LEADERSHIP IN TIMES OF CRISIS
In the face of rising insecurity, President Tinubu is leading from the front, argues USMAN OLOWOLAYEMO
In moments of national uncertainty, leadership is not tested but revealed. For Nigeria, a country long burdened by cyclical security challenges, the weight of governance often rests heavily on the occupant of the presidency. Yet, in the face of rising insecurity and a chorus of critics, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has chosen not to retreat, but resolve. His recent declaration, that insecurity will not terminate his presidency, speaks not just to political defiance, but to a deeper, more enduring philosophy of leadership anchored on courage, conviction, and continuity.
Nigeria’s security landscape is undeniably complex. From insurgency in the North-East to banditry in the North-West and communal unrest in parts of the North-Central, particularly on the Plateau, the challenges are multi-layered and deeply rooted. These are not crises born overnight, nor are they amenable to simplistic, short-term solutions. They are the product of decades of structural imbalances, governance gaps, and, in some cases, deliberate destabilisation efforts by entrenched interests.
It is within this context that President Tinubu’s remarks must be understood. When he asserted that insecurity would not be used as a tool to force him out of office, he was not merely speaking as a politician preparing for re-election. He was articulating a broader resistance to a pattern, one where crises are amplified, politicised, and weaponised to undermine legitimate authority.
There is a long history, both in Nigeria and elsewhere, of political actors exploiting insecurity for strategic gain. Such tactics often involve magnifying failures, downplaying progress, and creating a narrative of helplessness around incumbent administrations. In Tinubu’s case, his suggestion that “agents” and “enemies” seek to leverage insecurity to destabilise his government reflects a recognition of this pattern. It is a warning that beyond the visible threats of violence, there are also invisible battles being fought in the realm of perception and political maneuvering.
Critics may argue that such statements deflect from the government’s responsibility to ensure security. But this interpretation misses a crucial point. Acknowledging the existence of politically motivated destabilisation does not absolve the state of its duties; rather, it underscores the need for a more nuanced and comprehensive response. Security, after all, is not just about boots on the ground, it is about intelligence, strategy, and the ability to anticipate and neutralise both physical and ideological threats.
What distinguishes Tinubu’s approach, however, is his refusal to be cowed by the enormity of the challenge. His self-description as a “stubborn politician” may, at first glance, seem flippant. But in reality, it conveys a critical leadership trait: resilience. In a country where public office holders often succumb to pressure, whether from political adversaries, public opinion, or systemic inertia, resilience becomes a vital currency.
This resilience is not without precedent. Tinubu’s political journey has been marked by sustained opposition, strategic recalibration, and eventual triumph. From his days as a pro-democracy activist to his tenure as governor of Lagos State and his role in shaping national political alignments, he has consistently demonstrated an ability to navigate adversity. It is this historical context that lends credibility to his current stance.
Moreover, his administration’s efforts to support security agencies should not be overlooked. While challenges persist, there is evidence of increased coordination among security forces, renewed investment in intelligence gathering, and attempts to address the socio-economic drivers of conflict. These efforts may not yield immediate, dramatic results, but they represent a shift towards a more holistic security framework.
Equally important is the President’s insistence on continuity. By declaring his intention to seek a second term, Tinubu is signaling that the work of governance cannot be truncated by crises. This is a significant departure from a political culture that often equates difficulty with failure. Instead, it reinforces the idea that complex problems require sustained engagement and long-term commitment.
There is also a psychological dimension to this posture. Leadership, particularly in times of crisis, is as much about perception as it is about policy. A leader who appears overwhelmed or uncertain can inadvertently embolden adversaries and erode public confidence. Conversely, a leader who projects determination and clarity can inspire resilience among citizens and signal strength to both domestic and external actors.
Tinubu’s message, therefore, serves multiple audiences. To his supporters, it is a reassurance that the administration remains focused and undeterred. To his critics, it is a challenge to engage constructively rather than exploitatively. And to those who may seek to destabilise the nation, it is a clear indication that their efforts will not achieve their intended outcome.
That said, rhetoric alone is insufficient. The true test of this leadership stance lies in its translation into tangible outcomes. Nigerians expect not just words, but results—safer communities, responsive institutions, and a clear roadmap for peace. The administration must continue to refine its strategies, deepen collaboration with state governments, and engage communities as active partners in security.
It is also imperative that the government addresses legitimate grievances that may fuel unrest. Issues such as unemployment, inequality, and perceived marginalisation cannot be ignored. They are the fertile ground upon which insecurity often thrives. A comprehensive approach to security must therefore integrate economic development, social inclusion, and justice.
Furthermore, the role of the opposition and civil society must be recalibrated. While criticism is a cornerstone of democracy, it must be grounded in good faith and a shared commitment to national stability. The politicisation of insecurity, if left unchecked, risks creating a cycle where governance is perpetually undermined, and progress remains elusive.
President Tinubu’s declaration is both a statement of intent and a call to action. It challenges Nigerians to look beyond the immediacy of crises and consider the broader implications of how they are addressed. It invites a rethinking of the relationship between politics and security, urging a shift from opportunism to responsibility.
Leadership is rarely about choosing the easy path. It is about standing firm when the odds are daunting, making difficult decisions, and maintaining focus amidst distraction. In asserting that insecurity will not end his presidency, Tinubu is staking a claim not just to political survival, but to a vision of governance that is resilient, determined, and forward-looking.
One thing is clear: in the face of adversity, the President has chosen to lead from the front, undeterred by the storms that seek to derail his course.
Olowolayemo writes from the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja
