Is Nigeria Becoming A Failed State Under President Tinubu?

BY Gbenga Shaba

Nigeria is currently at one of the most troubling security crossroads in its history. The scale and frequency of violent attacks, mass abductions, territorial infiltration by bandits and terror groups, and the collapse of safety in many communities have raised serious questions about the capacity of the state to protect its citizens. When a government begins to lose the ability to secure lives, enforce law and order, and guarantee the safety of children in schools, the debate about state failure becomes unavoidable.

Across the northern region, the wave of kidnappings and attacks has forced governments to take drastic measures. Katsina State ordered the immediate closure of all government schools. Taraba State directed that all secondary schools should operate only as day schools. These decisions were not made out of convenience. They were made out of fear. They were made because students have become targets, and schools have become vulnerable grounds. Education, the foundation of national development, is now under threat.

In recent weeks, the scale of kidnappings has escalated sharply. In Niger State, 34 students and three teachers were abducted from a government secondary school. They spent several days in captivity, enduring harsh conditions with limited food and water. Negotiations for their release were tense, with parents and authorities working tirelessly to secure their safe return. In Kebbi State, more than 40 children and 10 staff members were abducted from a private academy. The victims described being blindfolded, bundled into vehicles, and transported through forested areas under armed guard. In several other incidents across Kaduna, Zamfara, and Katsina, hundreds of men, women, and children have been taken in separate attacks, some held for weeks before rescue or ransom payments were made.

As if that was not enough, just few hours ago, some residents of Isapa in Kwara were abducted. Pregnant women, nursing mothers and children were allegedly abducted.

The ordeal for these children and their families is traumatic. Parents live in constant fear of the next attack, and even when children are rescued, they often return home in shock and fear. Many students have developed anxiety about returning to school, and communities are traumatized, with the memories of abduction and violence lingering long after the victims are freed.

Even more worrying is the deepening culture of ransom payments. Reports indicate that over ₦1 billion has been paid to bandits in recent weeks alone. This alarming trend not only empowers criminal networks but also signals the state’s weakening control. When kidnappers see consistent payouts from the government or local authorities, it encourages further attacks, creating a vicious cycle of fear and extortion.

This raises a critical question: Is Nigeria drifting toward a failed state under the current administration?

A country moves toward failure when the government can no longer protect its citizens, secure its borders, enforce laws, provide essential services, and maintain public confidence. Judged by these indicators, Nigeria is showing many worrying signs. The strength of non-state armed groups is rising. Large parts of the country are becoming ungoverned spaces. Communities are living under constant fear. Schools are shutting down. Businesses are relocating. Farmers are abandoning their fields. Ordinary Nigerians no longer trust the state to safeguard their lives.

President Tinubu came into office with promises of firm action on security. Nearly two years later, the practical reality suggests that insecurity is expanding faster than the response to it. Despite efforts by the security agencies, violent groups remain active and resilient. The lives of citizens are increasingly threatened, and the confidence in government’s capacity to reverse the trend is weakening.

It is therefore understandable when analysts conclude that the government is failing in the area of security. Citizens like Deacon Olanrewaju have voiced what many Nigerians feel: children are now staying at home not because of a pandemic but because of fear. Communities are shutting down not because of a virus but because of terror. The country is experiencing a form of paralysis driven by violence and fear.

Just like COVID-19, insecurity is gradually locking Nigeria down.

During the COVID era, movement was restricted, economic activities were disrupted, and schools were forced to close. Today, Nigeria is witnessing the same pattern, but the cause is not a global disease. It is insecurity. Communities are avoiding travel. States are closing schools. Businesses are shrinking their operations. Citizens live indoors once the sun sets. The sense of national freedom is shrinking under the weight of fear.

Nigeria may not yet be officially classified as a failed state, but the signs are becoming too visible to ignore. Without urgent, intelligent, and coordinated action, the country risks sliding deeper into a security crisis that will be harder to reverse.

Just like Simon Kolawole recalls what President Bola Tinubu said years ago. I recall that on November 5, 2014, in Ilorin, Kwara State, at a rally organised by Governor Abdulfatah Ahmed to declare his second-term bid, the APC leaders spoke one after the other about insecurity in Nigeria. Among those in attendance were Gen Muhammadu Buhari, then a presidential aspirant, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, also an aspirant, Rt Hon Aminu Tambuwal, then speaker of the house of reps, and Alhaji Lai Mohammed, then the APC spokesman. Tinubu, who was the national leader of the party, said I saw the sea of refugees caused by the Boko Haram insurgents and the lies coming from Jonathan’s administration. They have exhibited failure, lack of capacity, vision and creativity.

