Category: Interview

Managing Director of Beacon Security and Intelligence Limited, Kabir Adamu, in this interview with AJIBADE OMAPE, delves into the root causes of growing insecurity challenges plaguing Nigeria, providing practical solutions and a roadmap for improvement

Based on your vast experience in security consulting, what are the key factors driving insecurity in the country?

Some factors are rooted in the country’s security challenges, while others stem from environmental issues, as well as the failure of both the government and citizens to establish effective measures to curb the activities of kidnappers. If we examine the statistics between July and now, kidnapping in Nigeria has surged by over 200 per cent. This clearly indicates that the measures put in place are not as effective as they should be.

One major factor is economic hardship. Since this administration came into power, its policies have exacerbated the cost of living crisis, and we’ve already seen at least two protests. This economic strain has increased the likelihood of crimes like abduction and kidnapping for ransom.

Next is weak security infrastructure, including ineffective law enforcement and inadequate security measures, which allow criminals to continue kidnapping.

As long as the deterrent element remains weak and they can collect and spend ransom without restrictions, these crimes will persist. Another factor is the easy access to weapons. The country has done little to reduce the availability of weapons and ammunition to criminals. It’s important to differentiate between the two—without ammunition, weapons are useless, yet they still have access to both, which enables their activities.

Rural banditry and insurgency also play a significant role. These groups remain active and use abduction as a way to generate funds. As long as they need money, kidnapping will continue to be a reliable method for them. Instability in governance further complicates the issue. Currently, the president and vice president are out of the country, and there are reports of potential leadership upheavals in the Senate. This political instability allows these crimes to persist unchecked.

Social disruptions also contribute to the fragility of the state. Violence, kidnapping, and displacement lead to ethnic tensions and community fragmentation, thus, making it easier for criminal elements to thrive.

Cultural factors also play a part because, in some communities, those who profit from kidnapping are even celebrated, which encourages the practice.

How have bandit clashes affected the security landscape?

First, there is the escalation of violence. Bandit groups are growing in number, and their increasing wealth and influence over local populations are fuelling banditry. This puts immense strain on our security forces. Recently, we’ve seen an expansion of military bases, but this has stretched their capacity as they now face multiple threats on different fronts.

There has also been a shift in criminal dynamics. These bandits operate in smaller, loosely connected groups, making it difficult for authorities to dismantle them, prolonging the conflict. This has led to the rise of community vigilantes, especially in the northwest and north-central regions, where locals feel the government is not adequately protecting them. The result is a more weaponised society.

Bandit clashes have also caused widespread displacement, creating a humanitarian crisis that has a devastating impact on food security. Farmers can no longer access their land, and markets have become unsafe.

As a result, agricultural production has plummeted, threatening the nation’s food security and livelihoods.

Additionally, the situation has political ramifications. Banditry is becoming increasingly politicised, further destabilising the northern region and threatening broader regional stability.

How do you assess the current security strategy deployed in handling kidnappings, banditry, and insurgency?

The fact that these issues persist makes it difficult to claim that the government’s current security strategy is succeeding. The key question is what exactly is the strategy? The government has not clearly outlined or communicated any specific plan they are following. If you look at the federal government, there seems to be no clear direction in their approach, and the same applies to many state governments. The strategy is, at best, unclear.

For example, we know the police have created a new tactical squad to address kidnappings, but there is no widespread information about this squad’s deployment.

Whether they are only in Abuja or other parts of the country remains uncertain. There’s a lack of transparency around the government’s policy framework at the federal level, leaving us unsure of what exactly they are doing.

Moreover, there is no proper mechanism to measure the effectiveness of any campaigns or measures currently in place.

When you engage with security agents, they often complain about inadequate resources, both in terms of equipment and welfare. This hinders their effectiveness significantly. Community engagement is almost non-existent, largely because there is no grand strategy. Without a clear plan, it’s difficult to involve communities in the security process, which is crucial for success.

One of the biggest issues is the lack of coordination among security agencies. While there have been some recent improvements, it’s still far from adequate. In some cases, there have even been reports of security agencies working against each other, which makes success difficult to achieve. Additionally, concerns over human rights abuses by certain security departments, and the poor public perception of these agencies, further complicate matters.

The adaptability of the security forces is also lacking; while the criminals are evolving and adapting to their environment, our security forces are not keeping pace.

We’ve seen the emergence of various armed groups across the country, from bandits in the North-West to separatist movements in the South-East. How do you think these issues are interconnected, and what’s driving the fragmentation?

One major factor is governance—or rather, the lack of it. The inefficiency of governance has played a significant role in the rise of these armed groups.

Other contributing factors include economic hardship and social fragmentation. Our society is deeply divided, and this division fuels the growth of these groups.

Access to weapons also plays a critical role. The easier it is for these groups to acquire arms, the more powerful and emboldened they become. Additionally, the failure of public security and law enforcement to address these issues has allowed these groups to flourish. Historical and cultural grievances, along with political manipulation, also play a part in this fragmentation.

The intergenerational gap between the elders and the youths has also contributed to the rise of these groups. There is little to no connection between these two groups, with youths often excluded from decision-making committees. Similarly, the lack of empowerment for women is a contributing factor. Lastly, the failure of peace-building initiatives at both federal and state levels has exacerbated the problem. All of these factors combine to fuel the proliferation of non-state armed groups across the country.

What specific reforms do you think are necessary to overhaul the security architecture in Nigeria?

We need to re-examine our security sector and work towards democratising it. This means ensuring that the security sector is accountable to Nigerians. Currently, the level of accountability—both operational and financial—is almost non-existent. Until we improve accountability to the point where sanctions are enforced when necessary, it will be difficult to see meaningful change.

Take, for instance, the ongoing issue of oil theft. OPEC data shows that Nigeria is producing 1.32 million barrels of oil per day, even though our quota is about 2.2 million. Despite this shortfall, no one has been held accountable. Vessels come into Nigeria, and steal millions of litres of oil, and yet, no one is made responsible. We have multiple platforms and security agencies monitoring this, but accountability is lacking. Until we address this, we won’t achieve the security sector overhaul we need.

Another area requiring reform is the integration of federal and state security approaches. Currently, these approaches are not aligned, leading to disjointed efforts between agencies. We also need to strengthen law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

This system has three key components – law enforcement, the judiciary, and custodial centres. Each of these needs to be bolstered so that, when a crime is committed, the criminal is arrested, prosecuted, and then dealt with properly in custodial centres.

Community policing initiatives must also be enhanced, with increased local engagement and improved feedback mechanisms. Intelligence sharing and coordination are critical, and so is the accountability, both financial and operational, that I mentioned earlier. Additionally, we need to focus on youth and community engagement, ensuring greater involvement.

We must also evolve or strengthen our counterterrorism, anti-insurgency, and anti-banditry strategies where necessary. One of the more controversial but necessary reforms is the decentralisation of security powers. I believe security powers need to be decentralised, either at the regional or state level.

The current system isn’t effective, and we cannot continue like this. Local security committees, with the involvement of traditional rulers, should be considered. Public awareness and education are also crucial—every Nigerian needs to understand their role in maintaining security.

Do you believe the decentralisation of policing would be effective in tackling the challenges?

I was careful not to mention “policing” directly—I said decentralisation of security powers. There’s a difference. There are many reforms needed before we can decentralise policing, particularly in strengthening democratic principles at the state level.

Look at what’s happening in Rivers State, for instance. If one party had access to state police, it could have resulted in significant issues. So, before we can discuss decentralising policing, we need to ensure democracy is properly strengthened at the state level.

However, I do support the decentralisation of security powers. For example, local security committees could be created, as is already the case in some communities where traditional rulers have security committees in place. This system could be made more effective with enhanced collaboration between various stakeholders, especially traditional rulers, who currently have little involvement in security matters.

There’s no reason why an Assistant Inspector General at the regional level shouldn’t have the authority to make certain decisions without needing to refer back to the Inspector General for every action.

This could involve administrative or other powers. This is the kind of decentralisation I envision—not necessarily the immediate creation of state police.

There have been talks about improving intelligence gathering to combat insecurity. What improvements would you recommend in intelligence sharing between security agencies?

First and foremost, we need to reduce the distrust between security agencies. The coordinating body, particularly the Office of the National Security Adviser, has a major role to play in building trust and enhancing its capacity to understand the true nature of intelligence. The office should focus on its coordination role, avoid direct involvement in operations, and work on bridging the trust gap within the intelligence community.

Beyond that, collaboration needs to be strengthened through the creation of platforms like an intelligence fusion centre. The embrace of technology is also crucial—Artificial Intelligence can speed up the collection, processing, and dissemination of intelligence, making the whole process more efficient.

We also need robust intelligence-gathering networks that include local communities. Involving local people in intelligence gathering is key to getting timely information on potential threats. To achieve this, we must move away from a state-centric security model to a citizen-centric one. When citizens feel that security efforts are designed for their protection, they will be more willing to share valuable information with security agencies.

Do you think Nigeria’s security forces are well-equipped to handle the modern threats posed by banditry and terrorism?

I don’t believe they are adequately equipped. The equipment repository is alarmingly low, and multiple factors contribute to this. Corruption plays a role, as does the inefficiency of our procurement processes. Furthermore, there’s the issue of interoperability—different platforms and equipment have been acquired, but their ability to work together is almost non-existent.

What role can private security firms play in supplementing national security efforts, especially in terms of training and intelligence?

There are clear gaps within the public security framework, and private security firms can step in to fill those gaps. One striking example is the case of Tantita and the oil theft issue. Although I have concerns about the transparency in how the contract was awarded, it demonstrates how private firms can make a significant impact. If more competent private companies were transparently engaged, they could play a substantial role in bolstering public security efforts.

Private security companies can also contribute through their extensive intelligence networks. There are over 10 million employees in the private security sector in Nigeria—imagine the intelligence potential if the Ministry of Interior harnesses this vast human resource. It could significantly bolster the intelligence available to public security agencies.

