well into the night that day.”
Since the beginning of the Fourth Republic, while Soyinka has retained his respectability as a numero uno essayist and laureate, once issues verge on or his reaction is sought on matters that had to do with some of the people with whom he had dalliances with in exile, the Kongi had always fled into a romance with Janus. Being an old boy of Government College, Ibadan which he attended in 1954, mum was the word from him when a fellow NADECO fugitive, Bola Tinubu’s claimed attendance of his alma-mater became a contentious issue in 2000. The inaccessible bottomlessness of the relationship between Soyinka and Tinubu is a known issue in Nigeria. It is a no-go route for Soyinka. If at all he has to make a comment on it, the professor finds a way of obfuscating the issue with so inaccessible a grammar that it becomes a metaphysical dungeon. This has further led people into making allusions to how the Kongi engages in incestuous and adulterous relationship with the Ananias and Sapphiras of Nigerian politics.
For instance, Rotimi Amaechi, who confessed that Soyinka’s literature texts were almost like revered ancient parchment rolls from the gods to him while he was a student of the Rivers State University, invited the Kongi to a dinner. That wining and dining session later became a huge scandal. Upon Amaechi’s exit from government, the Rivers State Information Commissioner, Dr Austin Tam-George, claimed that the state government spent a whopping sum of N82million on the dinner, insinuating that the Nobel Laureate received part of the funds in cash. The Nyesom Wike government, through the commissioner, also alleged that, using the Ministry of Information and Communications, the Amaechi government amassed N1.1billion debt on frivolous expenditure. Tam-George said: “I will seek the permission of the Governor to formally write Professor Wole Soyinka, a known supporter of Amaechi, if he received part of the N82million spent on a 3-hour dinner hosted for him by the Amaechi administration.”
Unlike his wont, Soyinka has refused to scythe growing dissention to the presidential election that held in Nigeria in February. In a recent interview he granted the Channels Television, although like many Nigerians, the Nobel Laureate shelled the vice presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Datti Baba-Ahmed. In a later clarification of the interview, he had said, “I denounced the menacing utterances of a Vice-Presidential aspirant as unbecoming. It was a gladiatorial challenge directed at the judiciary and, by implication, the rest of the democratic polity.” To Peter Obi, he said: “It was depressing to watch his lieutenant, a crucially positioned voice of a movement that has ‘broken the mould’, threaten the totality of social existence. Whatever our ideological leaning, is Donald Trump the ideal template for a burgeoning democracy in the nation?” Calling Obi’s supporters fascists, he wrote, in a release he entitled “Media responsibility,’’ last Tuesday, that he had earlier warned the LP flag-bearer on “excesses” of his supporters, otherwise known as ‘Obidients’, stating that, “My rejection of fascism is nothing new. On three occasions, I was able to send a message to Peter Obi that if he lost the election, it would be his followers who lost it for him.”
Trust the group of Rottweilers nurtured to hyena menacing look on the social media, who take it upon themselves to tear every seeming adversarial comments against Peter Obi to shreds, they did not disappoint. They also take on purveyors of such messages. This army fell on the Kongi’s flesh and tore it mercilessly. Those are a bunch of children whose minds are impervious to Nigeria’s history and are dead to the gallantry of our heroes past. The Kongi thereafter became the butt of jokes on the social media, defoliated of the heroics which he carefully cultivated in decades. This army was at its diapers when Soyinka was picking these roses.
The unruly crew on the social media was not alone. It was also an opportunity for those who had put up with the off-putting hypocrisy of Soyinka’s blind eyes to the Bourdillon Overlord’s excesses. It was time to strip the Nobel Laureate of all the noble epithets he had earlier been shawled with. The Kongi then began to receive the back of the tongues of Nigerians. Many believe that, in this latest intervention of his, he was obviously on an amicus-curiae assignment for those who fear that if not tamed, the rumpus of growing global disaffection with what was termed the electoral heist of February 25 may rally global disdain against the election. It is feared that this may remove the rug of legitimacy off the Bourdillon Overlord’s “President-Elect” status. Soyinka, they believe, is on assignment, like the DSS and some other funny characters who are seeking victimhood for the President-Elect. One Ekenedirichukwu said: “Prof Soyinka has refused to answer every question AriseTV asked him. He is such a hypocrite. He is yet to say what Datti Ahmed said that’s wrong or inciting. You are okay with Sowore #Revolutionnow but you have problem with Datti asking for constitution to be followed.” Many of them asked him what the difference was between the gun he pointed at a Newscaster in 1965 and the verbal entreaty of Datti Ahmed.
