Insecurity: The Opposition’s Key and Last Hope in Kaduna State -By Abdullahi Abubakar Lawal

The recurring incidents of kidnapping and banditry in Kaduna State have continued to generate public debate, particularly on social media, where security challenges have increasingly become subjects of political controversy. While citizens have every right to demand accountability from the government, the reactions of some individuals to these unfortunate incidents raise serious questions about the extent to which political interests are influencing public discourse on insecurity.

Whenever a kidnapping incident is reported in Kaduna State, some commentators are quick to turn the tragedy into an opportunity to attack Governor Uba Sani’s administration. Rather than expressing sympathy for the victims and their families or contributing meaningful suggestions towards addressing the problem, their immediate response is often to accuse the government of failure. Some go further by alleging that the administration has negotiated with bandits, yet kidnappings continue to occur, without presenting credible evidence to substantiate their claims.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the government’s security policies. Indeed, protecting lives and property is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any administration, and no government should be exempt from public scrutiny. However, there is a clear difference between constructive criticism and the politicisation of human suffering.

The tragedy of kidnapping should never become a source of political excitement. Behind every incident is a human life at risk, a family enduring uncertainty and emotional trauma, and a community desperately seeking peace. Any political discourse that overlooks this reality in pursuit of partisan advantage deserves serious reconsideration.

Kaduna State has experienced years of severe security challenges, with several communities affected by banditry, kidnapping, killings and displacement. The consequences have extended beyond the loss of lives to include economic disruption, restrictions on movement, declining confidence among residents and the persistent fear experienced by families in vulnerable communities.

Since assuming office in 2023, Governor Uba Sani has pursued a combination of kinetic and non-kinetic approaches to addressing insecurity. These approaches include security operations and initiatives intended to promote peace, strengthen community engagement and address some of the factors contributing to violence.

The administration’s efforts, like those of any government confronting complex security challenges, must be assessed through evidence and measurable outcomes. Nevertheless, the continued occurrence of kidnapping incidents should not automatically invalidate every intervention undertaken to improve security. Equally, claims of significant improvement must be supported by reliable data rather than political declarations.

What is particularly troubling is the apparent tendency among some political commentators to give extensive publicity to negative security incidents while paying considerably less attention to positive developments or successful interventions. Whenever an attack occurs, social media platforms become flooded with condemnations, accusations and predictions of government failure. Yet, when progress is reported, the same enthusiasm for public discussion is not always evident.

This raises a fundamental question: is the ultimate objective to make Kaduna State safer or simply to use insecurity as a means of discrediting the incumbent administration?

The opposition has a legitimate constitutional and democratic role in holding the government accountable. Its responsibility, however, extends beyond highlighting failures. It must also demonstrate the capacity to propose practical solutions to the challenges facing the state. If the opposition believes that Governor Uba Sani’s security strategy is inadequate, it should clearly explain what it would do differently, how it would implement its proposed measures and what evidence supports its approach.

Would it invest more in intelligence gathering, strengthen coordination among security agencies, improve the protection of vulnerable communities, expand the use of technology or pursue more effective strategies for preventing recruitment into criminal networks? These are the substantive questions that should define the debate.

Repeatedly condemning incidents without offering credible alternatives does little to improve the security situation. The people of Kaduna need solutions, not merely political exchanges. They need to know how their communities will be protected, how victims will be rescued, how criminal networks will be dismantled and how those responsible will be brought to justice.

Similarly, allegations that the government is paying bandits must be supported by verifiable evidence. Serious accusations cannot reasonably be treated as established facts simply because they are repeated frequently on social media. Where negotiations have occurred, the public deserves an honest assessment of their nature, purpose and consequences. Where evidence of wrongdoing exists, the appropriate authorities should investigate it.

At the same time, the Kaduna State Government must recognise that the persistence of kidnapping and banditry remains a serious concern. Every incident demands an urgent response, and every affected community deserves protection. The administration must continue strengthening intelligence-led operations, improving collaboration among security agencies, supporting security personnel and ensuring that criminal suspects are investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the law.

The government must also communicate its security efforts more transparently, providing credible information on incidents, interventions and measurable outcomes. Such transparency would enable residents to make informed assessments and help distinguish verifiable facts from speculation and politically motivated allegations.

Beyond security, the performance of any administration should be evaluated across all sectors of governance, including education, healthcare, infrastructure, agriculture and economic empowerment. Where progress has been achieved, it should be acknowledged on its merits. Where shortcomings remain, they should be identified and addressed without unnecessary political distortion.

Nevertheless, security remains one of the most emotionally significant issues in Kaduna’s political landscape. For the opposition, it may continue to be a major point of criticism against the incumbent administration. That is understandable within a competitive democratic system. However, the issue becomes problematic when the suffering of victims appears to receive less attention than the political opportunity created by their misfortune.

No responsible political actor should wish for insecurity to persist merely because its continuation could provide an advantage in future elections. Such an attitude, if established, would represent a profound failure to place the welfare of citizens above partisan interests. Political competition should encourage better policies and stronger accountability, not indifference to human suffering.

The people of Kaduna State deserve a political culture in which all parties take security seriously, support legitimate efforts to protect citizens and hold public officials accountable through evidence-based criticism. They also deserve opposition leaders who can articulate credible security policies rather than relying exclusively on the shortcomings of the government in power.

Ultimately, Governor Uba Sani’s administration should be judged by its record, the measurable outcomes of its security policies and its willingness to address continuing challenges. Likewise, those seeking to replace the administration should be judged by the credibility, practicality and transparency of their proposed alternatives.

The question before Kaduna State is not whether the government should be criticised whenever insecurity occurs. It should be. The more important question is whether such criticism is contributing to the search for solutions or merely deepening political divisions.

Kidnapping is not a partisan issue. The pain of affected families does not belong to any political party, and the desire for peace is not exclusive to any administration. Every resident of Kaduna State, irrespective of political affiliation, deserves to live without fear.

If insecurity has become a central issue in the political contest in Kaduna State, the answer should be a more serious debate about solutions, accountability and measurable progress. The ultimate objective must be to create a state where children can attend school safely, farmers can work on their farms without fear, traders can conduct their businesses freely and families can travel without the threat of abduction.

The true measure of political success in Kaduna State will not be which party gains the most from the insecurity debate, but whether the people eventually enjoy lasting peace and security.