By Our Reporter
The growing insecurity across Nigeria continues to generate intense public concern and political debate. Whenever a major security breach occurs—whether it is kidnapping, armed robbery, banditry, communal clashes, or other violent crimes—many Nigerians instinctively direct their anger toward the President and the Federal Government.
While the Federal Government undoubtedly bears constitutional responsibility for national security, an important question must be asked: Should state governors and local government chairmen also be held accountable for the security situation within their jurisdictions?
Nigeria operates a federal system with 36 states and 774 local government areas. Every month, substantial allocations are distributed from the Federation Account to states and local governments. In addition to these statutory allocations, state governors receive security votes running into billions of naira annually. Local government chairmen also receive funds meant to support administration and local development, including security-related initiatives.
Despite these enormous financial resources, many communities continue to grapple with rising insecurity. Rural communities have become vulnerable to kidnappers, cult groups, armed robbers, and other criminal elements.
Farmers are increasingly unable to access their farmlands due to fear of attacks, while businesses suffer losses as insecurity discourages investment and economic activities.
The reality is that most crimes originate and occur within communities located in specific local government areas.
Criminals often operate from familiar environments where they understand the terrain and can easily exploit local weaknesses. This raises legitimate questions about the effectiveness of security structures and intelligence gathering at the grassroots level.
Local government chairmen are the closest elected officials to the people. They understand the peculiar challenges of their communities and are expected to work closely with traditional rulers, community leaders, youth groups, vigilante organizations, and security agencies to maintain peace and order. If local authorities invest adequately in intelligence gathering, community policing initiatives, surveillance systems, and youth engagement programmes, many criminal activities could be detected and prevented before they escalate.
Similarly, governors occupy a strategic position as the chief security officers of their states. Although they do not directly command security agencies, they possess significant influence and resources that can be deployed to strengthen security architecture. Many states have established security outfits, procured operational vehicles, supported law enforcement agencies with logistics, and funded intelligence operations. Where these interventions are properly implemented, positive results have often followed.
The challenge therefore is not solely about the availability of funds but about accountability, transparency, and effective utilization of resources. Citizens have a right to ask how security votes and other security-related expenditures are being used. Although security votes are traditionally treated as confidential expenditures, there is growing demand for greater transparency to ensure that public funds allocated for security are achieving their intended objectives.
Security is a shared responsibility involving all tiers of government. While the Federal Government is responsible for defending the nation against external threats and coordinating national security policies, state and local governments have crucial roles to play in preventing and combating local crimes.
No single level of government can successfully tackle insecurity in isolation.
Many observers argue that if governors and local government chairmen devote greater attention and resources to grassroots security management, the burden on federal security agencies would be significantly reduced.
Effective collaboration between communities, local authorities, state governments, and federal security agencies can create a more comprehensive and responsive security framework.
At the same time, citizens must avoid politicizing security challenges. Insecurity affects people regardless of political affiliation, religion, ethnicity, or social status. Attempts to exploit security incidents for political gain often distract from the urgent need to find practical solutions.
Nigeria’s security challenges require honest conversations about responsibility and performance at all levels of government. Rather than focusing blame exclusively on the Presidency, citizens should also demand accountability from governors, local government chairmen, and other public officials entrusted with maintaining peace and security within their jurisdictions.
As the nation continues to seek lasting solutions to insecurity, one message remains clear: accountability must begin at every level. Governors and local government chairmen must demonstrate that the resources entrusted to them are being effectively utilized to protect lives and property. The security of communities should not be viewed as the sole responsibility of Abuja.
It is a collective duty that starts from the grassroots and extends to the highest levels of government.
Only through coordinated action, responsible leadership, and genuine accountability can Nigeria overcome its security challenges and build a safer future for all citizens.