Nigerian literary giant, Chimamanda Adichie, also wrote an open letter to President Joe Biden, published by the US-based The Atlantic newspaper, entitled Nigeria’s Hollow Democracy. In the piece, Adichie interrogated how Americans congratulate the winner of Nigeria’s February election. She quarreled with American establishment bending over backwards to fawn Tinubu, in the face of the quaint taint of electoral heist that catapulted him into reckoning. “American intelligence surely cannot be so inept. A little homework and they would know what is manifestly obvious to me and so many others: The process was imperiled not by technical shortcomings but by deliberate manipulation,” she said. Son of Late Justice Chukwudi Oputa, Charly Boy, also wondered how Soyinka had become “boy-boy” of tainted politicians.
One of the voices expressing worry at perceived slump of the Soyinka mystique is that of highly respected columnist and social media commentator, Kayode Samuel. He had written: “The Nobel Prize does not confer deity on any of its recipients. If a Nobel Laureate is inconsistent or speaks out of turn, he deserves to be called out. It cannot be an accident that the prime beneficiary of the electoral heist that triggered Datti Ahmed’s outburst happens to be Professor Wole Soyinka’s friend and, some say, benefactor. Let’s leave our worship of any being solely for the Supreme Being, please!”
In another vein, he wrote: “Professor Wole Soyinka, our revered Nobel Laureate attended Government College Ibadan. So did I. A generation separates our days in that great school. But the ideals imparted within its hallowed walls are eternal, crossing all generations. Two lines from our School Song are relevant for the debate now raging over Soyinka’s new politics. The second line of the first stanza says, ‘By order, justice and fair play ruled.’ And the third line of the second stanza goes, ‘By our examples and not by precept.’ Professor Soyinka needs to ask himself some probing questions as to how true he has been to these words. Has he remained on the side of justice and fair play in his recent interventions? And has he shown good example, rather than seeking anchor in empty precepts? My hunch is that his troubles started and that he set himself up for the current uproar the day he chose to align with people who lied about having attended GCI. He needs to retrace his steps back to the more ennobling company of his youth, that exemplif(ies) the ideals imparted to all authentic GCI old boys…”
But not one to shy away from calling a mongrel by its name, the Kongi struck all those who said his Sango lacks the bravura of a god. That reply was however a potpourri of ad-hominem arguments, disparaging the commentators and neglecting to reply to their seemingly water-tight arguments. Among others, he said what was being sired was “a climate of fear” and “the refusal to entertain corrective criticism, even differing perspectives of the same position (which) has become a badge of honour and certificate of commitment. What is at stake, ultimately is – Truth, and at a most elementary level of social regulation: when you are party to a conflict, you do not attempt to intimidate the arbiter, attempt to dictate the outcome, or impugn, without credible cause, his or her neutrality even before hearing has commenced.” He called the Obidents so many unprintable names.
If the truth must be told, though Soyinka, like many other Nigerians, must be shocked at the bewildering irascibility of the Obidient gang on the social media, the Nobel Laureate’s oft decision to lap up every trickle of spittle from Bourdillon is worrisome. Just as Kayode Samuel said, the Kongi is not being called out for taking an unpopular stand. He is being repelled because people know that each time the matter had Bourdillon’s imprimatur as this, his voice is always that of Jacob and the hand, Esau’s. Age and experience should have taught the Kongi, as Yoruba elders counsel, that it is not every forested jungle that the itinerant herbal forager plucks; nor is it every palm tree that the palm-wine tapper taps – gbogbo ewe ko ni ojawe nja; gbogbo ope ko ni onigba ngun. There are some poisonous leaves that are forbidden from being plucked and some palm-trees are havens of lethal vipers. If anyone ignores this time-worn aphorism, they sink into oblivion.
