Prof. Isaac Olawale Albert is a globally renowned security scholar and former Director, Institute for Peace and Strategic Studies (IPSS), University of Ibadan (UI), Oyo State. In this interview, Prof. Albert said Nigeria must fix security architecture to avoid external strikes. He also called on the country to deepen its ties with the United States of America without losing its sovereignty.
How would you characterise the current pattern of insecurity in Nigeria? Is it still dominated by ideological terrorist groups like Boko Haram/ISWAP, or has criminal banditry become the more dangerous threat?
The current insecurity landscape in Nigeria is marked by two predominant threat categories: ideological terrorism (principally by groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP) and criminal banditry. Terrorism in the northeast remains driven by extremist ideology, aiming to destabilise the state, impose alternative governance structures, and attract international attention.
In contrast, banditry, most prevalent in the northwest and central regions, is largely opportunistic, motivated by financial gain through kidnappings, cattle rustling, and attacks on rural communities. While terrorism and banditry have distinct motivations, recent years have seen a blurring of lines. Some bandit groups have adopted tactics reminiscent of terrorist organisations, including mass abductions and coordinated attacks, complicating response strategies and amplifying the threat to national security. The Boko Haram crisis in the North East is also now driven more by economic than ideological interests.
What is driving the recent escalation of mass kidnappings, attacks on rural communities, and highway abductions? Are these attacks coordinated or largely opportunistic?
Recent surges in mass kidnappings and attacks on rural communities can be attributed to several factors. Existing studies and media reports call attention to the fact that many rural areas lack effective government oversight and security infrastructure, making them vulnerable to criminal groups. High unemployment and poverty drive many to the warm embrace of criminal groups. Nigeria does not seem to have found any sustainable solutions to the movement of people and weapons across the country’s borders. This enervates the operations of both terrorists and bandits. In some cases, local political actors have allegedly supported or tolerated bandit groups for personal or electoral gain. Armed non-state actors are increasingly showing signs of coordination. They use mobile technology and informants to target communities and evade security forces.
To what extent do the security agencies understand and map the networks behind these attacks?
Are there intelligence gaps worsening the crisis?
Nigeria’s security agencies face significant intelligence challenges. While there have been improvements in surveillance and coordination, intelligence gathering remains hampered by poor inter-agency cooperation and rivalry, limited technological capacity and outdated equipment, insufficient human intelligence, especially in rural and remote areas, inadequate training, and low morale among personnel. These gaps often result in delayed responses, inability to preempt attacks, and difficulty dismantling criminal networks. However, there are situations in which actionable intelligence is said to have been provided but never used preventatively. Nigerians use this to allege complicity in some of the happenings.
Do you see the current security responses, emergency declarations, deployments, and mass recruitment, addressing the root of the problem, or are they temporary firefighting measures?
Emergency responses such as military deployments, police operations, and community vigilante initiatives have yielded some short-term successes. However, these measures are frequently reactive rather than preventive, and lack sustainability due to resource constraints, logistical challenges, and inconsistent policy direction. There have been isolated successes in rescuing abductees and disrupting criminal cells, but the overall impact has been limited by the systemic issues requires that Nigeria design and operationalise a better coordinated security architecture.
Where do you see as the biggest structural weaknesses, intelligence gathering, inter-agency rivalry, political interference, or inadequate technology and logistics?
Several key structural weaknesses undermine Nigeria’s security apparatus. These include what one may call a “fragmented command structure.” By this, it means the overlapping mandates and poor coordination among the military, police, and intelligence services. People have been talking about this problem since my days as a young scholar at the University of Ibadan, but not much is changing. There is also the apparent problem that political considerations, rather than operational needs, often influence Nigerian security decisions. From afar, one could see the issue of chronic underfunding and mismanagement of security budgets. I don’t think our security agencies have the right equipment, vehicles, or communication systems.
What reforms are urgently needed to make the police, military and intelligence agencies more responsive and proactive?
To address these weaknesses, urgent reforms are required. There is a need for a unified command-and-control system for security operations. We need to invest more in modern intelligence and surveillance technology, further retool and empower the police, enhance inter-agency collaboration and information sharing, ensure transparent and adequate funding for security agencies, and strengthen community engagement and local intelligence networks.
