By Isiaka Mustapha, Editor-in-Chief, People’s Security Monitor

The abduction of schoolchildren in Oyo State should have remained a painful reminder of Nigeria’s worsening security challenges and the urgent need for stronger protection of vulnerable communities. Instead, it has gradually evolved into a political controversy, with Governor Seyi Makinde’s handling of the incident attracting growing scrutiny from observers who believe the tragedy has been unnecessarily dragged into the nation’s political arena.

From the moment questions emerged over the circumstances surrounding the abduction, the governor appeared less interested in allowing security agencies to conclude their investigations and more focused on sustaining public suspicion. While every public official has a duty to seek answers when citizens are endangered, there is a line between demanding accountability and creating political narratives that may deepen public distrust in national institutions.

One of the most controversial aspects of the governor’s conduct was his repeated suggestion that there were unanswered questions surrounding the incident and the rescue efforts. Rather than reassuring anxious citizens and allowing investigators to do their work, his public interventions often appeared designed to keep controversy alive long after the victims had regained their freedom.

The decision to call for international involvement, including a United Nations-backed investigation, raised even more eyebrows. Critics questioned why a state governor would seek external intervention in a matter already under investigation by Nigerian security agencies. To many observers, the move appeared less like a quest for justice and more like an attempt to elevate a domestic security incident into an international political issue.

Even more troubling was the attempt by some political actors to link the abduction to broader political developments. By drawing attention to the timing of the incident in relation to his political ambitions, the governor inadvertently shifted the focus from the suffering of innocent victims to political speculation. Such comments fueled controversy and opened the door to interpretations that might otherwise never have arisen.

The establishment of a probe panel has further intensified concerns. While inquiries are legitimate instruments of accountability, their credibility depends largely on public confidence in their neutrality. In this case, many Nigerians are already questioning whether the panel was established primarily to uncover the truth or to validate pre-existing suspicions.

The danger of such an approach is obvious. Once a commission of inquiry is perceived as pursuing a predetermined conclusion, its findings become vulnerable to accusations of political bias. The public begins to view the process not as an impartial search for facts but as a platform for assigning blame.

There is also concern that the inquiry could be used to indirectly indict federal institutions. Whether justified or not, the perception exists that certain political interests are determined to portray the abduction as evidence of federal failure while downplaying the responsibilities of state authorities in local security coordination.

Such a narrative ignores the constitutional reality that security challenges in Nigeria require cooperation among all levels of government. Kidnappings, bandit attacks and terrorist incidents have occurred in states controlled by different political parties. No government can honestly claim immunity from the security crisis confronting the nation.

The victims of the abduction deserve answers, but they also deserve protection from political exploitation. Every statement, press conference and public intervention should have been guided primarily by their welfare rather than by the political implications of the tragedy.

Unfortunately, the public conversation increasingly shifted away from the victims and toward political disagreements. What should have been a united effort to strengthen school security became another battleground in Nigeria’s highly polarised political environment.

The governor’s critics argue that if the same level of energy devoted to sustaining public controversy had been invested in preventive security measures, intelligence gathering and rural surveillance, the debate today might be about security improvements rather than political accusations.

Many Nigerians are also asking a simple question: what practical security outcomes have emerged from the prolonged controversy? Beyond headlines, press statements and political exchanges, citizens want to know what concrete reforms have been implemented to prevent a recurrence.

A tragedy of this magnitude should never become a tool for political advantage. Public officials must be careful not to create the impression that national security incidents are opportunities to score points against political opponents or rival institutions.

The real challenge facing Oyo State is not the creation of more controversy but the restoration of public confidence. Parents want assurances that schools are safe. Communities want stronger security. Citizens want effective governance. These concerns are far more important than political narratives.

Ultimately, history will judge the handling of the Oyo abduction not by the number of panels constituted or statements issued, but by whether the lessons learned translate into safer schools, stronger security coordination and greater protection for ordinary Nigerians. Anything less would amount to a disservice to the victims whose suffering first brought the tragedy to national attention.

Isiaka Mustapha, writes from Abuja.

pressgallery2013@gmail.com

08055001816