Dr. Adedayo, a journalist, lawyer and columnist writes from Ibadan
• How systemic fraud is draining billions, weakening businesses and threatening the future of the downstream petroleum sector
The Nigerian petroleum retail industry remains one of the most important drivers of economic activity in the country. Every day, millions of litres of petrol, diesel and other petroleum products are sold through thousands of filling stations spread across cities, towns and rural communities.
To many Nigerians, a filling station is simply a place where vehicles are refuelled. To investors and operators, however, it is a complex business environment involving inventory management, transportation logistics, cash handling, procurement processes, technology systems and human resources. When properly managed, petrol retailing can be highly profitable. When poorly controlled, it can become a breeding ground for one of the most dangerous threats to business sustainability – systemic fraud.
Unlike isolated incidents of theft or misconduct, systemic fraud is far more sophisticated and destructive. It is not the work of a single dishonest employee acting alone. Rather, it is a pattern of fraudulent activities that gradually becomes embedded within an organisation’s operational processes and culture. Over time, such practices become normalised, tolerated and, in some cases, deliberately protected by those who benefit from them.
This is what makes systemic fraud particularly dangerous. It often operates quietly beneath the surface while management remains focused on sales growth, market expansion and operational targets. By the time the full extent of the problem becomes apparent, substantial damage may already have been done.
Across Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector, systemic fraud continues to drain significant resources from businesses every year. Revenue leakages occur through fuel diversion, stock manipulation, sales suppression, procurement abuses, payroll fraud, inventory theft and cash skimming. In many organisations, these activities take place daily, gradually eroding profitability and shareholder value.
One of the most common schemes is fuel diversion during transportation. Products that leave depots in approved quantities may arrive at their destinations with unexplained shortages. Sometimes these losses are disguised as operational variances or transportation-related discrepancies. In reality, they may be the result of organised siphoning carried out during transit.
Another common practice involves pump calibration manipulation. In such situations, customers unknowingly receive less fuel than the quantity displayed on the dispensing pump. While the discrepancy may appear insignificant on a single transaction, the cumulative financial impact can be enormous when repeated hundreds of times daily across multiple stations.
Tank dip manipulation represents another major challenge. Deliberate alteration of stock measurements allows losses to be concealed, making it difficult for management to accurately determine actual inventory positions. Similarly, sales suppression occurs when transactions are intentionally omitted from official records, creating opportunities for revenue diversion and cash theft.
Procurement fraud, inflated maintenance costs, ghost workers on payrolls, fictitious vendors and collusion between employees and suppliers have also become recurring concerns within many petroleum retail operations.
The unfortunate reality is that systemic fraud thrives where governance is weak, accountability is limited and internal controls are either poorly designed or inadequately enforced. High daily cash transactions, large fuel inventories, multiple operating locations and limited real-time supervision further increase exposure to fraud risks.
The warning signs are often visible long before losses become catastrophic.
Persistent cash shortages, unexplained stock variances, delayed banking, repeated customer complaints, inflated procurement costs and declining profitability despite rising sales should immediately attract management attention. Likewise, employees who resist transfers, refuse annual leave, display unusual secrecy or maintain lifestyles far above their legitimate income levels may warrant closer scrutiny.
Many organisations make the mistake of assessing fraud only from the perspective of direct financial losses.
However, the true cost extends much further.
Systemic fraud distorts management information and weakens decision-making. It undermines operational efficiency, damages corporate reputation, attracts regulatory sanctions and erodes customer confidence. Investors become wary, employees lose morale and businesses struggle to achieve sustainable growth.
Perhaps most damaging is the fact that fraud weakens trust—the single most important asset any organisation possesses. Once trust is compromised, rebuilding it becomes both difficult and expensive.
Addressing this challenge requires a shift from fraud detection to fraud prevention.
