‘There is God o!’ – Insecurity: Gaslighting as State Policy

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Definition of Gaslighting 

‘Gaslighting’ has become the order of the day in public life, shifting from just being a form of emotional abuse in domestic settings, to governance. While there is no universal definition of gaslighting, it involves falsehood and appears to be a form of manipulation, denial, trivialisation or outright lies by one party (the ‘Blamor’) to mislead the other party, and if the matter is blameworthy, unfairly shifting the blame to the other party (the ‘Blamee’), thereby making the Blamee question themselves, believing that they may truly be to blame, or that they got the facts wrong, or, at times, even questioning their own sanity. 

So, for instance in a domestic setting, the Husband, X (Blamor) who has had a drinking problem in the past, starts coming home late from work; Y, his wife (Blamee) smells alcohol on X, tells him she’s noticed that he’s started drinking again; X denies it, says he has been working late on an office project, and that Y is paranoid, imagining things, and must have smelt her perfume instead. And, because of X’s vehemence in refusal, Y starts to doubt herself – did she really smell alcohol? Is she being paranoid? Is she being unnecessarily suspicious? X gaslights Y by denying the reality (lying), attacking her credibility and effectively shifting the blame from himself onto Y by making her look unnecessarily suspicious and paranoid (diversionary/delay tactic.).

Gaslighting in Litigation 

Ironically, gaslighting-like tactics may be part and parcel of our legal profession, particularly in litigation, as litigants are always pitched against themselves, holding on to polarised positions on the same subject-matter. 

Recently, I read in the news that in the sad case of the death of author, Chimamanda Adichie’s son, Nkanu, their Counsel, in arguing that the Coroner’s Inquest should be adjourned to a definite date for report and not ‘sine die’ (without a date; indefinitely) as the Magistrate Coroner did, so that the judicial review application can be taken by the High Court, Adichie-Esege Family Counsel was reported in the news to have said: “He who is innocent, does not fear an open inquest”. Though this is true, it smacks of gaslighting, as the Blamor (Adichie-Esege Family Counsel) appears have weaponised public sympathy to deflect from evidentiary weaknesses. A suitable response from the Blamee (Euracare’s Counsel) could however, have been: “He who is innocent does not fear an open inquest, by destroying key evidence”! After all, what is good for the goose, is certainly excellent for the gander. 

In this circumstance, gaslighting seems to be the deflection from the seriousness of cremation/destruction of evidence criminalised by Section 48(1) of the Coroners’ System Law of Lagos State 2007, which in the first place is the basis of the application for judicial review, while appearing to lay emphasis on the application as some form of diversionary tactic.

Gaslighting in Governance 

Gaslighting in governance or State Gaslighting, is the State as the Blamor, manipulating, denying, deflecting, distorting or minimising facts that are a reality, thereby eroding public trust and psychologically abusing the Blamee, which in this case, is the public. For instance, Nigerians are complaining of economic hardship, while the Government claims that the economy is improving and things are getting better, attempting to create an impression that the people may be exaggerating their condition, and may not know what they are saying. This creates confusion, as official statistics which tend to contradict everyday realities are used. After all, in 2018, during the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, Nigeria was declared to be the poverty capital of the world; but, today, the Tinubu administration can insist there’s an improvement, as Nigeria appears to have moved up about three notches on the poverty index, and Government keeps repeating the mantra that, in a period of rebuilding, there’s sacrifice, hardship and pain. 

State gaslighting can also occur when Government exaggerates minor successes, while ignoring major omissions or failures, or deflecting from other issues related thereto. The removal of the corrupt fuel subsidy regime and the unification of the foreign exchange rates, are regularly cited as successes of the Tinubu administration, while the negative effect on Nigerians of the inflation caused by the removal of the subsidy, is almost ignored, and simultaneously, Politicians/Government Officials live lavish lifestyles on scarce State resources. 

