Forgotten Dairies
Insecurity, Governance And The 2027 Election In Nigeria -By Anthony Favour
If we judge governance only by present hardship, we risk replacing one underperforming team with another without understanding why the system keeps failing. If we judge only by past failures, we risk excusing leaders who have the resources to do better now. The standard should be broader and stricter. Look at the trajectory. Look at transparency. Look at whether policies are designed to solve problems or to win headlines.
Insecurity dominates public conversation in Nigeria today, both online and offline. Many citizens place the blame squarely on the current administration, and as 2027 approaches, frustration is shaping how people talk about the presidency and other contestants. But governance is rarely that simple. To make a sound electoral decision, we need to separate present failures from long standing structural problems, and we need evidence, not just anger.
Nigeria’s security crisis did not start with this government. When Peter Obi governed Anambra State from 2006 to 2014, the state battled violent kidnappings, cult clashes, and armed gangs, especially around Onitsha. The discovery of bodies in the Ezu River in 2013 underscored how bad it was. That period shows that subnational insecurity has deep roots and is not tied to one party or one president. Nationally, Boko Haram began as a local sect in Borno around 2002 during the Obasanjo and Atiku administration, but it transformed into a full insurgency after 2009. Successive governments have all struggled to contain it. The point is not to excuse anyone, but to recognize that blaming one administration alone ignores how the problem evolved across multiple tenures.
The same applies to electricity and infrastructure, which are often used to judge performance. Nigeria’s power sector reforms have spanned decades. The National Integrated Power Project under President Obasanjo between 1999 and 2007 spent billions with limited results, and that failure has been carried by every government since. Under President Bola Tinubu, the government introduced Band A tariffs, promising 20 to 24 hours of supply for customers willing to pay cost reflective rates between two hundred and two hundred and forty naira per kilowatt hour, depending on the distribution company. Many Nigerians rejected the tariff as too expensive, and supply remains uneven. Stating that electricity is “better under this administration” requires generation and distribution data, not impressions. Without numbers, the claim cannot persuade.
On insecurity today, the picture is mixed. The military has recorded gains against Boko Haram and ISWAP in the North East, and some highways that were once no-go areas are now usable. Yet banditry and kidnapping for ransom remain severe in the North West and North Central. Bandits now film their victims and circulate the videos, a tactic meant to terrorize the public and pressure the state. That brazenness suggests they still have networks, weapons, and possibly local support. Dismissing public fear as “fake rumours” is inaccurate and unfair to victims. At the same time, claiming the government has “folded its hands” ignores ongoing military operations, community policing efforts, and investments like road construction that affect mobility and security response. Several major roads are under reconstruction, and NELFUND has provided tuition support to many students. Those are verifiable policies, and they matter to daily life.
So the real question for 2027 is not whether insecurity started under this government, because it did not. The question is whether the current administration has shown a credible, measurable plan that is reducing the problem faster than previous governments did. Voters should demand data. How many local governments have been recovered? What is the trend in kidnapping cases from 2023 to 2026? What percentage of Band A customers actually receive 20 hours of power? How many kilometers of road have been completed versus flagged off? How many students have received NELFUND and at what repayment terms?
If we judge governance only by present hardship, we risk replacing one underperforming team with another without understanding why the system keeps failing. If we judge only by past failures, we risk excusing leaders who have the resources to do better now. The standard should be broader and stricter. Look at the trajectory. Look at transparency. Look at whether policies are designed to solve problems or to win headlines.
Nigeria’s 2027 election should be decided on that basis. Not on who we think is black or white, but on who can show, with evidence, that they understand the roots of insecurity and governance failure, and who has a workable plan to address them.