The most successful organisations understand that preventing fraud is significantly less costly than investigating fraud after it has occurred. Prevention begins with strong corporate governance, ethical leadership and a clear commitment to accountability at every level of the organisation.
Technology has also become an indispensable ally in the fight against fraud.
Automated tank monitoring systems, CCTV surveillance, GPS tanker tracking, integrated enterprise resource planning systems and data analytics tools provide organisations with greater visibility over operational activities and help identify unusual patterns before they escalate into major losses.
Yet technology alone cannot solve the problem.
Organisations must also invest in people, processes and culture. Employees should receive regular ethics training.
Whistleblower mechanisms must be strengthened and protected.
Responsibilities should be properly segregated and surprise verification exercises should become part of routine operational oversight.
In this regard, Internal Audit has a strategic role to play.
Modern Internal Audit functions must evolve beyond traditional compliance checks and become proactive partners in fraud risk management. Through fraud risk assessments, data analytics, control testing, fraud mapping and unannounced verification exercises, Internal Audit can provide independent assurance that critical controls are operating effectively and that emerging fraud risks are identified before they become crises.
To strengthen organisational resilience against systemic fraud, the Sedabuk Fraud Risk Management Model (SFRMM) was developed as a practical framework for fraud prevention, detection, investigation and sustainable risk management within petroleum retail operations.
The model is built around seven strategic pillars: Surveillance, Fraud Risk Assessment, Robust Internal Controls, Monitoring and Data Analytics, Management Accountability, Detection and Investigation, and Ethical Culture and Employee Engagement. Together, these pillars create a continuous cycle of identifying risks, implementing controls, monitoring activities, detecting anomalies, conducting investigations and driving continuous improvement.
The message for operators in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector is simple but urgent: the greatest threat to profitability may not be competition, inflation or market volatility. It may well be the silent leakage of resources occurring within their own operations.
As the industry continues to evolve under ongoing reforms and changing regulatory expectations, organisations must recognise that sustainable profitability is achieved not merely by increasing sales but by protecting every litre of fuel, every naira of revenue, every operational process and every stakeholder’s trust.
Companies that embrace ethical leadership, strong governance, proactive Internal Audit, technology-enabled monitoring and a zero-tolerance culture towards fraud will not only reduce losses but also strengthen stakeholder confidence, improve operational efficiency and position themselves for long-term success.
Dr. Solomon Oroge, PhD, is an accomplished professional in Internal Audit, Risk Management, Corporate Governance, Compliance and Fraud Risk Management with extensive experience in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum industry.
He is the developer of the Sedabuk Fraud Risk Management Model (SFRMM), a proprietary framework designed to help petroleum retail organisations proactively identify, prevent, detect and manage systemic fraud risks.
Oroge can be reached via the following contact details: saoprofessional@gmail.com or +234 806 512 6192.
Opinion
State Police, Local Government Autonomy: Answers to Nigeria’s Lingering Questions | By Titilope Gbadamosi
Almost every democratically elected administration in Nigeria has had to grapple with pockets of insecurity in one form or another. Nigerians have watched uprisings metamorphose into banditry and terrorism, as though every administration had its own uniquely tailored brand of insecurity, defined by the modus operandi of these vicious elements.
The faces change, the methods change, but the burden on whoever occupies the highest office in the land has remained heavy and constant.
Just two administrations ago, during President Goodluck Jonathan’s tenure, we witnessed the horror of the abduction of the Chibok girls and explosives going off in public spaces in Abuja, the nation’s capital. Every well meaning Nigerian was worried, and nowhere felt truly safe. The President’s seat was not the most desirable at the time, and it was clearly a difficult job.
President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration had its own share, mostly in the form of clashes between farmers and herders, driven by grazing routes lost to farming, droughts pushing herders toward greener pastures, and old accommodations between communities slowly breaking down.
I recall quite vividly, while serving as Special Assistant to the former Governor of Oyo State, the late Senator Abiola Ajimobi, joining the head of our team in several peace talks with farmers, traditional rulers, and the Hausa and Fulani community in the state. One lesson from those rooms has stayed with me ever since. The people who understood the grievances, the terrain, and the actors were all local, yet the command of security sat far away in Abuja. That gap is the question every administration has struggled to answer.
