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

Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election must not become another contest in which anger, political recriminations, personality clashes, ethnic calculations, defections and other peripheral issues drown out the most fundamental responsibility of government: the protection of lives and property. The central question before every presidential candidate should be straightforward: how will you make Nigerians safer? Security should not be a footnote buried somewhere in a manifesto; it should be a cardinal pillar around which every serious presidential campaign is constructed. Without security, there can be no sustainable economic growth, meaningful investment, productive agriculture, functional education or enduring national development.

The statistics confronting Nigeria are too disturbing to permit political trivialisation. According to a recent SBM Intelligence assessment reported by Reuters, 7,825 Nigerians were kidnapped between July 2025 and June 2026, representing a 66 per cent increase over the preceding year. At least 1,142 people were killed, while confirmed ransom payments exceeded ₦7.78 billion, equivalent to about $5.79 million. SBM described its figures as conservative because many incidents and ransom payments are never reported. These are not merely statistics for a security report; each number represents a human being, a family, a community and, in many cases, a livelihood destroyed by criminality.

The scale of the crisis makes the emerging tendency to commence presidential campaigns around political anger and peripheral controversies particularly troubling. Nigerians certainly have legitimate grievances over inflation, unemployment, poverty, corruption, political exclusion and the cost of living. But a presidential campaign that is dominated by anger without a corresponding, detailed security blueprint risks addressing the symptoms of national frustration while neglecting one of the conditions that makes virtually every other problem harder to solve. Political candidates should therefore resist the temptation to mobilise voters principally through resentment and instead compete on practical solutions to the dangers confronting citizens.

Recent events provide an unmistakable warning. In August 2026, attacks in Niger State resulted in a mass abduction in which residents and officials reported hundreds of people taken hostage, while about 30 people were reportedly killed and roughly 2,000 others fled towards neighbouring Benin Republic. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu ordered security agencies to rescue the victims. Whether the precise number of abductees is ultimately revised or confirmed, the incident demonstrates the extraordinary capacity of armed groups to attack vulnerable communities and move large numbers of civilians into difficult terrain. A country facing such threats cannot afford a presidential campaign in which security is treated as political decoration.

The crisis is also becoming a direct threat to Nigeria’s economic future. Businesses require safe roads, farmers require secure access to their fields, children require safe schools and investors require confidence that their personnel and assets can operate without being exposed to unacceptable risks. The Central Bank of Nigeria’s April 2026 Business Expectations Survey, covering about 1,900 businesses, identified insecurity as the biggest operational challenge, scoring 74.1 points. That finding should command the attention of every presidential aspirant because it demonstrates that insecurity is not simply a northern problem, a rural problem or a military problem, but a national economic problem.

The presidential candidates must therefore tell Nigerians precisely what they intend to do differently from the present administration. President Tinubu’s government has already placed substantial emphasis on military operations, intelligence-led interventions, equipment, personnel welfare and security spending. The 2026 defence budget allocation was reported at ₦3.16 trillion, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The question for every challenger is consequently not whether Nigeria needs stronger security, because that is obvious. The real question is: what specific strategy will you introduce that the Tinubu administration has not implemented, and why should Nigerians believe it will produce better results?

This distinction is critical. It should no longer be acceptable for presidential candidates to write in their manifestoes that they will “fight insecurity,” “strengthen security agencies” or “protect Nigerians” without explaining how. Nigerians deserve to know whether a candidate will restructure intelligence coordination, expand community policing, improve border surveillance, strengthen the police, modernise military logistics, protect vulnerable highways, secure farms, disrupt kidnapping networks and improve the prosecution of terrorists, kidnappers and their financiers. A presidential manifesto must contain measurable commitments, not familiar political vocabulary.

The candidates should equally address the economics behind kidnapping. The reported ₦7.78 billion in ransom payments in one year shows that kidnapping has evolved into a lucrative criminal enterprise. Any candidate who claims to have a serious security strategy must explain how his or her government will dismantle the financial ecosystem sustaining the kidnapping industry. That means tracking ransom networks, identifying financiers and informants, improving intelligence penetration of criminal gangs, securing vulnerable communities and ensuring that rescued victims receive proper medical and psychological support. The objective cannot simply be to rescue hostages after they have been taken; government must develop the capacity to prevent the abductions in the first place.

