NSA, DCI and Nigeria’s Image: A Critical Assessment of the Alleged $9 Million Lobbying Contract

By: Dr James Bwala

I read Dr Aboubakar Sani’s commentary regarding the alleged signing of a US$9 million (approximately ₦12.6 billion) contract by the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu. This contract signing was said to have been carried out through a legal firm, Aster Legal, for a lobbying company abroad named DCI. Although it was said that the objective of the contract signing is to improve Nigeria’s international image, many Nigerians see this as another waste of resources. This purported initiative has sparked intense criticism of the NSA and generated heated debate on many social media platforms and public discussions around the security situations. Most of these arguments were primarily centred on the question of whether investing heavily in international image management is appropriate, particularly at this time, or effective when juxtaposed against the persistent and deep-seated security challenges that Nigeria is facing at the moment. 

It is worrisome that the Nigerian government should be concentrating unequivocally on tackling the country’s deep-seated security problems and strengthening its security institutions instead of wasting huge public resources on lobbying contracts abroad to “whitewash” Nigeria’s image. Yet, a rigors scrutiny of the study of core themes like the root causes of Nigeria’s reputation challenges, accountability issues linked to the NSA and the broader political fallout for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu reveals the fallacies and dangers of placing primacy on image management over substantive governance reforms.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/unite-north-vp-shettimas-call-for-peace-and-unity-among-northern-communities/

The strongest and primary argument against the so-called contract is the undeniable fact that Nigeria’s real and urgent problem is its failing security situation. The country is still bedevilled by widespread violence, including unending killings, kidnappings, banditry, ethno-religious conflicts and terrorist attacks, among others, which cumulatively erode public safety and destabilise communities across several regions. This widespread insecurity directly impacts the global perception of Nigeria. This is not just about negative press or bad branding; Nigeria’s reputation is inextricably linked to its inability to guarantee the safety and security of its citizens. This thinking of millions of Nigerians who have seen these insecurity problems firsthand is echoed by countless analysts and citizens alike who suggest that any attempt to rehabilitate Nigeria’s global standing without actual improvements in security will be superficial and ultimately ineffective. Indeed, a country’s image in the international arena is a reflection of its internal realities. Consequently, substantive progress in the fight against insecurity would naturally boost Nigeria’s profile on the world stage far more than the expensive public relations campaigns or lobbying efforts the NSA is undertaking.

However, the focus on resource-intensive international image management projects could entrench the cycle of misplaced priorities within the national administration. No amount of public relations can make up for systemic failure of governance, especially in areas as critical as national security. The government’s decision to spend billions of naira on an external lobbying firm is a signal that it prefers a “cash and carry” solution, aimed at trying to polish up Nigeria’s image externally, while the “ailing security stand” internally is neglected. This is not only politically tone-deaf but also morally questionable, considering the human cost of insecurity, borne by millions of Nigerians whose lives and livelihoods are under constant threat.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/unite-north-vp-shettimas-call-for-peace-and-unity-among-northern-communities/

At the centre of the controversy is the role and the accountability of the national security adviser, Nuhu Ribadu. Now, many Nigerians are beginning to question his handling of the country’s security portfolio, especially in the wake of this alleged contract. There has been a growing demand from the public for greater transparency and scrutiny of how public funds are spent and whether such expenditures align with national security priorities. The lack of response or insufficient response to these concerns breeds suspicion about the administration’s real commitment to improving security. The contract negotiated through Aster Legal brings up important issues concerning fairness, the choice of consultants, and what the contract entails. The lack of official verification and the secrecy surrounding the contract’s nature and objective only deepen its ambiguity, leading to suspicions from both the public and political observers.

Political implications of the controversy go far beyond discussions related to budgets and governance of the relevant agencies. It seems that the operations conducted by the NSA, along with the entire governance process in the area of security in Nigeria, have become the subject for speculations concerning the political success of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the coming years. It is widely known that security-related issues have always played a decisive role in the political dynamics in Nigeria, shaping the attitude of the citizens towards those who govern. If the administration fails to deal with legitimate concerns of the population related to this matter, its political prospects may be severely damaged.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/unite-north-vp-shettimas-call-for-peace-and-unity-among-northern-communities/

One of the salient aspects of the discussions on this claimed agreement is the highly emotional and negative language used throughout. Calling out the “whitewashing of the image of Nigeria”, the “cash and carry judiciary”, and the “ailing security stand” clearly shows how deeply disappointed and distrustful observers are of the intentions and capabilities of the government’s initiatives. Although the effect of such language may be seen as a way to arouse public sentiment about issues at hand, there is the possibility that this type of discussion will only widen the gap in understanding complex government policy decisions.

