A Psychologist Reflects: Nigeria’s Leadership Under Global Scrutiny Over Insecurity and the Memory of the Past -By Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi

Sometimes the world suddenly turns its attention to a nation and asks difficult questions. Nigeria found itself in such a moment when President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, his spokesman Daniel Bwala, and Al Jazeera journalist Mehdi Hasan became the focus of a widely watched international exchange that reopened old debates about power, history, and national memory. What began as a media interview quickly evolved into something larger: a psychological mirror reflecting Nigeria’s leadership, its past controversies, and the uneasy questions that now echo far beyond the country’s borders.

Nigeria appears to be living through one of those moments.

Across many regions of the country, insecurity has become an overwhelming national concern. Communities face repeated attacks from armed groups. Villages are displaced. Churches, farms, and schools have been targeted. Families continue to live under the shadow of violence that has lasted far longer than many Nigerians expected or hoped. These realities have produced widespread national anxiety and growing global concern.

In the past, discussions about Nigeria’s security challenges were largely internal. Nigerians debated them among themselves. Political actors blamed one another. Governments promised reforms and security strategies. Yet increasingly, these conversations are no longer confined within national borders.

The world is watching.

International human rights organizations, foreign policy analysts, and global media outlets now frequently discuss Nigeria’s security situation. Reports of terrorism, banditry, and attacks on rural communities appear regularly in international publications. Concerns about religious violence and humanitarian crises have entered global policy discussions.

When global attention grows, historical political narratives also return to the surface.

This reality was visible recently during a widely watched international interview in which Nigeria’s presidential spokesperson, Daniel Bwala, faced intense questioning about earlier statements and controversies surrounding the political environment that eventually produced the current administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

For many Nigerians watching the exchange, the moment felt emotionally uncomfortable.

Years earlier, Daniel Bwala had publicly criticized aspects of Nigeria’s political leadership and warned about troubling developments within the country’s political and security environment. Yet in his current role within the administration, he now finds himself defending the very leadership structures he once criticized.

This type of moment creates a powerful psychological conflict. When past convictions collide with present responsibilities, individuals may appear caught between two identities. One identity reflects earlier warnings or beliefs. The other reflects current loyalty to political authority.

Observers watching the interview sensed this tension.

It was not simply a political disagreement. It was a deeply human moment in which the past and the present appeared to confront each other on a global stage.

From a psychological perspective, such moments reveal how memory operates in political life. Political actors often believe that earlier debates will fade with time. Campaign rhetoric is expected to be forgotten. Controversies are assumed to dissolve as new administrations begin.

But memory rarely disappears so easily.

In societies where insecurity persists, people return to earlier warnings and earlier claims in an attempt to understand how current crises emerged. When villages continue to experience violence, citizens search for explanations in both the present and the past.

Nigeria’s ongoing security crisis has intensified that process.

Across parts of the Middle Belt and northern regions, violent attacks have devastated farming communities and displaced large populations. Many Nigerians interpret these events through the lens of ethnic, religious, or political conflict. Others describe them as the product of complex security failures involving multiple armed actors.

Regardless of interpretation, one reality is undeniable: the violence has drawn global attention.

In the United States and Europe, policymakers and advocacy organizations increasingly discuss security developments in Nigeria within broader conversations about terrorism, regional stability, and religious persecution. Political figures have occasionally raised concerns about violence affecting Christian communities in certain areas of Africa. Human rights reports highlight the scale of displacement and civilian suffering.

These discussions do not necessarily produce a single narrative. But they do mean that Nigeria’s internal security challenges now form part of a wider international conversation.

When global audiences examine a nation’s present struggles, they often revisit the political history that preceded them.

This is where the memory of past statements becomes significant. When political figures once raised warnings about militant actors, electoral practices, or security concerns, those earlier statements sometimes resurface when the country later experiences prolonged instability.

Such resurfacing does not automatically assign blame. But it does create a climate in which questions multiply.

Observers begin asking whether earlier warnings were dismissed too easily. They wonder whether political competition may have obscured deeper security challenges. They examine whether alliances formed during electoral struggles later complicated efforts to address national threats.

These questions can be uncomfortable for any government.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu came to power promising a new direction for Nigeria. His administration has emphasized economic reform, national unity, and renewed hope for the country’s future. Like many leaders before him, he has also attempted to bring former critics into his political coalition, believing that unity strengthens governance.

Yet when former critics become defenders, their earlier words remain part of the public record.

When those words resurface under global scrutiny, both the leader and the messenger can find themselves navigating difficult terrain.

From a psychological perspective, this is not merely a political challenge. It is a confrontation between narrative and memory.

African cultural philosophy often describes memory through the metaphor of the village. In the village, people remember stories across generations. What happened yesterday does not simply vanish. It becomes part of the collective understanding of the community.

Today the village has expanded.

Modern media and digital archives have turned the entire world into a global village square. Statements made years earlier can reappear instantly. Political debates once limited to domestic audiences can suddenly be examined by millions of viewers around the world.

In this environment, leadership requires a special kind of resilience.

It requires the courage to confront difficult questions rather than dismiss them. It requires an understanding that transparency strengthens authority rather than weakening it.

For Nigeria’s younger generation, these developments carry an important lesson.

Across the country and across the African diaspora, young people are watching how leaders respond when past narratives reappear under global scrutiny. They are learning whether political power allows individuals to rewrite history or whether leadership demands accountability for earlier words and actions.

The moral example they observe will shape their own understanding of public life.

If they see leaders address difficult questions with honesty and seriousness, they learn that character remains the foundation of authority. But if they see history denied or rewritten, they may conclude that political success requires abandoning truth.

Nigeria stands at a moment when global attention is increasing not out of hostility but out of concern.

The country remains one of Africa’s most important nations. Its stability affects millions beyond its borders. Because of this, the world inevitably watches closely when insecurity persists and when political history intersects with present challenges.

The lesson of this moment is not humiliation but reflection.

Great nations are not defined by the absence of controversy. They are defined by how courageously they face it.

In every village, the elders say that the past may sleep for a while, but it never disappears entirely.

And when insecurity grows and the world begins asking questions, that sleeping past eventually wakes.

About the Author

Prof. John Egbeazien Oshodi is an American psychologist, an expert in policing and corrections, and an educator with expertise in forensic, legal, clinical, and cross-cultural psychology, including public ethical policy. A native of Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, and son of a 37-year veteran of the Nigeria Police Force, he has long worked at the intersection of psychology, justice, and governance. In 2011, he helped introduce advanced forensic psychology to Nigeria through the National Universities Commission and Nasarawa State University, where he served as Associate Professor of Psychology.

He teaches in the Doctorate in Clinical and School Psychology at Nova Southeastern University; the Doctorate Clinical Psychology, BS Psychology, and BS Tempo Criminal Justice programs at Walden University; serves as a visiting virtual professor in the Department of Psychology at Nasarawa State University; and lectures virtually in Management and Leadership Studies at Weldios University and ISCOM University. He is also the President and Chief Psychologist at the Oshodi Foundation, Center for Psychological and Forensic Services, United States.

Prof. Oshodi is a Black Republican in the United States but belongs to no political party in Nigeria—his work is guided solely by justice, good governance, democracy, and Africa’s development. He is the founder of Psychoafricalysis (Psychoafricalytic Psychology), a culturally grounded framework that integrates African sociocultural realities, historical awareness, and future-oriented identity. He has authored more than 700 articles, multiple books, and numerous peer-reviewed works on Africentric psychology, higher education reform, forensic and correctional psychology, African democracy, and decolonized models of clinical and community engagement.