CREATION OF HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICE, A WELCOME DEVELOPMENT

By Jonathan Ishaku

The decision by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to create the office of Special Adviser on Homeland Security and appoint retired Major General Adeyinka Fadewa is not only timely; it is a strategic acknowledgment of the deep structural weaknesses that have long plagued Nigeria’s internal security architecture.

In many respects, the development represents an overdue but necessary response to a national emergency that has steadily expanded beyond conventional security concerns into an existential crisis threatening the cohesion, economy, and democratic stability of the Nigerian state.

In recent months, the resurgence and spread of violent attacks across Northern Nigeria, particularly in the Middle Belt, have reinforced the urgency for a comprehensive reform of Nigeria’s counterterrorism and internal security framework.

Terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal violence, and organized criminality have become recurring realities of daily life. Entire communities have been displaced, agricultural production disrupted, interstate commerce weakened, and public confidence in government steadily eroded.

These conditions are no longer isolated security disturbances; they are direct threats to state legitimacy and national survival.

As I remarked only two days ago, politically, insecurity has also become the greatest electoral challenge, more than combined opposition parties, confronting the Tinubu administration ahead of the 2027 elections. Insecurity possesses a unique capacity to delegitimize governments because citizens instinctively measure the effectiveness of leadership through the protection of lives and property. Where the state appears incapable of guaranteeing basic security, public frustration naturally evolves into political resistance.

It is within this context that the creation of a Homeland Security structure becomes highly significant.

The move suggests an emerging realization within government circles that Nigeria’s existing security strategy requires urgent recalibration. For years, the country’s counterinsurgency approach has suffered from fragmentation, weak inter-agency coordination, inadequate intelligence integration, and excessive reliance on reactive military deployments rather than proactive threat prevention.

Many observers have argued that the Office of the National Security Adviser under Nuhu Ribadu has struggled, with limited success, to effectively manage the scale and complexity of Nigeria’s present security realities. Beyond operational concerns, public trust in Ribadu’s anti-terror campaign has been weakened by perceptions of inconsistency, selective responses, and an apparent reluctance to decisively confront violent non-state actors. Ribadu’s controversial reference to some perpetrators as “brothers” deepened suspicion among victim communities directly affected by violence, particularly in regions where the attacks have assumed ethnic and religious dimensions.

In sensitive conflict environments, perception matters almost as much as military capability. A counterterrorism framework that lacks public trust inevitably suffers intelligence failure because communities become reluctant to cooperate with security institutions they perceive as compromised or indifferent to their suffering. This trust deficit has remained one of the most damaging weaknesses in Nigeria’s fight against terrorism.

Consequently, the appointment of Major General Fadewa represents more than a bureaucratic adjustment; it signals the possible emergence of a new security philosophy centered on intelligence coordination, institutional synergy, and homeland-focused security management. Unlike conventional military responses that prioritize battlefield engagements, homeland security models generally emphasize prevention, intelligence gathering, civilian-security cooperation, infrastructure protection, strategic risk assessment, and rapid inter-agency response mechanisms.

Fadewa’s stated professional background appears particularly suited to this challenge. His role in establishing the Intelligence Fusion Centre at the Office of the National Security Adviser between 2015 and 2021 demonstrates an understanding of one of Nigeria’s greatest institutional deficiencies: the failure of security agencies to effectively share intelligence and coordinate operations.

The existing gaps between the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), Department of State Services (DSS), National Intelligence Agency (NIA), police (NPF)formations, and military structures has historically created operational gaps exploited by terrorist and criminal networks.

The Intelligence Fusion Centre model sought to correct this by integrating intelligence streams into a unified strategic platform capable of generating real-time threat assessments and coordinated responses. In modern counterterrorism operations, intelligence superiority is often more decisive than raw military firepower. Countries that have successfully weakened insurgent movements typically rely on predictive intelligence, technological surveillance, community networks, and institutional coordination rather than solely on force deployment.

Equally important is Fadewa’s intellectual engagement with national security reform after retirement. His contributions at the Nigerian Army Resource Centre and his work on policing and national security indicate familiarity with the increasingly accepted global understanding that internal security challenges cannot be solved through militarization alone. With the President’s promise to soon flag off the operation of state police and community defense systems, the appointment is therefore timely. Effective homeland security requires cooperation between civilian institutions, local communities, law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, and the military.

Nigeria’s security crisis has repeatedly exposed the limitations of the existing “sulhu” and rehabilitation-without-justice framework that has characterized part of the government’s response to violent extremism. While reconciliation and reintegration may have limited value under carefully regulated conditions, they cannot substitute for prosecution, justice, deterrence, accountability, and institutional strength. Victim communities devastated by terrorism often interpret excessive leniency toward violent actors as abandonment by the state. Such perceptions deepen grievances, encourage self-help measures, and weaken national cohesion.

What Nigeria urgently requires is a comprehensive homeland security doctrine capable of combining intelligence-led operations, internal community policing, border surveillance, technological monitoring, strategic communications, rapid emergency response systems, and locally grounded defense structures. The creation of this office potentially opens the door for such reforms.

The Middle Belt experience especially demonstrates why a homeland-centered approach is necessary. The region’s violence is not merely criminal; it combines terrorism, land conflict, ethnic tension, organized banditry, and transnational arms proliferation. Conventional military offensives alone cannot effectively manage such multidimensional threats. Sustainable security requires local intelligence penetration, trust-building with vulnerable communities, early warning systems, and coordinated federal-state responses.

Furthermore, Nigeria’s economic future is directly tied to internal security stability. Investors avoid unstable regions. Farmers abandon rural communities under constant attack. Transportation networks become unsafe. Food inflation rises when agricultural belts become conflict zones. Thus, insecurity is not simply a military issue; it is a developmental and economic emergency.

The establishment of a Homeland Security structure may therefore represent the beginning of a broader institutional transformation if properly empowered and insulated from political interference. However, the success of the initiative will depend on whether the administration is genuinely prepared to move beyond symbolic appointments toward substantive structural reforms.

For the office to achieve meaningful results, it must possess operational relevance rather than ceremonial status. It should facilitate real intelligence integration, policy innovation, institutional accountability, and strategic coordination among agencies that have traditionally operated in silos. Above all, it must help rebuild public confidence in the state’s willingness and ability to protect citizens regardless of ethnicity, religion, or geography.

President Tinubu’s administration has taken an important first step. But the creation of the office alone will not solve Nigeria’s security crisis. What matters now is whether the government possesses the political courage to implement deeper reforms, confront entrenched institutional weaknesses, and abandon outdated approaches that have repeatedly failed. Still, in a nation desperate for new ideas and effective security governance, the creation of the Homeland Security Department is indeed a welcome development.

Please follow and like us:

20