Gaslighting in governance rewrites the narrative, contradicting realities, and can be damaging to democracy. It discourages accountability, because if there’s no problem as the State may falsely seek to maintain, there’s no need for a solution. So, in effect, a lethal combination of State gaslighting and the non-justiciability of Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) – see Section 6(6)(c) thereof, leads to a gross lack of accountability and a very frail State.

Security Gaslighting 

But, the truth is that, State gaslighting is not new to governments all over the world; and so, it has always been an active part of the Fourth Republic, particularly with regard to the problem of insecurity.

1) Obasanjo Administration 

Following the killing of about 10 Policemen by Youths of Odi Bayelsa State in November 1999, in the early days of the tenure of President Olusegun Obsanjo, GCFR, the military response, ‘Operation Hakuri’, which followed, razed the town, killing hundreds of innocent civilians, if not more. The Government/Military justified their actions in the guise of targeting criminals who ambushed security. agents and the fight against oil bunkering, while minimising/denying the excessive force used by the soldiers and human rights abuses; there was a lack of accountability.

2) Yar’Adua Administration 

The extra-judicial killing of the leader of the Boko Haram group, Mohammed Yusuf, by the Police in July 2009 during the administration of President Umaru Yar’Adua, is said to be a contributing factor to the escalation and spread of Boko Haram’s terrorism, including their quest  for revenge. 

The initial claims by the Police, about how Yusuf died, first, allegedly in a shoot out while trying to escape, proved to be an outright lie, gaslighting, as Nigerians saw the video of how he was executed as he was alighting from a van. 

President Yar’Adua, in fairness to him, ordered a probe into the matter for the sake of accountability, but unfortunately, he didn’t live long enough for anything to come out of it. Though Boko Haram had showed violent tendencies before the 2009 extra-judicial killing, the incident amplified it. 

To date, some of the more reasonable underlying reasons for the grievances of Boko Haram such as poverty, unemployment and corruption, not only remain unaddressed by the State, they persist, and the group has since metamorphosed into a full-blown criminal, vicious killing and kidnapping machine. 

3)  Jonathan Administration 

The administration of President Goodluck Jonathan, GCFR, was accused of gaslighting the people, by minimising the threat level of Boko Haram. Though they did take some steps, such as declaring a state of emergency in three States in the Northeast in 2013, namely Borno, Yobe and Adamawa (see Sections 14(2)(b) & 305 of the Constitution), and also employed the services of foreign military contractors, some still argued that the steps were reactionary when they should have been proactive or preventive, if not for the initial downplay.   

4) Buhari Administration 

The failure of successive administrations to address the aforementioned underlying causes of violence and insecurity in society, while failing to handle Boko Haram decisively, also opened the doors for other violent groups to come onto the Nigerian scene. 

The issue of his stand against corruption and the increasing  insecurity, were the main reasons adduced for electing President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, who Nigerians believed would do better in the fight against corruption and the area of security, being a seasoned soldier. Alas! This wasn’t to be. 

The Buhari administration gaslighted Nigerians by claiming to have ‘technically defeated’ Boko Haram, thereby attempting to make Nigerians doubt the severity of insecurity. The foreign contractors engaged by the Jonathan administration, were terminated. Some argued that Herdsmen attacks were also treated by the Buhari administration, with kidgloves. The term ‘Banditry’ was popularised, and even though it may be stronger than simple theft, it is a few notches less than terrorism. However, the Boko Haram attacks continued, with its offshoot, ISWAP and even Al Shabab joining, while the Herder attacks, which were minimised/downplayed to Farmer-Herder clashes, also escalated – see State v Haruna Usman Judgement delivered on May 8, 2017, per Nasiru Ajanah J. (CJ, Kogi State as he then was); SC/CR/1026/2022 Sunday Jackson v The State Judgement delivered on March 7, 2025 per Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC (Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC Dissenting).