But there is also an analysis of this story that brings out some of its deficiencies, especially those relating to evidence and logic. Many arguments made are made based on statements made by unnamed Nigerians, observers of the debate on the issue through social media networks, and other “others”. Some of the fundamental issues which the story does not address include the following: who is actually opposing the contract? Is there any evidence at all of negotiations or implementation of the contract? What is the profile and mandate of DCI? And has the government recognised the contract and its goals?

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/unite-north-vp-shettimas-call-for-peace-and-unity-among-northern-communities/

In fact, the argument creates a false choice by making it seem like the government has to pick between spending on security upgrades and work on its public image, as if they can’t both happen at the same time. In real life, governments usually use a variety of approaches that involve changing their security systems and also working on relationships and image building with other countries. Even though the size and timing of these efforts need to be carefully looked at, throwing out one method completely misses the complicated nature of how modern governments operate. Depending too much on what the majority thinks without any real evidence can make an argument seem strong, but it doesn’t actually prove that something is wrong or that a bad decision was made.

Some political predictions, like guesses about President Tinubu’s election chances or how different regions might react, are not very reliable. This makes the analysis less strong and not as helpful. Political predictions can be uncertain and sometimes help start conversations, but guesses without solid evidence should be clearly separated from real analysis to keep trust intact.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/unite-north-vp-shettimas-call-for-peace-and-unity-among-northern-communities/

The reported $9 million lobbying deal, supposedly signed by Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, has sparked a major discussion about what the government should focus on, especially during a serious national security situation. The most powerful and convincing part of the criticism is the main idea that dealing with Nigeria’s serious security problems is the key way to improve its standing in the world. Real, long-term improvements in the country’s security systems and how it’s run would naturally make Nigeria look better and increase its standing in the world, much more than spending a lot of money on trying to look good to others.

But the debate over the contract stresses transparency, accountability and evidence-based policy evaluation. Why? “… Despite the political significance of public dissatisfaction and its justifiable level of understanding, it must be accompanied by clear documentation and official clarity regarding government contracts, objectives, and expenditure decisions. Policymakers must consider multiple aspects of their approaches to ensure that legitimate security needs are prioritised while also acknowledging the importance of international diplomacy and image cultivation, as long as these efforts are strategically aligned and financially savvy.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/unite-north-vp-shettimas-call-for-peace-and-unity-among-northern-communities/

In the end, Nigerian officials must demonstrate that they prioritise the security and welfare of their citizens over superficial image concerns. Nigeria’s ability to regain confidence domestically and improve its standing and influence on the international stage requires a firm determination to address security issues on ground and not on paper.

* James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja.

NSA, DCI and Nigeria’s Image: A Critical Assessment of the Alleged $9 Million Lobbying Contract

Insecurity: “We negotiated released of 416 abducted women and Children from Ngoshe, not military rescue operations’ – Kaigama

By: Dr. James Bwala

Military strength and governmental authority often herald the release of abducted women and children in conflict zones. Official narratives typically emphasize the decisive role of security forces, portraying rescue operations in terms of tactical prowess and national resolve. However, the statement made by Samaila Ibrahim Kaigama, President of the Southern Borno Youth Alliance, challenges this conventional account with a claim that fundamentally redefines the nature of the recent release of 416 abducted individuals from Ngoshe in Southern Borno. 

According to Kaigama, there was no military rescue operation; instead, the liberation was the result of delicate negotiations spearheaded by his community-based alliance, and yet politicians and the military have unjustly claimed credit. This perspective demands careful consideration and underscores critical issues about information dissemination, the role of grassroots actors in conflict resolution, and the credibility of official accounts.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/insecurity-and-citizens-armaments-why-tinubu-and-shettima-should-not-ignore-the-red-lines/

The narrative presented by Kaigama reveals a vital reality often obscured by official state-centered stories: that negotiation and local agency are indispensable strategies in hostage situations and deserve far greater recognition and transparency than they currently receive.

