FOR THE RECORD: NATIONAL SECURITY, STRATEGIC, LEADERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT: MY POLITICAL EXPERIENCE

I am truly delighted to be on the hallowed grounds of the prestigious Nigerian Defence College to deliver a lecture. I am aware that this is a privilege that should not be taken lightly, and so I consider it a great honour to be invited by the army high command to deliver this year’s lecture on such an important and sensitive topic that interrogates the burning issue of Leadership, National Security and Development.

May I, therefore, begin by extending my sincere gratitude to the Commandant of the Nigerian Defence College for finding me fit and worthy of the honour of delivering this all important lecture. Choosing me over many other eminently qualified Nigerians who could have given the lecture is equally flattering. To be so privileged to address senior military officers on a subject matter of national security and Strategic leadership is indeed a rare one. To deliver such a lecture at the prestigious hall of the famous National Defence College is an additional honour indeed. I am truly pleased and grateful for this special recognition.

Going by the theme for the participants of the Advanced Defence College Course 31 – “Building Resilience for National Security and Development” -, as well as the module for this lecture, which is “Policy, Strategy, Statecraft and National Security”, it is obvious that I cannot do justice to my topic without sufficiently addressing the issue of national security and its correlation with strategic leadership and development. Therefore, although my lecture topic, “Strategic Leadership, My Political experience”, may appear simplistic on the surface, it is actually deeper, conceptually. I will therefore, be leaving many questions unanswered if I am to  just speak on  “My Political experience” from “Strategic Leadership ”  or as the lecture topic has it ” Strategic Leadership, My political Experience”, without taking due cognizance of the larger picture of  “Policy, Strategy, Statecraft and National Security” or even the theme of ” Building Resilience for National Security and Development”

However, I am encouraged by the assurances in your invitation letter which offered me the latitude to amend the topic if necessary. You also drew my attention to the expected scope of the lecture. They include: (1) Strategic leadership in the political environment. (2) Challenges to effective leadership in Nigeria (3) Enhancing strategic leadership in governance & politics in Nigeria; a way forward (4) Reflections on my Strategic leadership. Therefore, my first task is to crave your indulgence to tinker with the lecture topic to make it more encompassing, so as to meet with your expectations. To this end, I wish to state that I shall be speaking on “NATIONAL SECURITY, STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT: MY POLITICAL EXPERIENCE”. Going forward, I promise to do my best to do justice to this simple, but intricate topic.

Now, to my topic. It appears logical to me that to do justice to my lecture topic I must first of all isolate and clarify the salient concepts that define both the overall theme and the lecture topic. This will include an attempt at defining national security, strategic leadership and a political environment. An unambiguous explication of these three salient concepts will go a long way in putting us on the same page for the lecture. We begin with the concept of national security. What does it mean? What are the empirical variables that define national security? How does national security impact on development, etc. These and more are what we shall try to unravel as we attempt to explain what national security is all about.

As I have already observed, national security and strategic leadership are at the centre of the theme for the Advanced Management Course 31 of this prestigious college. This is why I consider it expedient that we robustly interrogate the concept of national security to understand what it means and how it impacts on our resilience and strategic leadership options. An attempt to trace the historical origins of national security will take us to the Second World War II era in the United States of America.  At that time, national security was perceived solely as military strength. It was all about the ability of a nation to ward of military attacks. This, perhaps, explains the earlier impression that national security was all about protection against military attack. But over the years the concept has advanced beyond that narrow understanding to now include non-military aspects. The latest additions to the ingredients of National security menu now include the following: terrorism and natural disasters,   banditry and criminality, economic security, environmental security, energy security, food security and, more recently, cyber security. This is a more realistic admission that the security of a nation can be threatened by non-state actors and non-military actors as well, including sea pirates and drug cartels.

Going forward, a more comprehensive definition of national security must reflect a broader perspective of the responsibility of a nation or state to protect its sovereignty, its economy, its citizens and its institutions.

In this respect, the security of the citizens of a country can be seen to be a fundamental right to which every citizen is entitled. Achieving this is, to a great extent, the primary responsibility of government. This is the basis for the social contract that exists between the citizens and the government.

Be this as it may, let us now look at the several other attempts to define national security. As already noted, the earlier definitions given in the World War II era were synonymous with military strength. One of such narrow definitions of national security is that of Walter Lippmann, who in 1943 defined what  it means for a nation to  have security as follows:  “A nation has security when it does not have to sacrifice its legitimate interests to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by war.” . This is all about military might.

 A slightly broader definition was given in 1960 by Arnold Wolfers as “the absence of threats to acquired values and subjectively, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked.”

However, the definition of national security given by the National Defence College of India captures the recent thinking on the subject.  It declares that “National security is an appropriate and aggressive blend of political resilience and maturity, human resources, economic structure and capacity, technological competence, industrial base and availability of natural resources and finally the military might.” . Here we see the accommodation of other variables that can affect national security.  Of course, the threat of war, which requires military might is an essential variable but not the only one. These all encompassing definitions appear more pragmatic.

Yet  an even more recent definition by a renowned security expert, Paleri (2008) sees national security as the “measurable state of the capability of a nation to overcome the multi-dimensional threats to the apparent well-being of its people and its survival as a nation-state at any given time, by balancing all instruments of state policy through governance….”.