According ACLED statistics, more than a couple of thousand terrorist attacks occurred in Nigeria between 2015 and 2023, including the 2018 Dapchi girls kidnapping; the 2019 Presidential election day attacks in Maiduguri, Borno State and Geidam, Yobe State; the March 2022 Kaduna-Abuja train attack leaving about 8 people dead and 60 hostages; the May 2022 Rann Town, Borno State Boko Haram attack leaving up 50 people dead; the St Francis Xavier Catholic Church, Owo attack in June 2022 leaving 40 dead and many others injured and the ISWAP July 2022 Kuje Prison break, freeing over 800 inmates. 

5) Tinubu Administration 

The Tinubu administration, even though it appears to be putting in some effort to fight terrorism by tweaking the security apparatus, deploying more personnel, working with the Americans, there is a lot more to be done. The pupils and students kidnapped in Oyo and Borno have been in captivity since May 15, while one of the Oyo teachers, Mr Michael Oyedokun was brutally murdered by the terrorists. Terrorism appears to have spread into the Southwest that hitherto, was ‘safe’.

I’m not sure that the usual State gaslighting ‘things are improving’ narrative, or the Minister of Defence giving their administration a generous 65%-70% pass mark in security, this time around, is convincing. People are able to see what is going on in real time, as videos spring up on social media regularly showing different violent incidents, the most recent and gory being the murder of soldiers in Borno State. 

Conclusion

While placing the entire blame of Nigeria’s decades-long insecurity crisis squarely on the shoulders of President Tinubu and his administration would be unfair, the buck inevitably stops at his table, being the incumbent. However, less politicking and premature campaigning are required now, which to tell the truth, at the moment come across as being rather insensitive, when toddlers are in the captivity of cruel and ruthless terrorists. While we rejoice with the family of the former Minister of Power, the Adelabus, on the safe return of their family members, how come they could be rescued in a short timeframe, while toddlers in a such dangerous situation, proven and confirmed by the fact that their Teacher was beheaded, have been languishing in the forest for 4 weeks? 

Today, many recall with fondness, former First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan breaking down in tears, and her now famous words in pidgin English, which have become a household way of expression of anguish when something bad occurs: “There is God o! The bloods we are sharing, there is God o!”, because of her expression of frustration when the Chibok Girls were kidnapped in 2014.

Nigeria urgently requires less State gaslighting – fewer denials, minimisations, deflections, manipulation of narratives, and far more decisive actions to fight insecurity. While the Tinubu administration may be exerting more effort than some of its predecessors to fight insecurity, particularly its immediate predecessor, rejigging the security architecture and seeking international partnerships, the results appear to be inadequate in the face of the daily atrocities that Nigerians are facing, even in previously safer zones. It is also troubling that a significant number of local collaborators and regrettably, some traditional leaders, are assisting these violent terrorists, whether as active members of their gangs and/or for financial gain.

Technology-driven solutions, are available. Satellites can be deployed to monitor forests and borders, drones for schools, by both Federal and State Governments, even subscribing to broad-area monitoring platforms, costs going up to maybe $100,000 per annum. This is a small price to pay, and can easily be drawn from State security votes. Instead of Governors complaining that they have no control over the security agencies, they should invest in tools that do have control over, which is making use of technology, because by virtue of Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution, the security and welfare of the people within their States, is the primary purpose of their government. A former Governor once shared with me that, during the Yar’Adua administration, he obtained a waiver from President Yar’Adua, and imported arms and ammunition for the use of the Police in his own State, resulting in a considerable reduction the crime rate there.

If the Government is able to substantially reduce the level of insecurity in Nigeria, the people would be desperate to renew its mandate in 2027; campaign would be unnecessary, as the tangible improvements in the security and welfare of the people would be more than enough of a manifesto. After all, one never gets enough of a good thing!  Nevertheless, we cannot also engage in gaslighting, by ignoring or minimising the orchestrated escalation of violence across the country as the elections draw nearer, by enemies of the State to make this government even less popular.