Allegations Trail Federal Government’s Handling of Insecurity as Tribalism Debate Deepens

A few weeks after reports emerged that the Tinubu-led administration paid about $9 million to a Washington-based right-wing lobbying firm, fresh controversy has arisen over claims that Nigeria’s worsening insecurity is being framed along ethnic lines.

Critics allege that the Federal Government is gradually turning the country’s security challenges into an issue of tribalism, a pattern they argue has characterized responses to other national matters. The claims have sparked heated debates on social media and among political observers, with many warning that ethnicising insecurity could further divide the country and weaken national unity.

Adding to the controversy, a report attributed to the New York Times has been cited in public discussions, alleging that the United States relied on information and reports from Emeka Umeagbalasi, described by critics as a screwdriver trader based in Onitsha, in making decisions that led to air strikes in Nigeria. The claim has generated widespread reactions, with questions being raised about intelligence credibility, sources of information, and the broader implications for Nigeria’s sovereignty and security architecture.

While no official response has been issued by the Federal Government or US authorities to address these specific allegations, analysts say the situation highlights growing public distrust in how insecurity is being managed and communicated. They warn that politicising or ethnicising security issues could undermine genuine efforts to tackle terrorism, banditry, and violent crime across the country.

As debates continue, stakeholders are calling for transparency, credible intelligence processes, and a unified national approach to security that prioritises safety over politics or ethnicity.