Paleri’s definition is unique and offers a more exhaustive menu on national security .It highlights the multi-dimensional nature of the threats to national security.

However, these broader definitions also draw attention to the ambiguous nature of the concept of national security. But such ambiguity can be simplified by looking at insecurity which is the exact opposite of security.

In this regard, a nation can be described as insecure when she lacks the ability and influence to forestall the protection and preservation of its nationals from being victims of different forms of disaster. Such disasters will include environmental disaster arising from internal and external attacks, social disorientation and dehumanization. It will also include economic hardships stemming from the interplay of domestic and foreign factors.

Also, insecurity can be caused by the activities of other states, for example, through military or cyber-attack, as well as the activities of violent non-state actors, such as terrorists and insurgency groups, organized gangs of criminals and natural disasters which are not external to the country. Obviously then, national security can only be achieved through a focused and responsible governance process. This means that the apparatus of state power as the sole and legitimate custodian of the instrumentality of firepower or violence is vital to the preservation, or otherwise, of national security. The point here is that the state or nation, as the only institution legitimately vested with the instrumentality of the monopoly of violence or firepower, must be seen as willing and able to exercise that power for the protection of all. Before we proceed to look at the meaning of the other concepts we have outlined, it will not be out of place to bring the concept of national security home by briefly looking at how it applies to the Nigerian state. Or better still, taking a brief but needful look at the national security challenges facing our dear country.

We all know that since her independence in 1960, the Nigerian state has witnessed a variety of threats to her security, with a different type of threat having the upper hand at various stages of her history. The first of these was the mother of all threats which was the civil war of 1967 to 1970. Shortly after, in the 1990s, were the threats of militancy in the oil-producing Niger Delta region of the country. This was propagated by ethnic minorities in the Niger Delta who were protesting the devastating impact of oil exploration activities by foreign oil corporations on their environment.

Currently, however, the country is faced with a variety of other political, religious and ethnic conflicts in addition to violent insurgencies, terrorism and armed banditry. These manifest as kidnappings for ransoms, assassinations, armed robberies and wanton destruction of people’s homes and property, thus creating a general feeling of fear and insecurity in the country.

So, our dear country is facing a variety of real national security threats as we speak. We shall return to this in detail at a later part of this lecture.

Let us now attempt to agree on what leadership and or strategic leadership is all about.  Doing justice to this will require starting from the basics, which is to understand what leadership is all about in the first place. Thereafter, we can look at strategic leadership and highlight the difference.

Simply put, leadership is the ability or capacity to guide or direct others to a desired goal. Leadership is about solving problems of a group or organization. It is about using established structures or rules to deliver the goals of an organization. As John Quincy Adam will say, “if your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more or do more and become more, then you are a leader”. Along these lines, Warren .G. Bennis sees leadership as ‘the capacity to translate vision into reality”.

Both definitions are saying the same thing- which is all about achieving set goals. Thus, using people to do more or making them become more practically, amounts to translating a vision into reality.

I am sure that as soldiers, the definition of leadership by the legendary United States’ General Collin Powell, will interest you more. According to him:-“Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership” Yes, leadership is all about solving problems, for the people or, for an organization.

Broader and more distinct definitions also abound. More importantly, they actually introduce us into the realm of strategic leadership. For instance, consider ROSELYN CARTER’S definition of leadership, to wit: “A leader takes people where they want to go. A good leader takes people where they don’t necessarily want to go, but ought to go”. As we can see, this definition has introduced a new element about leadership, which is, the ability of the leader to think for the people he is leading. That means that the leader serves as the compass that takes the people to a destination they may not have envisioned but will be glad they found themselves in. Let us also consider the thoughts of Max Lucado on Leadership which he likened to a man wanting to lead the orchestra. According to him, “A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the crowd”. This implies that leadership should be focused and not seek cheap applause from the crowd. In other words, the leader must constantly have his eyes firmly focused on the ball. Here again, the element of resolve and resilience in leadership is brought to the fore. These definitions bring us close enough to strategic leadership. Yet a similar submission from the famous American President, Abraham Lincoln, is worth visiting. Lincoln, obviously talking about strategic and visionary, leadership had this to say: “The most reliable way to predict the future is to create it”. This means that a leader must have the visionary prowess to create a future for the people – to plan and think ahead of the people. But, perhaps the statement about leadership that draws us closest to strategic leadership is the one from another former American President; John .F. Kennedy. According to him, “Leadership and learning are inseparable to each other”. This brings in the element of knowledge which the strategic leader must have in abundance. So what then is strategic leadership?

Strategic leadership is about leadership that is informed and willing and able to bring about transformation and change. It is about highly skilled and bold leadership that is ready to make change happen. Strategic leadership is about ability to develop and deploy strategic insights in decision – making that inspires dedication and support from everyone.

Such leadership must be bold and skilled. Equally, strategic leadership involves a series of insightful steps and processes designed to achieve a defined goal. Again, strategic leadership requires a more creative approach.

Aaron .K. Olson and Keith Simerson, authors of the book, “Leading with Strategic Thinking” identified three leadership styles that help drive strategy. Their classification is based on how a leader gains insight and drives change. The three styles are, Visionary, Directive and Collaborative.

According to Oslon and Simerson, THE VISIONARY leadership style is also a transformational strategic leadership style: This style can motivate and inspire large followership. However, leaders with this visionary attribute are usually controversial. People either hate them with passion or love them with passion. Nevertheless, they always stand with their convictions and are ever confident about their ideas. Such leaders have the capacity to find ingenious solutions and to ignore conventions outright. They dream higher and think higher.

On the other hand, DIRECTIVE leadership style is an autocratic style of leadership. The leader gives orders and expects full compliance from everyone. It is often considered anti-democratic. However, this style of leadership can galvanize a team and produce necessary results as quickly as possible.

I am sure that as military leaders, you are likely to be more at home with this style of leadership. As the authors observed, often military leaders use directive leadership styles to ensure discipline. It is believed that directive leadership styles may be more effective in crisis situations.

The COLLABORATIVE leadership style is a more populist style of leadership. It promotes communication, collaboration and creativity. This style of leadership builds trust with the team and is willing to share power with them. Thus, teamwork is the key in collaborative leadership style. It builds bridges between different groups, just as it engages the people in developing strategies for both the planning and implementation process.

I believe that a good strategic leader will have a bit of each of the three strategic leadership styles which we have just analyzed.

Be that as it may, in an attempt to find a broader definition, an Indonesian Journal of Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research defined strategic leadership as “that which is able to reduce problems in public institutions”. This is not far from the thinking of Francesca Sales Brain Holak, who sees strategic leadership as “a practice in which executives, using different styles of management, develop a vision for the organization that enables it to adapt to or remain competitive in a changing economic and technological climate”.

All said, what we can discern from all these definitions is that strategic leadership requires skill, vision, knowledge and courage. Perhaps, the best way to summarize it is that it is that brand of leadership that is able to think outside the box, do things elegantly and differently, and get excellent, transformational results.

Perhaps John .J. Pershing, had this in mind when he summarized strategic leadership this way: “a competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops; while on the contrary, an incompetent leader can demoralize the best of the troops”.

Since I am now in the domain of military literature, I might as well continue. Polybius, a great Greek Historian and Statesman had this to say about Strategic Leadership; “A good general not only sees the way to victory, he also knows when victory is impossible”. Let me draw the curtain on this treatise on leadership or if you will, strategic leadership, by drawing your attention to the ever green submission of John Kenneth Galbrath on the subject. According to Galbrath, “All of the great leaders have had one thing in common. It was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of the people in time. This and not much else is the essence of leadership”. In a recent bestselling book entitled “The Habit of Excellence, why the British Army Leadership Works”, Lt Colonel Langley Sharps makes a case that leadership never ends. He further argues that good leaders are often good followers and must have a lifelong responsibility towards the society. In other words, leaders have a moral responsibility to the society.

All said, we cannot ignore the fact that the political environment presents us with the stage to practice strategic leadership. This takes us to our text conceptual examination which is the “Political Environment”.

From the analysis we have made so far on national security, leadership and strategic leadership, it should be clear that all the concepts relate, one way or the other, to government or governance. For instance, from the various definitions we already examined on national security, it is clear that we are talking about how the government can secure a nation or country.

In like manner, leadership or and strategic leadership, from what we have also seen, is about the leadership of an organization or country. In our own context, our interest is about the leadership or strategic leadership of a country.

This is why we should look closely at what political environment stands for, so that when I finally speak on “NATIONAL SECURITY, STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT, MY POLITICAL EXPERIENCE”, which is my lecture topic, we shall all be on the same page. So what constitutes a political environment?

The political environment comprises “the government and its institutions and legislations, the public and private stakeholders and all other elements that are related to government affairs”. In other words, the political environment refers to the totality of all the variables and factors that make or influence the decision – making process or policies of a government. The capacity or ability of a political environment to make policies for the state for the purpose of governance often determines the political trajectory of a country. For instance, good or bad decisions or indecisions or policies, can ignite either positive or negative consequences for the country and its people, such as political turmoil, corruption and war on the one hand, and stability, peace and development on the other hand.

However, what is pertinent here is that the type of decisions that can emanate from a political environment, or put simply, a political system, will depend largely on two things: the type of political system and the type of Leadership.

We have already agreed on what leadership or strategic leadership does or fails to do. And we know the different types of leadership, namely VISIONARY, DIRECTIVE and COLLABORATIVE leaderships. With respect to the types of political systems, there are basically three types, namely DEMOCRATIC, TOTALITARIAN and THEOCRATIC. The DEMOCRATIC system is the system where the leaders are chosen by the people through period elections for a fixed tenure. Such systems normally have enshrined in their statues some basic freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc. Most democracies are secular states, hence the freedom of religion. Examples include Nigeria, Ghana, USA and UK.

TOTALITARIAN systems are the opposite of democracies. Such systems have no room for opposition. They are usually one party states with no opposition parties. Usually, there are no periodic general elections. Instead, leaders are nominated and endorsed through the party machinery and there are no hard and fast rules about their tenure. Also, citizens do not enjoy as much freedom as citizens of democratic states. A typical example of a totalitarian regime is that of North Korea and China.

The next is the THEOCRATIC system. In this system, the entire political control is left in the hands of religious leaders. This means that one single religion is the official religion of the state or country and the laws of that religion are used to govern the country. Typical examples of this type of system are seen in Iran and the Vatican.

Having come this far, our next task is to try to see how national security impacts on development or vice – versa.

(a) WHAT IS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT?

The term national development is a comprehensive term which covers all aspects of a nation and her citizenry. It includes the growth, or improvement and expansion of education, agriculture, industries and infrastructure, as well as the social, economic, political, security, cultural and religious institutions. Simply put, national development refers to a balanced and desirable improvement in virtually all aspects of a nation, notably in terms of economic, political, scientific, educational, social and material terms.

Sustainable development on the other hand is the idea that human societies must live and develop without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The ultimate goal of sustainable development is to meet the needs of today, without compromising the needs of tomorrow. Although the concept of sustainable development was first raised in the 70s, it was only widely disseminated in the 80s.  The aim is to strike a balance between our economic, social and environmental needs in a way that allows prosperity for future generations. The four main objectives of sustainable development include social progress and equality, environmental protection, conservation of natural resources and stable economic growth.

(C) NATIONAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA

To dovetail the discussion on national security into national development, it is necessary to highlight the obstacles to national development. They include poor economic indices, unemployment, illiteracy and overpopulation. A number of indicators have evolved for use in measuring and comparing the stages of development between countries. These indicators are gross domestic product (GDP), Gross National Product (GNP), GNP per capita, birth and death rates, the human development index (HDI), infant mortality rate, literacy rate and life expectancy. The human development index which is a composite measure of development based on education, life expectancy and per capita income is increasingly accepted as a better measure of development than GDP, which is often used.

In this respect, it is interesting to note that Nigeria, Africa’s biggest economy, is ranked 163rd in the United Nations (UN) Human Development Index (HDI) for the second consecutive year.

The HDI, published annually by the Uniited Nations Development Programme (UNDP) since 1990, measures the long and healthy life, access to knowledge, and a decent standard of living of 191 countries. By 2022 figures, Nigeria has a score of 0.534. This figure can best be appreciated when compared to the highest HDI score of .962 (for Switzerland) and lowest of 0.385 (South Sudan). Nigeria’s life expectancy reached 52.7 years in 2021, the expected years of schooling was 10.1, and the country’s income per capita hit $4,790 in 2021.

The Boko Haram insurgency, which has led to devastating effects on the nation’s human development has been largely blamed for the relatively poor showing.“In Nigeria, the insurgency has contributed to many deaths, displacement of families, and the disruption of businesses and education. The very high numbers of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and the out – of – school children reported in the country is partly attributable mostly to the insurgency, the report said.

As we observed earlier, the relationship between security and national development has been of interest to countless scholars of development studies for decades. The consensus is that security and development are so intertwined that it is almost impossible to achieve one without achieving the other.  Thus, there is a common saying that “there can be no development without peace and security”. This implies that peace and security are the sine qua none for development. Interestingly, a school of thought opines that the reverse is also true. Their argument, which I totally subscribe to, is that there can hardly be peace and security in the absence of real development. This implies that peace and security can be listed as the benefits of real development resulting from good governance. This viewpoint is supported by the statistics that twenty of the poorest countries of the world are engaged in one form of conflict or the other. The 20 poorest countries of the world are (1).  Somalia, (2). South Sudan     (3).Malawi     (4).Central Africa Republic  (5). Burundi   (6).Democratic, Republic of Congo (DRC) (7).Somalia (8). Niger     (9).Mozambique  (10).Chad      (11).Madagascar (12). Liberia  (13). Sierra Leone   (14).Yemen  (15).Eritrea     (16). Zimbabwe (17). Togo (18).Burkina Faso and      (19).Uganda (20) Rwanda

Closely related to this is the widely held belief that the poorer a country, the more likely it is to be involved in armed conflict. Sadly, all these countries, with the exception of one,  are in the continent of Africa.

From the foregoing, it is easy to see that national security is a premise for national economic growth and development. In today’s globalized economy, foreign investment has been identified as a major driver of economic development, and only peaceful and safe countries can attract foreign investors. In addition, local business owners are freer to operate and grow the economy in an atmosphere of peace and security.

Although the security challenges currently confronting the Nigerian nation have a lot in common with insecurity in other parts of the world, there are some peculiarities about the Nigerian experience. Addressing these peculiarities offers us the best solution to the challenge of insecurity we face currently. Although it is the primary responsibility of government to ensure the security of the nation state, there is a role for everyone to play, if we must achieve the peace and tranquility we all desire and deserve.

Interestingly, a good number of the current causes of insecurity, such as illiteracy, poverty, unemployment, inequality and corruption, are issues of development and governance. Thus, it is important to address the inadequacies of our security outfits in terms of number of personnel, training and equipment as well as addressing their welfare in the form of remuneration and insurance against injury and death. However, other catalysts of insecurity in the country also need to be addressed. Thus, good governance which seeks to provide good quality education and the deployment of the commonwealth of the state in the provision of infrastructure for the economy to thrive, creating opportunities for people to get employed and escape from poverty, would have addressed some of the root causes of insecurity in the country. Fortunately, the Federal Government is tackling these issues head on and, as you will see later, my administration is doing the same in Imo State.

Having examined the basic concepts driving this lecture, mainly, national security, strategic leadership, sustainable national development and the political environment, I think we are now sufficiently armed to discuss the lecture topic proper, which for emphasis is “NATIONAL SECURITY, STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT, MY POLITICAL EXPERIENCE”.