Additionally, private security firms, such as Beacon, have access to technology and tools that even surpass those of public security organisations. This technology, along with human resources, can greatly enhance intelligence gathering and dissemination. For instance, in the Russian Civil War, private security firms played a pivotal role in supporting public security agencies with intelligence. Nigeria could benefit from a similar model.

Moreover, private security companies can invest in research and development, and procure advanced technologies to further assist in public security functions.

How can technology be better leveraged to tackle insecurity in Nigeria, particularly in rural areas where state presence is minimal?

Technology is a force multiplier, particularly when resources such as manpower and funding are insufficient. It can support basic security operations as well as more advanced ones, like AI-driven modelling of security interventions. For instance, AI can help you understand the environment before deploying security measures.

Technology can also assist in mobilising communities by helping to design and introduce self-help or security support programmes to key stakeholders, such as traditional rulers, who can then pass these initiatives down to their communities.

In terms of surveillance, drones are now available to enhance surveillance capabilities. CCTV, enhanced with AI that can recognise faces and features, can feed real-time information to security platforms that can then be activated. Essentially, technology acts as a force multiplier in all aspects of security.

How has insecurity affected economic growth, particularly in regions heavily affected by banditry and insurgency?

The relationship between security and economic development is very close—you can’t have one without the other. Economic activities depend on security. If you look at Zamfara State, for example, economic activity has almost come to a halt. Markets have been shut down, and people can no longer trade. Some of these markets, which used to be international hubs, are no longer functional.

In agriculture, which is the mainstay of most regional economies, insecurity has had a devastating effect. Infrastructure, such as power installations, has also been attacked, further crippling economic growth. Companies are unable to operate, unemployment is rising, and the general economic situation continues to deteriorate. Where insecurity persists, economic development is bound to decline.

What strategies can be implemented to ensure that economic recovery goes hand in hand with improved security?

The first strategy is recognising the close relationship between security and economic activity. Every security intervention must aim to support and enable economic activities, not disrupt them. For instance, shutting down markets or banning GSM telecommunications during military operations only worsens the economic situation and allows criminals to exploit the grievances of affected communities.

Secondly, we must address the root causes of insecurity, which are often economic in nature—poverty, unemployment, and the marginalisation of women and youth. If these issues are not addressed, it will be impossible to improve security. The youth bulge, lack of skills, and even the effects of climate change, such as desertification and the shrinking of Lake Chad, must all be factored into our security strategies.

What role do you think local communities and traditional leaders can play in addressing banditry and reducing attacks in rural areas?

Traditional rulers are very close to their communities and are aware of any changes or disruptions within them. In Kaduna State, for example, a traditional ruler established committees to monitor and address youth behaviour. They were able to intervene with deviant youths before they could be recruited by criminal elements, rehabilitating them through family and community support.

If such initiatives were replicated across the country, traditional rulers could play a significant role in monitoring their communities and preventing crime. At a broader level, these committees could also encourage economic activity, further stabilising the community.

With bandit groups increasingly using ransom payments to fund their operations, what alternative strategies can the government employ to weaken their financial bases?

Many financial transactions today are governed by the cashless policy, but enforcement is lacking. For instance, I once received a message claiming that one of my contacts needed financial help, asking for payment into a specific account. The ease with which criminals exploit our banking system for ransom payments is alarming.

The regulatory framework in our financial sector must be strengthened, especially in the formal banking system. Several banks that allow such transactions are inadequately regulated. By improving enforcement and monitoring, we can make it much harder for criminals to collect ransoms, and without easy access to funds, their operations will collapse.

Given the persistent nature of insecurity in the country, what is your long-term prognosis for Nigeria’s security situation?

Unless we take deliberate steps to reverse the current situation, Nigeria is heading towards further fragility. According to the State Fragility Index, Nigeria ranks between 14th and 15th out of over 100 countries—this is largely due to insecurity. If this trend continues, the country could deteriorate into a collapsed state. The consequences of ongoing insecurity are real, and without intervention, things are likely to worsen.

The first priority should be accountability within the security sector. Those who fail in their duties must be held accountable, whether through dismissal, reassignment, or prosecution. Second, there should be mechanisms for enhancing dialogue within local communities so that the people feel involved in security policies. Third, security needs to be decentralised, allowing regional and state-level components to have greater control over security measures.

Proper funding for security is also essential, but it must be tied to accountability to prevent funds from being siphoned off. Finally, the underlying drivers of insecurity, such as poverty and unemployment, need to be addressed through targeted economic and political policies.

How would you evaluate the role of international partners and organisations in helping Nigeria address its security challenges? What areas of support are most critical right now?

Nigeria needs support from international partners in areas like weapon acquisition, as our capacity to produce arms domestically is very low. However, our partners, particularly the United States, have hesitated to provide certain weapons due to concerns over human rights abuses. Therefore, improving our human rights record and the rule of law is essential.

International partners can also help by providing oversight, supporting security sector reform, and helping to address abuses within the system. They can assist with capacity building and the adoption of technologies like AI, which would greatly enhance Nigeria’s ability to tackle its security challenges.