The claim that “there was no rescue operation” directly contradicts widely reported accounts attributing the release to a successful military intervention. This contradiction is not merely a semantic dispute; it strikes at the heart of how security crises are framed politically and socially. Official reports often prioritize the image of a strong, capable military as the primary agent for restoring safety, thereby reinforcing public confidence in state institutions and justifying ongoing military expenditures and strategies. Yet, if negotiations conducted by local actors like the Southern Borno Youth Alliance were indeed instrumental in securing freedom for hundreds of abducted women and children, then the centrality of military operations becomes questionable. Recognizing this alternative narrative is essential to appreciating the full complexity of responses to terrorism and abduction in Nigeria’s northeast region.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/insecurity-and-citizens-armaments-why-tinubu-and-shettima-should-not-ignore-the-red-lines/

Kaigama’s statement also highlights the crucial but frequently overlooked role of community-based groups—such as the Southern Borno Youth Alliance—in navigating highly sensitive and dangerous situations. Unlike large-scale military operations, these groups often operate quietly within affected communities, leveraging trust, cultural knowledge, and personal relationships to establish dialogue channels with insurgents or kidnappers. Their involvement is vital because violent extremist groups frequently reject formal government overtures while remaining responsive to community intermediaries who share their linguistic, ethnic, or geographical backgrounds. The success of negotiations asserted by Kaigama demonstrates that grassroots actors can play an indispensable peacekeeping and life-saving role, which challenges the dominant security paradigm that marginalizes non-state efforts. Elevating such local actors’ contributions can foster more inclusive approaches to conflict resolution, build community resilience, and reduce reliance solely on military force.

In addition, the allegation that politicians and the military have taken undue credit for the release warrants serious scrutiny. This accusation points to a broader phenomenon wherein state officials and security agencies may engage in image management to bolster political legitimacy and public perception. Claiming responsibility for the safe return of abductees strengthens the state’s narrative of control and effectiveness, which can be critical in areas plagued by insecurity and skepticism toward authorities. However, appropriating credit without acknowledging the contributions of non-state negotiators risks eroding trust and alienating key stakeholders who are invested in peacebuilding efforts. Transparent recognition of all parties involved in resolving such crises is necessary to foster cooperation, encourage community participation, and ensure accountability. It is also ethically imperative to give due credit, especially when lives are saved through collective action rather than unilateral state action.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/insecurity-and-citizens-armaments-why-tinubu-and-shettima-should-not-ignore-the-red-lines/

The timing and circumstances described by Kaigama—that the Southern Borno Youth Alliance intervened when abductors were reportedly preparing to execute captives—add a moral dimension to their role. This statement portrays the group not only as negotiators but also as protectors who acted to prevent a massacre. Such positioning elevates their status from mere intermediaries to lifesaving agents, injecting urgency and gravity into their claims. The implication that without their intervention the captives would have been slaughtered challenges narratives that depict the military as the sole protector of civilians. This moral framing compels observers, policymakers, and the public to reconsider assumptions about control, agency, and the rightful holders of responsibility during crises. It also underscores that negotiation, often viewed as a sign of weakness or concession, can be a powerful and ethical means of preserving human life under extreme duress.

However, while Kaigama’s claims are compelling and illuminate important perspectives, it is essential to approach them with a measured epistemological stance. The statement as presented remains an allegation and must be distinguished from independently verified facts. To rigorously assess its accuracy, comprehensive fact-checking is required, involving cross-examination of official security reports, independent media investigations, and direct testimonies from released victims and their families. Evidence confirming the existence and details of negotiations, such as communications records or credible witness accounts, would be critical. Without such verification, the counter-narrative, although plausible and significant, should be reported responsibly and not conflated with established truth. This cautious approach maintains journalistic integrity and fosters informed public discourse while acknowledging the complexities inherent in conflict reporting.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/insecurity-and-citizens-armaments-why-tinubu-and-shettima-should-not-ignore-the-red-lines/

The communication strategy employed in the original statement effectively uses rhetorical techniques that merit examination for their influence on public perception. Phrases like “There was no rescue,” “What we did,” and “Let us not mislead Nigerians” employ direct contradiction, assertion of ownership, and moral admonition to challenge dominant narratives assertively. This strategy aims to reframe the discussion by appealing to transparency, justice, and communal pride. It is a powerful call to scrutinize official accounts and consider alternative realities shaped by local experience. Understanding this rhetorical framing is essential for analysts, journalists, and policymakers, as it reveals how stakeholder groups craft messages intended to shape narratives, gain legitimacy, and impact decision-making processes related to security and peace efforts.