From all we have seen through the examination of these concepts, what remains to do is to provide the necessary linkages between these concepts and to show how going forward, they impact on development and or sustainable development. I shall therein discuss my political experience.  Let me, however, make it clear that succeeding discussions are anchored on our dear country, Nigeria.

The way to begin the conversation, therefore, is to reflect on the challenges to effective leadership in Nigeria and how we can fast track strategic leadership in the country. Thereafter, I will relate them to my personal political experience.

Simply put, it takes a lot of character on the part of leaders to navigate through these man–made landmines in leadership, during the decision – making process. It takes a lot of courage on the part of a leader to resist the pull of ethnic and religious sentiments in arriving at a sound and objective decision. Even unconsciously, leaders tend to pander to those sentiments in appointments at the expense of competence. You may have noticed that some aspects of our constitution were designed to ensure that no part of the country or religion dominates the others. But even with these safeguards, the fear of domination, whether imagined or real, still persists. In such a circumstance, it becomes difficult for leaders to wade through the minefield of suspicion. If we want to be sincere to ourselves, we must continue to strengthen those institutions through which the unity of our country is sustained. For instance, the military is one of those institutions that need the support of every Nigerian because it represents the adhesive cord of our unity.

In addition to the aforementioned, our leaders must make conscious efforts to ensure that they acknowledge the corrosive influence of those existential threats to our unity and not gloss over them by living in denial. They are surmountable challenges and we must not be detained by them in our march to greatness.

In my view, the major challenges to effective leadership in the Nigeria of today are legion. More pronounced for now include the clamour by separatist groups, the Boko Haram insurgency and unbridled banditry in various parts of the country. These are also the greatest threats to our national security.  It will not be an exaggeration to submit that these security challenges are threatening the very fabric of the Nigeria nation. Our ability to overcome them, through strategic leadership is the task of our generation. Because I consider the threat to national security to be the major challenge to effective leadership in Nigeria, a more detailed history of insecurity in the country is in order at this point.

The activities of the Niger Delta militants, which specialized in the destruction of oil installations and infrastructure in addition to the kidnapping of expatriates, can be considered the first case of serious non-state aggression against the Nigerian state.  Their main grouse was the decimation of their environment through oil exploration and gas flaring by multi-nation oil companies with the conoivance of the Federal Government.  Although their activities which started in the 1990s were restricted to the South-Southern part of the country they succeeded in bringing the Nigerian economy to its knees. It took the introduction of the amnesty programme of the Federal Government under the leadership of late Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua and later, Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, to bring the worrying situation under control.

At the turn of the 21st century, specifically in 2002, the terrorist group known widely as Boko Haram announced their existence in Nigeria. This group of self-proclaimed Islamic extremists launched their first attack on multiple police stations in Yobe State in 2003. It immediately turned out to be easily the biggest security challenge faced by the Nigerian state since independence, apart from the civil war.  By 2009, their activities had spread from Bauchi to Borno, Kano and Yobe States in North-Eastern Nigeria.

Boko Haram gained international recognition in 2011 when they launched a car bomb attack on the United Nations compound in the federal capital of Abuja, killing 23 people and injuring over 70 others. The abduction of about 300 school girls from a boarding school in Chibok in Borno State was a major embarrassment to the country and a reflection of the increasing audacity of the terrorist group. The inability of the government of the day to halt the abduction or to mount an immediate and effective rescue operation was a low point in the history of the country.

To make matters worse for our national pride, the group has been linked to countless other cases of abductions of groups of students, including the one at Dapchi in Yobe state, countless killings, kidnappings, destruction of houses and even making more daring attempts to take and hold Nigerians hostage. At various times, the group has also been reported to seize and hold some territories, including entire towns and local government areas, under their control and leadership.  The group resides in the Sambisa forests in Borno and Adamawa States, but they are now extending their acts of terrorism to other parts of the country, especially the north western states of Kastina, Zamfara, Kano and Kaduna. Some cases of kidnapping and mass killings, including the gruesome murder of worshippers in a church in Owo, Ondon state, in the South -West Nigeria, have also been credited to the group

Boko Haram is also active in Chad, Niger and northern Cameroun; hence the name Islamic State’s of West Africa Province.  One school of thought also holds the group responsible for some of the cases of kidnapping, cattle rustling and assassinations reported in some other parts of the country.

However, it is worthy of mention that in the recent years the Boko Haram militancy has been reasonably contained by the Nigerian armed forces. Their capacity to unleash the degree of damage like they did in the past has been grossly diminished by the activities of the Nigerian army and the joint civilian task force. Most of the leaders have either been captured or killed. Many members of the group have also repented and surrendered their arms and are going through a programme of reform and reintegration into the society.  Most of the territories previously held by the group have also been recovered from them. However, this does not in any way imply that the threat posed by this deadly group is now over.

The recent emergence of armed bandits of unclear identity and mission operating initially and mostly in Zamfara state in North – West Nigeria remains a mystery and a challenge that is yet to be unraveled. Their operations which started like mere skirmishes between herders and farmers, has now blossomed into a full scale armed violence, which has now extended to neighboring Katsina state and the North Central state of Kaduna. The modus operandi of these armed bandits include cattle rustling, kidnapping of human beings for ransom and armed robbery suggests they are being driven by economic opportunism and not political ideology as in the case of Boko Haram. The casualty figures ascribed to these groups are alarming and so is the impact on the economy and reputation of the country. The government of Kaduna state reported a casualty figure of 1192 deaths in 2021 and 360 in the first quarter of 2022.  A recent clash (February 2023) between these bandits and local vigilante groups in Bakori and Kankara local government areas of Katsina state resulted in 84 deaths.

