The Nigerian Senate’s proposed two-day national security summit has come under heavy criticism from security experts and civil society stakeholders, who warn that the effort may amount to a futile exercise without a clear policy framework to implement its outcomes.
Voicing their concerns during a forum in Enugu on Friday, several speakers pointed out that similar summits held in the past had produced commendable recommendations that were never acted upon, leading to a cycle of unproductive dialogue and worsening insecurity.
Prince Cajethan Nnadi, a high-tech security expert and head of a private security agency in Enugu, described the proposed summit as another example of the country’s “usual frivolities” unless there is a binding commitment to act on its resolutions.
“State police are the solution,” Nnadi asserted. “It is difficult for someone from Ondo State to secure any part of Enugu State because he is not familiar with the terrain.
“State police will guarantee internal security. It is also the most effective in intelligence gathering because natives understand their environment more than even drones.”
According to him, Nigeria’s security agencies are frequently overwhelmed because personnel are deployed to unfamiliar regions, limiting their operational effectiveness and intelligence-gathering capabilities. “Let’s equip the natives to route these miscreants out,” he added.
Mr. Ebubeagu Felix Okafor, the Enugu State Coordinator of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Coalition for Peace and Conflict Resolution, expressed deep regret over what he described as the government’s habitual “lip service” to security matters.
He cited the example of the national political conference convened by former President Goodluck Jonathan, lamenting how its extensive recommendations were never implemented despite the resources expended.
“Insecurity is the major source of all the problems facing us as a nation,” Okafor said.
“It has adversely affected the lawmakers, the judiciary, and indeed the nation’s economy. There is no summit that will solve the problems unless there is a framework to implement its outcome.”
Okafor further criticized the National Assembly for its inability to hold security agencies accountable, despite frequent invitations and hearings.
He warned that insurgents are reportedly acquiring more sophisticated weapons than the Nigerian military, a sign of deep structural issues within the country’s security architecture.
Security consultant Cyril Obosi took a different angle, suggesting that rather than another summit, the federal government should establish an independent investigative committee to scrutinize defence spending, especially in light of persistent reports of corruption and inefficiency.
“We need to address our security architecture totally,” Obosi said. “There are allegations that sophisticated weapons meant for the military are ending up in the hands of insurgents.
“Our food security is endangered. Some children are out of school because of insecurity. The government needs to do more, otherwise we are headed for a major economic downturn in this country.”
Despite these concerns, the Senate maintains that the summit is a necessary step toward forging a national consensus on security.
However, even the Minister of Defence, Mohammed Badaru, expressed skepticism earlier in the week, stating that “strategy is far more important than a summit.”
As insecurity continues to plague various parts of the country—ranging from terrorism in the Northeast to banditry and kidnapping in the Northwest and Southeast—the public appears increasingly disillusioned with high-level meetings that fail to produce tangible results.
Stakeholders insist that unless the summit’s recommendations are backed by political will, budgetary support, and a practical implementation plan, the initiative risks becoming another missed opportunity in Nigeria’s prolonged struggle with insecurity.