There must also be a fundamental shift from reaction to prevention. Nigeria has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to deploy security personnel after attacks have occurred, but the recurring frequency of mass abductions raises questions about early warning, intelligence sharing and rapid response. A credible presidential candidate should explain how communities will be connected to national intelligence structures, how information from local residents will be processed and how security agencies will respond before criminal groups acquire the freedom to attack, abduct and retreat into forests and other difficult terrain.

Policing must occupy a central place in this debate. Nigeria cannot rely indefinitely on military deployments to perform every security function. The military has a constitutional role, but an effective internal security system requires a capable, adequately equipped and professionally managed police force, supported by intelligence and community cooperation. Presidential candidates should therefore publish concrete proposals on police recruitment, training, welfare, equipment, forensic investigation, technology, accountability and the relationship between federal, state and community security structures. Nigerians should be told how these reforms will be financed and when they will produce measurable improvements.

The candidates should also explain how they intend to deal with Nigeria’s porous borders and illicit weapons flows. Criminal gangs and terrorist organisations do not respect state boundaries, and insecurity in one part of the country can rapidly spill into neighbouring communities and states. The government therefore needs an integrated strategy involving border security, intelligence agencies, the military, police, customs authorities and neighbouring countries. Any manifesto that discusses security without addressing weapons trafficking, criminal networks and cross-border movement would be incomplete.

Security must also be connected to justice. Arresting suspects is not the end of the process. Nigerians need a justice system capable of investigating, prosecuting and convicting those responsible for terrorism, kidnapping, murder and organised criminality in accordance with the law. Candidates should tell the electorate how they will strengthen forensic investigation, improve the capacity of prosecutors, protect witnesses and prevent cases involving serious crimes from collapsing because of weak investigations or procedural failures. Criminals become emboldened when they believe that the probability of punishment is low.

At the same time, presidential candidates must avoid presenting security exclusively as a military problem. Poverty, unemployment, poor governance, weak institutions, illicit economies, environmental pressures and the absence of state authority in remote communities can create conditions in which criminal organisations flourish. This does not excuse criminality, but it means that military operations must be complemented by economic and social policies that restore legitimate livelihoods and state presence. A farmer who is unable to cultivate his land because of armed attacks is not merely a victim of insecurity; he is also part of Nigeria’s food-security crisis.

The Tinubu administration should itself be subjected to the same rigorous standard. Its defence spending, military operations and security initiatives should not be accepted simply because they are presented as government policy. The administration must demonstrate measurable outcomes. If billions of naira are allocated to security, Nigerians should be able to assess whether those resources are reducing kidnappings, protecting communities, improving intelligence and strengthening the capacity of security personnel. The government’s successes should be acknowledged where they occur, but failures should be interrogated without political sentiment. The same standard must apply to every opposition candidate.

The opposition, in particular, cannot build a presidential campaign entirely around anger against the incumbent. Criticism of the government is an essential part of democracy, but criticism becomes inadequate when it is not accompanied by credible alternatives. Candidates challenging President Tinubu should tell Nigerians exactly where they believe his security policy has failed, what they would retain, what they would abandon and what they would introduce. They should present timelines, funding mechanisms and performance targets. The electorate deserves a contest between competing solutions rather than a competition over who can express the greatest anger against the government.

The 2027 election should therefore become an opportunity to elevate the quality of political debate. Instead of allowing campaign conversations to be consumed by insults, accusations, personality battles and politically convenient controversies, Nigerians should demand that every presidential candidate answer a common set of security questions. How will you reduce kidnapping? How will you secure farms and highways? How will you protect schools and places of worship? How will you dismantle criminal financing? How will you strengthen the police? How will you improve intelligence? How will you protect Nigeria’s borders? How will you measure success? And, above all, what will you do differently from the present administration?

Nigeria cannot develop sustainably while citizens remain afraid of travelling, farming, attending school, worshipping, doing business or returning home after dark. The 2027 presidential election must therefore rise above anger and political theatrics and confront the country’s most consequential challenge with seriousness. With 7,825 people reportedly kidnapped in one year, at least 1,142 deaths recorded and billions of naira paid in ransom, the evidence demands a different kind of campaign. Security must be the foundation upon which every presidential manifesto is built not because other national problems are unimportant, but because without security, the promises of economic prosperity, food security, education, healthcare and national development will remain vulnerable to forces that can destroy them overnight. In 2027, Nigerians should not merely ask candidates what they will give them; they should first ask how they intend to keep them alive and safe.