Today, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is in charge, and Nigerians who are students of history watched to see what shape insecurity would take and, more importantly, what this President would do differently. In recent development, the country received an answer that previous decades only debated.
On June 11, following the President’s formal request to the National Assembly to restructure our security architecture, the House of Representatives passed the constitutional amendment to establish state police, with 289 members voting in support and barely a voice against, while the Senate works to complete passage before year end. Today June 12th,2026, in his Democracy Day address, the President spoke plainly: the insecurity we face is partly the product of collapsed grassroots governance, and his administration remains committed to financial autonomy for our 774 local government councils. There it is, a two pronged solution: state police and true local government autonomy.
The first prong closes the gap I saw in those Oyo State peace talks. The amendment to Section 214 of the Constitution creates a dual policing structure under which each state may establish its own force. Security decisions will now be taken by those who know the terrain, the actors, and the grievances at first hand.
To his credit, the President did not merely champion the idea; he asked the National Assembly to institute controls to prevent abuses, the mark of a leader interested in a reform that endures rather than one that backfires. All of this rides on the largest security investment in our history, a 5.41 trillion naira commitment in the 2026 budget and over 50,000 new police officers approved for recruitment.
The second prong puts resources where the new responsibility will live. Since the Supreme Court ruled in July 2024 that federation allocations belonging to local governments must reach them directly, monthly allocations to the 774 councils have grown from roughly 387 billion naira in March 2025 to nearly 530 billion naira by September 2025. The money has never been the problem; control of it was. By pressing autonomy to its conclusion, this administration is returning both funds and accountability to the communities where insecurity actually begins, so that the grassroots governance whose collapse the President identified can finally be rebuilt.
So who wins in all of these? Nigerians win, because security decisions and development funds will finally live where the people live. Governors win the powers they have long demanded, and with them the responsibility they can no longer pass to Abuja. And the country wins a President willing to attempt what others only discussed. The President reminded us on Democracy Day that Nigerians bend and bleed but do not break. With these two reforms, we may finally stop having to prove it so often.
Dr. Titilope Gbadamosi is the Special Assistant on Youth Initiatives (Monitoring and Delivery) to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The most foolish person in a burning house is not the one who cannot find the exit. It is the one who knew the house would burn, watched it happen, and only ran when the ceiling collapsed. That is Nigeria’s governance posture toward insecurity—a pattern so consistent that it has become normalized.
“Ikú tó pa ojúgbà ẹni, òwe ló fi pa. (The death that kills your neighbour is a proverb directed at you).
The bandits did not simply arrive. They sent warnings ahead of them through a trail of violence that crossed state lines and appeared in every massacre headline we filed away as someone else’s problem.
When Insecurity Was Still “Someone Else’s Problem”
When the North was burning and the Middle Belt bleeding, the South West treated it as distant noise. Kwara became the first warning sign—the bridge between North and South—slowly slipping under the shadow of insurgency. The question every serious observer should have asked was simple: what happens when it crosses the border?
South West governors issued statements—careful, brief, and reactive. None moved with the urgency the threat demanded. Before long, violence arrived at our doorstep: herder brutality in Oke-Ogun, attacks in Oyo and Ekiti, kidnappings along the Ibadan–Ijebu-Ode expressway, and forest camps emerging in Ondo.
The warning signs had matured into reality, yet we were still searching for an exit strategy that should have been built years earlier.
The Problem: We Only Count the Dead
In safety performance management, there is a critical distinction between lagging indicators—outcomes after failure (deaths, destruction, losses)—and leading indicators, which measure prevention before failure occurs.
Aviation, oil and gas, and other high-risk industries understand this clearly: a system that obsesses over lagging indicators will always arrive after the accident.
Nigeria’s security governance is built almost entirely on lagging indicators. We count attacks after they happen. We rebuild after a collapse. We mourn after preventable deaths.
We rarely ask:
How many attacks were prevented this quarter?
How many threats were neutralized before execution?
How many cells were dismantled at the planning stage?