The motive behind the recent escalation in the degree of violence unleashed by these groups has remained the subject of speculations. While some relate it to the impact of climate change and reducing rainfall on availability of vegetation for grazing, others blame it on the failure of the local government to address issues of poverty, unemployment and inequality. A possible link has also been made to the fact that the gold deposits found in Zamfara may be the catalyst for these renewed attacks in the state.

In a rather desperate move to curb the activities of these bandits, the government of Zamfara state recently called on citizens of the state to pick up arms and to defend themselves against the bandits. A similar call was made by the government of Benue state when he faced a similarly helpless situation. Obviously, this would result in the proliferation of untraceable arms across the regions and may help worsen an already delicate situation. However, the move by these governments underscores the helplessness of sub-national entities when it comes to protecting their citizens and their properties from the menace of these non-state merchants of violence which continue to threaten our peace and safety. It is also exposes the inability of the central security structure to protect the citizens. The kidnapping of rail travelers along the Abuja to Kaduna rail line is a case in point. Some of the victims were held for upwards of 6 months and the rail line was closed for an extensive period in what can be described as a national embarrassment. The recent declaration of these bandits as terrorists may have opened the way for a more ruthless attempt to combat the menace. Although the Nigerian Armed Forces have been able to dislodge and destroy many of these bandit enclaves in recent times, recent events in Katsina and Kaduna states are sufficient proof these armed groups are still active across these states. As a consequence, road trips along most of the major roads in the North – western and North Central Nigeria have become nightmares that can only be attempted by the brave or those with no options.

The perennial conflict between cattle herders and farmers deserves special mention in a discussion on insecurity. This historic conflict, has assumed a new dimension in recent times, and remains a potent threat to the security of the country. The increased frequency and the high death tolls resulting from such attacks in parts of Plateau and Benue States is a major source of worry. Such deadly clashes are also being reported in parts of the country where such clashes were never witnessed before. One school of thought attributes the increased frequency and lethality of such clashes to the infiltration of herders from other West African countries, such as Mali, Senegal and Niger Republic. This could only have been made possible by our porous borders. There is clear evidence that the macro consequences of these violent activities on food security in the country are already being felt across the land.

A discussion on insecurity will be incomplete without mention of the menace of the so-called unknown gun men operating in the five south-eastern states. The recent history of insecurity in the South – East is intricately linked to the separatist agitation pioneered by the Indigenous People of Biafra, who claim to be protesting against the apparent or perceived injustice and marginalization against the people of the South-East by various administrations at the centre. The group has been linked to various cases of attacks on the personnel and offices of the armed forces, including the Police and the army, assassinations, kidnappings and other forms of criminality, prompting the federal government to proscribe the group and declare it a terrorist organization in December 2021. A so called sit-at-home order imposed by the group continues to limit the ability of people to move and trade freely on Mondays in some parts of the South-East. The consequence of this on the economy of the region remains a source of worry to all well-meaning Nigerians. Many other faceless criminal elements have now taken advantage of the confusion caused by this group to unleash various forms of violence in the region. Unfortunately, some disgruntled politicians have also engaged these criminals and have turned them into weapons for use in their politics of bitterness and violence. Thus, the south east, has recorded very high cases of attacks on politically exposed persons and government offices, including those of Independent National Election Commission (INEC).

Aside from these conventional threats by non-state actors to national security, new and sophisticated threats are also now on the ascendancy.

There are also new forms of threat to national security which deserve mention and serious attention. A good example is the threat of the social media. This refers to the deliberate use of social media to spread miss-information, especially in the internet, to threaten public peace, cause destruction or disruption of social cohesion etc for the purpose of seeking political or ideological gains. It also includes the willful use of the social media to spread falsehood capable of inciting the public against the government or against one ethnic group and the other. This is a serious threat to national security. For example, the faceless leaders of Boko Haram and IPOB have continued to use the social media to issue threats of violence and to circulate provocative images and videos of their despicable activities. Some are also capable of using the internet and other social media platforms to recruit new members and to raise funds from across the world without trace. The web – based activities of these groups are usually difficult to be monitored or policed by security forces.

At this point, let us take a look at some of the factors that contribute to Insecurity in the Country.

Various attempts have been made to chronicle the factors that could be fueling the current upsurge in various forms of insecurity in the country.  They include such catalysts as ethnicity, religious differences, illiteracy, unemployment, poverty and inequality. Others are the perennial problem of porous borders, the low capability of our security outfits, a weak criminal justice system and the global trend characterized by a general rise in terrorism. I will now make an attempt to take a brief look at these factors one by one.

It is common knowledge that Nigeria is a multi-ethnic and a multi-religious country, and the most lingering and intractable of the conflicts observed in the country are based along these lines. It is worth noting, however, that these ethnic and religious differences have always existed without the current degree of threat to security. Could it be that our forbears were better at managing our diversity? Or could it be that our people have just become more difficult to govern? Let these questions serve as food for thought to all leaders of the present day Nigeria, including me, Hope Uzodimma. Instructively, many other African countries with similar ethnic and religious differences, including those with much higher ethnic fractionization index, such as  Papua New Guinea (I.00), Tanzania (0.953) Uganda (0.93) than Nigeria (0.803), are known to co-exist without conflict of the type we have. Why do we not read about ethnic conflicts in these and other multi-ethnic countries like Ghana, Cameroun and South-Africa. What of China, which has 56 ethnic groups?

