Dr. Abejide B. Olusegun

There are moments in political life that never quite leave you. Moments that shape your trust, your judgment, and your sense of who stands where when power is on the line. For me, one of those moments came in 2010.

I was among those who believed Nuhu Ribadu represented a serious break from Nigeria’s entrenched political culture. Many of us invested more than time. Some left their jobs abroad. Some disrupted families. Some poured resources, strategy, and energy into building a campaign that we believed could shift the direction of this country. We were not naive. We knew politics was hard. We knew coalitions were fragile. But we believed in discipline and clarity of purpose.

Then came the decision to step aside for Muhammadu Buhari.

The explanation was framed in cultural terms: Fulani tradition, respect for elders, deference to hierarchy. A younger man stepping aside for a senior figure. Culture over competition. Custom over candidacy.

To some, that sounded principled. To many of us who had invested in the campaign, it felt like something else entirely.

Politics is not folklore. It is organization, strategy, and commitment. When a candidate steps aside after building a movement, citing cultural obligation, it raises difficult questions about priority and loyalty. Loyalty to what? To whom? To a campaign team? To voters? Or to an ethnic calculus that overrides national ambition?

That decision did not simply end a candidacy. It disrupted a coordinated effort. It fractured momentum. It undermined trust. And for those who sacrificed careers and stability to campaign, it felt like betrayal.

That was the beginning of my distrust of Mr. Nuhu Ribadu.

Distrust does not emerge from a single event. It accumulates. It grows when patterns appear inconsistent. It deepens when transparency fades.

Over the years, accusations have surfaced regarding security lapses, banditry dynamics, and internal power struggles within Nigeria’s national security architecture. Some of those accusations have been dismissed. Some remain unresolved. Some were politicized. Others were buried in noise.

But what has remained constant is a broader anxiety: is Nigeria’s security leadership operating with full cohesion and clarity at a time when the country faces layered threats?

Today, that question feels more urgent than ever.

Nigeria is not operating in a stable environment. Banditry has evolved. Terror networks have mutated. Regional tensions simmer. Political polarization has intensified. Intelligence failures anywhere in such a system carry grave consequences.

When concerns arise about compromised communication lines within the office of the National Security Adviser, they cannot be treated as ordinary political gossip. They demand clarity. They demand an investigation. They demand answers.

National security is not partisan. It is not ethnic. It is not factional. It is existential.

If communication systems tied to the presidency were compromised, the public deserves to know how. If internal breaches occurred, Nigerians deserve to know what safeguards failed. If corrective measures were taken, they should be explained without compromising operational secrecy.

Silence breeds speculation. And speculation in matters of national security breeds instability.

The failed coup attempt earlier this year — regardless of how one interprets its scope or seriousness — should have triggered a deep, visible review of Nigeria’s security posture. Coups do not materialize out of thin air. They require networks, grievances, vulnerabilities, and communication gaps.

In a nation with Nigeria’s history, even whispers of such attempts cannot be brushed aside. They must be addressed thoroughly and transparently.

Leadership accountability in this context is not about scapegoating. It is about structure. It is about responsibility.

The National Security Adviser holds one of the most sensitive roles in the country. That office is tasked with coordinating intelligence, preventing internal threats, and ensuring the physical safety of the President and key constitutional officers. When questions arise about security lapses, they naturally converge on that office.

This is not personal. It is institutional.

If anything were to happen to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima, or Senate President Godswill Akpabio, Nigerians would rightly demand to know whether warning signs were ignored. Whether threats were tracked. Whether intelligence was acted upon. Whether political considerations interfered with security decisions.

That is not an accusation. It is a standard of governance.

Nigeria has lived through too many crises fueled by elite rivalries, fragmented loyalty structures, and shadow alignments. When political actors appear to move in ways that disrupt strategy or cohesion, citizens remember. They connect dots. They conclude.

That is human.

But responsible citizenship also requires discipline. It requires us to separate suspicion from proof, emotion from evidence, and narrative from fact.

Distrust, once earned, is difficult to reverse. That is where Nuhu Ribadu’s 2010 decision still echoes. It was not just about stepping aside. It was about predictability and reliability. In politics, those two traits matter more than rhetoric.

When individuals operate within elite networks shaped by ethnic loyalties, power hierarchies, and long-standing alliances, transparency becomes even more critical. Nigerians need reassurance that factional calculations do not influence national security decisions.

We need to know that arrests, detentions, or investigative decisions are based on evidence — not political maneuvering. We need to know that no one is shielded by proximity and no one is targeted because of rivalry.

This country has suffered from politicized prosecutions before. It has also suffered from selective inaction.

What we cannot afford now is ambiguity in matters of state survival.

If there are credible threats from political figures or security insiders, those threats must be addressed through lawful processes. If intelligence indicates destabilization plans, the public should at least be assured that containment measures are underway.

But rhetoric that suggests future harm tied to specific individuals must be handled carefully. It can inflame tensions. It can escalate fear. It can create self-fulfilling cycles of suspicion.

The better path is structured accountability.

Nigeria needs:

• Clear reporting channels within national security

• Transparent review mechanisms for intelligence failures

• Oversight structures that are independent of political factions

• Assurance that communication lines tied to the presidency are secure

If those systems exist and are functioning, the public deserves reassurance. If they do not, then reform must begin immediately.

Personal disappointment, however deep, cannot substitute for institutional reform. My frustration with Ribadu’s past political decisions is real. My sense of betrayal from 2010 is real. But Nigeria’s future cannot hinge on personal grievances. It must hinge on measurable performance standards.

This is bigger than one man.

It is about whether Nigeria’s national security architecture can withstand internal and external shocks. It is about whether intelligence coordination is airtight. It is about whether political rivalries are spilling into operational domains.

History teaches us that states do not collapse from visible enemies alone. They weaken when internal trust erodes. When institutions become opaque. When citizens feel information is withheld.

The call here is not for panic. It is for vigilance.

If the NSA’s lines were compromised, Nigerians deserve answers. If coup whispers were credible, Nigerians deserve clarity. If threats exist against the presidency, Nigerians deserve reassurance that protective measures are robust and apolitical.

Trust in leadership is not automatic. It must be maintained through transparency, competence, and consistency.

The 2010 episode remains, for me, a cautionary lesson: political alignment can override strategic planning. That lesson informs my skepticism today.

But skepticism should not become recklessness.

Nigeria is at a crossroads. Political actors must operate with discipline. Security officials must act without bias. Citizens must demand accountability without spreading unverified claims.

What we need now is not rumor. Not factional warfare. Not coded threats.

We need clarity.

We need stability.

And above all, we need assurance that the machinery designed to protect the Republic is functioning — not fragmented by politics, ethnicity, or rivalry.

Distrust may be personal. But national security is collective.

Nigeria cannot afford confusion at the top.

Not now.

Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com