We do not know the answers—because we are not measuring them. The system was never designed to prevent. It was designed to respond: loudly, visibly, expensively, and always too late.
Another Base. The Same Question Nobody Asks
The presidency is reportedly considering a military base in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo state. It is a familiar pattern: a major security incident, public outrage, and an institutional response designed to signal seriousness.
But the critical question remains unanswered: what has been the leading-indicator performance of existing bases?
How have long-standing military formations in places like Jos, Benue, and Zamfara—some active for over two decades—actually shifted the security outcome?
A military base without actionable intelligence is a stationary slaughter ground for soldiers. It does not prevent attacks; it often becomes a reactive outpost in a repeating cycle: attack, deployment, statement, investigation, and then silence—while underlying threat networks remain intact.
The Incentive Structure Behind the Chaos
The deeper issue is not the capability of security forces. It is the incentive structure of the system.
When leadership is judged only by incidents that have already occurred, governance shifts from prevention to performance management of failure. The objective becomes managing optics, not reducing probability.
Nigeria’s security budget has grown significantly over the past decade, yet insecurity has worsened. Kidnappings have become more brazen. Why? Because funding is justified by the persistence of the crisis, not its resolution.
If the problem is solved, what justifies the next budget cycle?
For years, decentralization has been proposed as the structural reform that could change the system—but it remains trapped in political rhetoric. Why? Because decentralization disperses power, and power in Nigeria’s political economy is not dispersed. It is concentrated.
Sixteen Days. Full Stop.
Forty-six children and teachers were kidnapped in Oriire. It reportedly took sixteen days for the presidency to authorize a specialized rescue framework.
Sixteen days before the Commander-in-Chief treated the abduction of forty-six human beings as a crisis requiring formal executive activation.
But responsibility in moments like this is not singular.
The Oyo State Governor, by constitutional convention regarded as the Chief Security Officer of the state and a recipient of security votes, also occupies a central coordinating role in the security architecture of the state. Within a crisis of this scale, expectations of rapid intergovernmental coordination, visible command urgency, and sustained pressure on federal response mechanisms are not optional, hey are inherent to the office.
Yet, the response cycle, from abduction to high-level coordinated action and physical engagement with affected communities, unfolded at a pace that raised legitimate public concern about the speed and intensity of institutional reaction.
By the time visible field visits and coordinated engagements occurred, the delay had already become part of the public record of the crisis itself—shaping perception as much as the incident shaped fear on the ground.
In a functional security system, crisis response is measured in hours, not days. Not for symbolism, but because time directly affects outcomes: every passing hour in an active kidnapping reduces the probability of safe recovery and increases the leverage of perpetrators.
Sixteen days, therefore, is not merely a lapse in timing. It reflects a deeper structural problem—where urgency is often declared after pressure builds, rather than operationalized when intelligence first breaks.
And in that gap between incident and action, citizens are left to absorb the consequences of delayed coordination across all tiers of authority.
The Verdict
Nigeria does not primarily need more military bases. It needs a new security measurement architecture—one that prioritizes intelligence conversion rates, early-warning response times, and pre-emptive disruption metrics over post-incident operations.
Every threat must be treated as time-sensitive, where minutes and hours determine outcomes—not weeks and statements.
Most importantly, citizens must shift the accountability question:
Not only “why did the attack happen?”
But “why was it not prevented?”
Nigeria’s security challenge is ultimately a leadership and systems failure—an institutional preference for reaction over prevention, because prevention is politically invisible.
You cannot hold a press conference about the attack that never happened.
Until this reality is named and confronted with precision, the cycle will continue.
-
Politics1 week ago2027: Oseni Mobilises Oyo Artisans, Traders, Targets One Million Votes for Tinubu
-
News3 days ago
Kola Oyewo’s family to Adeleke, Ooni, Atiku: Your condolences are our pillar of strength
-
Opinion7 days ago
The Silent Thief in Nigeria’s Petrol Stations | By Solomon Oroge
-
Politics5 days ago
Oyo APC rejects Makinde’s planned December LG poll, vows boycott