The current forms of ethnic conflicts and violent crime along these lines suggest that some people are fanning these ambers for some personal, and possible, political gains. These could be politicians and regional warlords who stand to gain politically or economically from the resulting confusion. A school of thought also points to the possibility of politically – motivated sabotage as a possible explanation for some of the conflicts being experienced along these lines. If I am to judge our leaders past and present, I will blame all of us for failing to build a united and cohesive nation out of the different groups that make up our country. I am sure this was the thinking behind the establishment of the National Youth Service Corps by the government of General Yakubu Gowon n 1973. How well is NYSC doing and how many more of such programmes have we established since then?

Scholars have always identified illiteracy as a major consequence and impediment to development. Non-literate people are often unskilled, unemployable and easier to indoctrinate. Thus, they live a life of poverty and hopelessness and it is easier to recruit and turn them into willing tools in the hands of extremists and terrorists. The desperation to survive pushes people into various other forms of crime and violence. Attempts by various administrations at the national and sub-national levels have failed to successfully address these intricately related problems. As a direct consequence, the degrees of illiteracy, unemployment, poverty and inequality have increased across the country. This mix of illiteracy, unemployment and poverty had variously been described as a ticking time bomb. May be the time has come and the ticking time bomb has now exploded.

The frequent communal conflicts reported across the country have been widely described as one of the most destabilizing security challenges faced by the country. This is because the immediate and remote causes are complex and often poorly understood. These perennial conflicts are usually more frequent along the ethnic fault lines such as the middle belt. The less severe forms are also reported between neighbouring communities across the country. The usual triggers of these conflicts are disputes over access and ownership of land, access to resources, such as mineral deposits and sometimes, competition and disagreements over political representation. The frequent clash between pastoral or nomadic cattle herders and indigenous farmers fits into this classification. The destruction of farmlands by nomadic herdsmen in search of green pasture for their cattle has been central to the clashes. The recent upsurge in the clashes has been linked to the drying up of vast areas of Lake Chad, which has forced the herdsmen to migrate southwards in huge numbers with attendant consequences for the peace and stability of the country. Benue, Kaduna and Niger states have recorded an upsurge in the frequency of these clashes. The inability of relevant authorities, including the police, regional heads and even state and federal governments to manage this delicate crisis has been partly blamed for the recent escalation. In addition to countless deaths, the conflict between herders and farmers has led to the destruction of homes, farmlands and displacement of citizens from their homes. For example, the government of Benue state recently claimed to be accommodating and feeding about 1.7 million internally displaced persons in 27 camps across the state.

Natural disasters such as flooding, erosion and desertification deserve to be recognized as new threats to our national security. The frequency and severity of these events have recently increased around the world as a result of climate change. When an entire village or community is sacked by flood, erosion or desertification, many families are rendered homeless and jobless, depending on the scale of the disaster. The displaced persons add to the army of the poor, hungry and jobless population, who may device desperate means of livelihood.. The desertification of parts of the bank of Lake Chad has been linked to the increased southward migration of cattle herders, with attendant consequences for herders – farmers conflict. Sadly, extreme forms of flooding have also been recorded in the country in recent times. The latest flooding of 2002 killed as many as 600 persons and displaced 1.3 million people across the country. The high casualty figures have been blamed on poor town planning and slow emergency response, however the severity of the flood has be blamed on the failure of successive governments to construct new dams and manage the existing ones efficiently.

Border security is widely recognized as a very important component of national security. Sadly, it is common knowledge that the borders which we share with countries like Cameroon, Niger Republic and Chad are poorly manned.. In a survey conducted by the Nigerian Immigration Service in 2014, as many as 1,400 unmanned, illegal border routes through which criminals can enter the country were identified. If we compare this figure to the 84 legal and manned entry points, we will get a sense of how open or porous our borders are.  As a consequence, armed terrorists and criminals are able to move freely, almost unhindered, across these borders. In addition, these porous borders serve as channels for the movement of small and light weapons into the country, thus fuelling insurgency and banditry all around the country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the recent rise in the brutality and frequency of conflicts over shared borders and farmland have been traced to armed ethnic militia from other countries of Africa,  and some of the arms have been traced to as far as Libya.  It is disturbing that successive governments have done little or nothing to improve the situation around our borders.

A criminal justice system such as ours which often fails to arrest, try and promptly convict criminals does not serve as a strong deterrent to criminals. Commentators, especially Civil Society Organizations continue to make reference to the very low numbers of terrorists and violent criminals which have been arrested, tried and convicted for their crimes in the country. Without doubt, the apparent inability to bring these criminals to justice can only embolden people to turn crimes like kidnapping into a lucrative enterprise. This is what we see in various parts of the country, where kidnapping for ransom has become a business, with some people making impossible demands from families of their victims.

This has prompted the call for unbundling the Nigerian Police Force and the call for the creation of state Police. It has also led different states and regions to form vigilantes and security outfits to help secure their citizens. From my experience of managing these regional security outfits, I can tell you for free that it has its own problems.