President Donald Trump recently threatened to order the U.S. military strikes on terrorists inside Nigeria. From a security standpoint, how realistic or dangerous is this?
Recent statements by the former U.S. President Donald Trump alluding to possible military intervention in Nigeria have heightened concerns over sovereignty and national security. Such rhetoric, even if not immediately actionable, can inflame tensions, undermine Nigeria’s diplomatic standing, and create uncertainty in bilateral relations. It also risks emboldening insurgent groups who may interpret foreign threats as a sign of government weakness. However, Nigeria needs this kind of external pressure to become more active in fulfilling its responsibilities. Since the threat from the US imagine the rapid changes taking place in the management of the country’s security architecture. It makes our leaders more responsible. They know what it means for Nigeria to be tagged a rogue state.
Could foreign threats of unilateral intervention exacerbate tensions, fuel anti-foreign sentiment or embolden insurgent groups and is there any scenario in which such a threat could indirectly help Nigeria , for example, by pushing the government to accelerate reforms or by attracting international support?
The risks of foreign intervention include loss of autonomy, collateral damage, and potential escalation of violence. However, as earlier observed, indirect benefits may arise from increased international attention, pressure for reform, and opportunities for technical assistance and capacity building. Careful diplomatic management is essential to avoid escalation and preserve Nigeria’s sovereignty as well as the existing healthy relationship between Nigeria and the US.
How should Nigeria respond diplomatically to avoid escalation while also assuring its citizens and international partners that terrorism is being addressed?
To de-escalate tensions and counter threats of foreign intervention, Nigerian policymakers should engage in proactive dialogue with U.S. officials to clarify misunderstandings and reaffirm Nigeria’s commitment to tackling insecurity. We also need to demonstrate tangible progress in security sector reforms. We need to leverage regional alliances and multilateral platforms to build support for our position. These should be in addition to strengthening the capacity to publicly communicate the government’s efforts and successes to both domestic and international audiences.
President Tinubu recently strengthened diplomatic channels by appointing a new ambassador to the U.S. How significant is this move for security cooperation?
The appointment of a new Nigerian ambassador to the U.S. signals a renewed commitment to strengthening bilateral relations and security cooperation. This move is significant in facilitating direct communication, negotiating security agreements, and shaping the narrative around Nigeria’s efforts to combat insecurity.
The administration has also agreed to a U.S.–Nigeria Joint Security Working Group. What practical benefits can Nigeria expect intelligence, training, technology, or operational support?
The establishment of a joint security working group between the U.S. and Nigeria is expected to yield practical benefits, including enhanced intelligence sharing, joint training exercises, technical support for counter-terrorism operations, and improved coordination to address transnational threats such as trafficking and cybercrime. These initiatives can help build capacity and foster trust between the two countries.
How can Nigeria deepen security ties with the U.S. without compromising its sovereignty or appearing to outsource internal problems?
While deeper security ties with the U.S. offer significant advantages, Nigeria must ensure that such cooperation does not compromise its sovereignty. This requires clear partnership frameworks, transparent oversight, and a focus on building local capacity rather than creating dependency. Nigerian officials should negotiate terms that respect national interests and maintain control over sensitive operations.
Some stakeholders in the North argue that confronting terrorists militarily could be counter-productive and instead advocate incorporating them into the national budget and negotiating with them as a pathway to peace. How comfortable are you with this line of thinking, and what risks or implications do you see in such an approach?
Yes, some northern stakeholders have advocated negotiating with terrorist groups as part of the peace process. While dialogue may offer a pathway to conflict resolution, it carries substantial risks. Negotiations may embolden insurgents and undermine the rule of law. Terrorist groups are often factionalised, complicating the implementation of such agreements. Existing knowledge shows that concessions to one group may incentivise others to escalate violence for similar gains. Victims and affected communities may perceive negotiations as a betrayal. This weakens the state system. Any negotiation strategy must be carefully designed, transparent, and accompanied by robust disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration frameworks. I know that the Office of the National Security Adviser is doing a lot on this.