He went further. The lies of yesterday are what they repeat today and are what they will repeat tomorrow. If you control the armed forces and you are the Commander-in-Chief, why should any part of this country be under occupation? And you give us excuses every day. In any civilised country, Jonathan should have resigned. But if he will not resign, he should wait for our broom. We will sweep him away.

They swept Jonathan away. But here we are, a decade later.

Tinubu is now the Commander-in-Chief, but Nigeria remains under siege. We could poke fun at the APC today and say they are only getting a dose of their own medicine. But it is human lives, the lives of Nigerians, that we are talking about here. We are talking about a reign of terror, about helpless Nigerians being abducted, about hapless Nigerians being killed for fun. If nothing else, it should make us sober. If nothing else, we should learn from our past and put politics aside regarding matters of security.

This is the moment for honest reflection and decisive leadership. What Nigeria faces today is not just a temporary challenge. It is a test of the state’s ability to protect its people and preserve its sovereignty. The longer this insecurity wave continues, the closer the nation moves toward the edge of failure.

“A Strong Voice for Ogun West”: High Chief Abiodun Olalekan Ilo Applauds LOYAMP’s Rising Influence and Advocacy

The Adele Olu of Ilaro, High Chief Abiodun Olalekan Ilo, has commended the revitalized League of Yewa-Awori Media Practitioners (LOYAMP) for stepping up at a defining moment to champion the interests of Ogun West.

Speaking from the United States during an online interview with Abu-Satar Hamed of StarTrend International Magazine, High Chief Ilo expressed delight at the impressive volume and quality of publications emerging from LOYAMP’s various media platforms—especially stories spotlighting the developmental strides of Senator Adeola Yayi.

He urged the association to maintain its momentum by giving fair and robust coverage not only to Senator Yayi’s ambitions but also to those of other notable sons and daughters of Ogun West, saying such balanced advocacy is essential to advancing the region’s collective aspirations.

High Chief Ilo encouraged LOYAMP to safeguard its integrity, advising members to steer clear of reports that could compromise their credibility or the trust reposed in them.

Expressing confidence in the group’s leadership and professionalism, he highlighted the influence of its National Coordinator, Otunba Abu-Satar Idowu Hamed—describing him as a seasoned and highly respected journalist whose presence strengthens LOYAMP’s standing.

According to him, Ogun West is now well-positioned with a dedicated and influential Fourth Estate of the Realm committed to the region’s progress.

He further called on the sons and daughters of Ogun West, as well as residents across Ogun State and the nation, to support LOYAMP so the organization can continue to serve both the region and Nigeria with excellence.

Multilateralism’s Moment: The Johannesburg Declaration and the Case That Cooperation Can (and Must) Deliver.

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com

“The adoption of the G20 Leaders Declaration in Johannesburg is more than ceremony; it is a practical rebuke to cynicism; a binding message that well-crafted, inclusive multilateralism remains humanity’s best instrument for solving shared crises.”

When leaders gathered in Johannesburg on 22–23 November 2025 for the first G20 summit ever held on African soil, something very plain and very consequential happened: they adopted a Leaders Declaration that speaks to the core question of our time; can the world still govern itself cooperatively when so many forces push it toward fragmentation? The short answer, emphatically, is YES. The Johannesburg declaration sends a clear signal that multilateralism can and must deliver, and that signal matters because the alternatives (unilateralism, great-power rivalry, and competitive isolation) are already proving ruinous for ordinary people everywhere.

Why does a declaration matter? Because multilateralism is not a SLOGAN; it is a set of instruments (institutions, financial arrangements, commitments and follow-through) that, when working, translate global consensus into local gains. The Johannesburg text does not pretend to solve every problem in a single paragraph. It does, however, marshal consensus on immediate, measurable priorities: accelerating renewable energy and a just energy transition, catalysing finance for developing economies, strengthening disaster resilience and post-disaster reconstruction, and re-energising efforts to tackle inequality and food insecurity. Those are not abstract goals; they are policy blueprints that require joint financing, coordinated regulation and institutional reform; the very machinery that only multilateral cooperation can provide at scale.

The politics around the summit illustrate the stakes. Washington’s absence (a high-profile boycott of the leaders sessions) made headlines and revealed the limits and frictions of global diplomacy. But the fact that a broadly representative group of G20 members nonetheless adopted a joint declaration underscores the resilience of collective action even when one major power steps back. The adoption by consensus; and the willingness of participants to anchor the declaration to concrete financing and reform proposals — demonstrates that multilateral outcomes can be both pragmatic and principled. It is the practical capacity to deliver that gives multilateralism its moral force.