The newsworthiness of Kaigama’s statement lies precisely in its capacity to unsettle the established narrative around military effectiveness and hostage release dynamics. By foregrounding negotiation over force, local agency over state monopoly, and potential misinformation over official messaging, the statement invites deeper investigation and debate. It raises urgent questions about the ethics of information control, the inclusivity of peacebuilding measures, and the recognition of all actors contributing to conflict resolution. These questions resonate beyond Nigeria’s borders, touching on global themes of counterinsurgency, human rights, and the politics of security communication. Consequently, responsible media outlets and policymakers must consider such claims seriously while maintaining rigorous standards of verification to avoid misinformation and propaganda.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/insecurity-and-citizens-armaments-why-tinubu-and-shettima-should-not-ignore-the-red-lines/

Samaila Ibrahim Kaigama’s statement concerning the release of abducted women and children from Ngoshe presents a persuasive challenge to the prevailing official narrative that credits military forces with rescue operations. His account emphasizes the central role of negotiation led by the Southern Borno Youth Alliance, the misappropriation of credit by political and military actors, and the moral urgency of their intervention to save lives. This perspective underscores the indispensable contributions of local actors in conflict resolution and calls for transparent acknowledgment of their efforts. 

While independent verification remains essential to substantiate these claims fully, the assertion itself invites critical reflection on how narratives of security are constructed and disseminated. Recognizing the multiplicity of actors and strategies involved in liberating hostages enriches understanding, promotes collaborative peace efforts, and ensures that the stories of those who truly make a difference are neither overlooked nor distorted. Thus, embracing such nuanced and inclusive accounts is crucial for advancing effective, ethical, and people-centered approaches to security challenges in Nigeria and beyond.

* James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja.

Insecurity: “We negotiated released of 416 abducted women and Children from Ngoshe, not military rescue operations’ – Kaigama

Insecurity and Citizens Armaments: Why Tinubu and Shettima should not ignore the red lines

By: Dr James Bwala

Citizens across the country may be falling into the trap – private armaments – heading towards new insecurity dimensions. That is what those fuelling the insecurity are expecting to happen, and Nigeria may be heading towards their prediction – to disintegrate. It did not happen in 2015 as expected, and the frustration grows even thicker. Insecurity in Nigeria has escalated to a perilous stage, according to certain reports in 2026, casting a long shadow over the nation’s quest for stability and development under the Tinubu and Kashim Shettima administration. The relentless surge in terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, and other violent crimes has sown widespread fear among Nigerians, eroding trust in the government’s capacity to safeguard its citizens. This erosion of confidence has inadvertently fuelled calls for self-defence through armed resistance—a development fraught with dangerous implications that could propel Nigeria towards widespread disorder. It is imperative to recognise that while the desire for safety is legitimate, advocating for civilian armament as a remedy threatens the fragile fabric of law and order, undermines state authority, and risks plunging the country into chaos.

The unsettling loss of faith in the institutions charged with protecting Nigerians sends a red signal. When individuals publicly proclaim slogans such as “Sell your properties and buy guns”, as advocated by Sheikh Muhammed Bello Aliyu Yabo following the turn of events in Sokoto, it starkly manifests the depths of their desperation and fear. This phrase is more than a mere expression; it is a distress signal from communities that feel abandoned by the state. Such sentiments underscore a profound disconnection between citizens and security agencies, signalling that the social contract—whereby the government guarantees security in exchange for civic obedience—is under severe strain. The implication that personal protection now requires private armament reveals the failure of conventional security mechanisms to provide timely and effective responses.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/kashim-shettima-understanding-farooq-kperogis-arguments-on-tinubus-2027-ticket/

Compounding this crisis is the politicisation of insecurity, which further deepens public mistrust and exacerbates the problem. For instance, political comments by the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio, suggesting that “insecurity will end after the 2027 elections” transform what should be treated as an immediate national emergency into a political talking point tied to electoral timelines. This rhetoric is not merely insensitive; it is dangerously dismissive of the lived realities of countless Nigerians who face daily threats to their lives and property. By framing security as a future promise contingent upon political change, leaders risk alienating the populace and perpetuating a climate of impunity where offenders operate with increasing audacity.

The observation that “terrorists are evolving faster than governments” by the ADC presidential candidate and former vice president, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, highlights a critical strategic imbalance in the ongoing fight against criminal networks and insurgent groups. These actors demonstrate a disturbing capacity to adapt rapidly, leveraging local terrain knowledge, technology, and social networks to evade and outmanoeuvre state forces. While this assertion might serve as a critique of governmental inefficiency, it also implicitly acknowledges the dynamic and sophisticated nature of contemporary security threats. The danger here is not solely tactical but symbolic: if citizens perceive their protectors as consistently outpaced and outmanoeuvred, their confidence will continue to deteriorate, fuelling the temptation to resort to self-help measures.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/kashim-shettima-understanding-farooq-kperogis-arguments-on-tinubus-2027-ticket/

Perhaps most alarming is the endorsement of armed self-defence by traditional authorities, encapsulated in calls to “acquire arms to defend yourselves” by Sarkin Kabin Argungu, Alhaji Muhammadu Sama’ila Mera. This development lends considerable weight to the narrative that state security apparatuses have faltered so gravely that even respected community leaders feel compelled to advocate for civilian armament. Such endorsements can legitimise the proliferation of unofficial armed groups and vigilante actions, eroding the monopoly on violence traditionally held by the state. While these leaders may be motivated by genuine concern for their communities, their encouragement of self-armament risks unravelling established legal and institutional frameworks, facilitating an environment ripe for lawlessness and inter-communal strife.

The acceptance of armed civilian resistance as a viable response to insecurity raises profound concerns about the potential for vigilantism and the emergence of unregulated militias. When citizens take up arms outside the remit of recognised authority, the boundaries between lawful defence and criminality become blurred. This ambiguity can precipitate cycles of violence, where retaliatory attacks and mistrust escalate conflicts rather than resolve them. Additionally, the existence of multiple armed actors with varying loyalties and objectives complicates efforts by state forces to enforce the rule of law, potentially leading to fragmented authority and contested governance across regions.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/kashim-shettima-understanding-farooq-kperogis-arguments-on-tinubus-2027-ticket/

Nigeria’s demographic and geopolitical context intensifies the gravity of these developments. Home to over 230 million people, the country is Africa’s most populous nation and wields considerable influence in the West African sub-region. Thus, deteriorating internal security carries ramifications beyond national borders, threatening regional stability and economic integration efforts. Spillover effects could manifest through increased refugee flows, cross-border crime, and the spread of violent extremism, which would complicate collective security arrangements and diplomatic relations within the region. The stakes, therefore, transcend domestic politics, positioning Nigeria’s insecurity crisis as a matter of continental concern.

Addressing this multifaceted challenge necessitates a comprehensive, coordinated, and urgently implemented strategy anchored in restoring public confidence in security institutions. Strengthening these institutions involves not only equipping and training security personnel but also reforming operational doctrines to prioritise community engagement, intelligence-led operations, and accountability mechanisms. Transparency and responsiveness must replace opacity and impunity to rebuild the trust that has been severely eroded. Moreover, addressing the root causes of insecurity—including poverty, unemployment, ethnic marginalisation, and governance deficits—is essential to curtailing the recruitment and support base of criminal and insurgent groups.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/kashim-shettima-understanding-farooq-kperogis-arguments-on-tinubus-2027-ticket/

Political leaders bear a special responsibility to depoliticise security issues and demonstrate commitment through concrete actions rather than rhetoric. Treating insecurity as a transient campaign issue or political bargaining chip fuels cynicism and undermines the prospects for sustainable solutions. Instead, security must be elevated as a non-negotiable national priority transcending partisan divides. Inclusive dialogue involving government, opposition, traditional authorities, civil society, and community representatives can foster shared ownership of security challenges and promote collaborative approaches grounded in mutual trust.

Crucially, discouraging the proliferation of unauthorised arms and resisting calls for armed civilian militias are imperative to preserving the state’s monopoly on legitimate force. While the impulse towards self-defence is understandable, endorsing it risks igniting cycles of violence that would further destabilise the country. Instead, enhancing community policing initiatives, promoting neighbourhood watch programmes under official supervision, and deploying rapid response units can provide safer alternatives that empower citizens without compromising legal norms.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/kashim-shettima-understanding-farooq-kperogis-arguments-on-tinubus-2027-ticket/

The current trajectory of insecurity in Nigeria is alarming and demands urgent, decisive intervention. The rise in public advocacy for armed resistance signals a breakdown in the foundational relationship between the state and its citizens—a relationship predicated on trust, protection, and the rule of law. Succumbing to the dangerous allure of civilian armament risks unmooring the nation from these principles, ushering in widespread disorder that could engulf entire regions and jeopardise the country’s future. 

To avert this outcome, Nigerian leadership, security agencies, and society at large must unite to restore confidence, reinforce institutional capacities, and address underlying grievances. Only through a holistic and inclusive approach can Nigeria hope to reclaim peace and security for all its citizens, safeguarding its sovereignty, and fulfilling its potential as a pillar of stability in Africa.

* James Bwala, PhD, is a security analyst and writes from Abuja.

Insecurity and Citizens Armaments: Why Tinubu and Shettima should not ignore the red lines