South Africa’s Presidency framed the summit with a theme that was more than rhetorical: “SOLIDARITY, EQUALITY and SUSTAINABILITY.” In his opening address, President Cyril Ramaphosa put it bluntly: “The adoption of the declaration from the summit sends an important signal to the world that multilateralism can and does deliver.” That line matters not as flattery but as a public affirmation; a promise that the commitments on the page will be turned into funding, institutional changes and measurable outcomes for countries that have too often been left on the margins.

Nor is this moment detached from long-standing calls for reform. The United Nations recent “PACT FOR THE FUTURE” and the Summit of the Future discussions have argued for a multilateral system that is “FIT FOR THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE” more representative, more democratic and more capable of rapid collective action. António Guterres has repeatedly warned that “we are here to bring multilateralism back from the brink,” a refrain echoed across policy platforms and echoed in Johannesburg by leaders and experts who see reform and delivery as two sides of the same coin. If institutions are to be strengthened, they must also show deliverables; climate finance disbursed, debt vulnerabilities addressed, supply chains stabilized, and social protections scaled.

Economic justice is central to credibility. The Johannesburg Declaration does more than nod to inequality; it foregrounds the necessity of mobilising trillions in finance (concessional lending, catalytic private finance and innovative instruments) to help developing countries invest in both DECARBONISATION and INDUSTRIALISATION. The G20’s own advisory workstreams, including an Extraordinary Committee on Global Inequality chaired by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, have produced evidence that inequality corrodes growth and that coordinated global policy can make redistribution and sustainable growth mutually reinforcing. Multilateralism’s delivery, in practice, will be measured by whether these financial pledges translate into affordable capital for infrastructure, energy access for isolated communities, and fiscal space for social investment.

Sceptics will say declarations are cheap; what matters is implementation. They are right to demand results. That is why the Johannesburg outcome matters: it links declaratory politics to institutional mechanisms and to an agenda for reform of the international financial architecture. The leaders did not simply declare a wish; they pointed toward the Sevilla Commitment and a set of G20 workstreams intended to create pipelines of bankable projects, reform multilateral development bank practices, and coordinate post-disaster reconstruction financing. In short, the declaration is a roadmap (heavy on specifics) for turning CONSENSUS into CAPITAL and CAPITAL into CAPACITY.

Although delivery will require more than good intentions. It will require political will at home and patience abroad. It will require democratic legitimacy for multilateral institutions (which means involving civil society, parliaments and subnational governments in oversight) and it will require INNOVATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY: CLEAR MILESTONES, TRANSPARENT MONITORING and INDEPENDENT EVALUATION. As IMF analysts and leading economists have argued, the multilateral system needs to become “INCENTIVE COMPATIBLE” so that every participant sees visible, near-term benefits alongside longer-term structural gains. That blend of incentives and oversight is how the system will survive the fractures of our multipolar age.

The Johannesburg declaration is also political theatre with policy teeth. It shows that when countries are willing to compromise and to prioritise collective gain over zero-sum signalling, they can put in place a common platform to tackle shared threats: climate shocks, food insecurity, pandemics, technology risks and violent conflict. These are not problems a single state can solve alone. They require interoperable rules, pooled financing, and coordinated action. The Johannesburg leaders’ document is an admission that the old adage remains true: sovereignty is protected, not weakened, when nations cooperate to reduce risks that respect no borders.

So what should we expect next? First, rigorous follow-up: project pipelines must be created, funded and monitored. Second, reform: the G20 and other institutions must accelerate the hard work of reforming governance structures (including representation and voice) so that developing countries have meaningful agency in decisions that affect their futures. Third, accountability: civil society, academia and parliamentary institutions must be empowered to hold leaders to the commitments they signed in Johannesburg. And finally, results: more renewable capacity deployed in Africa, debt relief and restructuring where necessary, and tangible reductions in vulnerability for the poorest communities.

If Johannesburg teaches us anything, it is that multilateralism’s moral claim rests on its practical performance. As Joseph Stiglitz and other leading scholars emphasize, multilateral action is both economically sensible and politically necessary; without it, inequity and instability will deepen. António Guterres’ plea to “bring multilateralism back from the brink” is not a rhetorical flourish; it is an agenda that demands both reform and delivery. The Johannesburg Declaration is a constructive step along that path. Now the real test begins: turning WORDS into WORK, and COMMITMENTS into CHANGE.

History will judge Johannesburg not simply by the eloquence of its statements but by whether the summit’s promises are lived out in schools with power, hospitals with supplies, farms with drought resilience, and economies with inclusive jobs. That is the only defensible yardstick for multilateralism: performance that improves lives. The declaration says it can be done. The world must now prove it — quickly, transparently and with fierce resolve. The future of cooperative global governance depends on nothing less.