Without doubt, corruption and related poor governance is partly responsible for the poor state of the Nigerian economy, especially the pervading poor socio-economic status of her citizens. Some will argue that corruption is the most important single impediment to the development of the country. For example, corruption is largely responsible for the poor state of infrastructure such as power, which has caused the collapse of our industries, leading to massive retrenchments and lack of employment opportunities for teaming youths. It is also a contributing factor to the high rate of poverty and inequality in the population. It also explains to some extent the inefficiency and the inability of our security agencies to rise to the challenge posed by the terrorists, armed bandits and other types of criminals. For example, it is common knowledge that huge amounts of money meant for the procurement of vital equipment for the armed forces were once diverted by a previous administration. Corruption also accounts for the inability to bring corrupt officials to book and is partly responsible for the observed failings of our criminal justice system at various levels. The ability to make and enforce appropriate laws could also be adversely affected by corruption. The current administration of President MuhammaduBuhari deserves praise for showing the strong desire and courage to fight corruption at various levels of governance.

How does strategic leadership come handy in this regard to ensure sustainable development, nonetheless? This is the major challenge:

Let me confess that I was motivated to run for the office of Governor of my state, Imo, by two major factors. The first was the inspiration I got from President MuhammaduBuhari’s visionary leadership. The second motivation came from the glaring and heartbreaking failure of leadership I observed in my state.

On the first factor, I dare say that while I was in the Senate, during President MuhammaduBuhari’s first tenure, I was greatly inspired by what I saw as an honest and corruption-free dedication to governance by President Buhari. In him I saw a leader who had a clear vision of how to solve the nation’s problems, and who in the course of doing so, was not ready to pander to public applause. Instead, he remained determined and focused on his goal and vision. I saw in him a man who was not ready to tolerate any corrupt practice, and someone who was not after material things. In him I saw a rare breed of a statesman in every sense of the word. These attributes of his inspired me a great deal.

On the other hand, I saw in my state, a clear failure of leadership. The institutions of state and governance structure, including the civil service, had practically collapsed. The people were so perplexed and disillusioned by the inertia of state machinery that they became palpably despondent. At a time workers were paid a percentage of their monthly salaries and were even advised by the government to work for only three days in the week. In the addition to low output, the public sector was infested by corrupt and unethical practices. To make matters worse, essential municipal services, such as water supply, and physical infrastructure, such as roads, had also collapsed to the point of non-existence. The state had also fallen behind in all other development indices such as school enrolment and employment.

Each time I thought about Imo, I saw a state that was begging not just for leadership, but for visionary leadership. Thus, after a period of self appraisal and armed with a renewed inspiration from President Buhari’s visionary leadership on the national stage, I was convinced that I could offer the visionary and selfless leadership which my people needed so badly. With this conviction I contested the 2019 governorship elections to become the Governor of Imo state. By the grace of God, I won the elections. Although there were attempts to deny me victory, God, in his infinite goodness and justice, restored my victory through the historic verdict of the Supreme Court on January 14th 2020. Now, 3 years on, I am glad to share my experience with you.

The poor state of affairs I met on assumption of office was complicated by the unexpected war of attrition which was waged against my administration by my opponents, who remained bitter over their loss. As I reflect on my on my strategic leadership experience in the state, I am convinced that my decision to confront the situation wholeheartedly and without making excuses is the reason for the success we recorded in the state.

I assumed office with the conviction that I had a divine assignment to liberate our people and free the resources and commonwealth of the state from the stranglehold of a few persons and their families. There were no pretentions about it. I was prepared from day one to offer visionary and purposeful leadership and service to the state. My plan which is captured in our Prosperity Agenda was encapsulated in Reconstruction, Rehabilitation and Recovery for all sectors of the state. Since leadership involves influencing people to a particular direction and strategy entails solid and detailed planning, my mission was and is, to lead Imo and the people into prosperity!

So, with that mindset, I was not deterred when two unrelated events – the ENDSARS riots and the COVID – 19 pandemic – almost welcomed me into office. With my focus on making Imo better, the distractions from contrived insecurity by the opposition did not deter me from pursuing my vision. I was consumed by the passion to recover the years which the state had lost to the locusts. My goal remained to ensure that the decayed infrastructure, the bastardized institutions and the bruised psyche of Imo people were Recovered, Reconstructed and Rehabilitated. As a strategic leader, each time I was confronted by a new challenge, I stepped back, re-srategized and faced the task of governance with renewed vigour.

My testimony or recollection of what I have been able to achieve in the last three years may seem like an attempt by one to blow one’s trumpet. But, no less a person than your Commander – in -Chief, our father and charismatic leader of this great nation, President Mohammadu Buhari has been to Imo State twice to commission some of our landmark signature projects. Vice – President Yemi Osinbajo has also been to Imo State to inaugurate projects started and completed by my administration. The Senate President, Senator Ahmed Lawan has also been our guest for the same purpose. In addition, and perhaps, more importantly, our people – the victims of the previous administration and the direct beneficiaries of our collective determination of service – have been blowing our trumpet.

Apart from dismantling the institutions of corrupt practices in the state, my administration has strengthened the civil service as the true engine of government. With the automation of the services of the state’s bureaucracy, the Government is now able to render efficient services to the people. Added to that, the workforce has been motivated through improved working environment, enhanced welfare packages and regular promotions. For two years running, the workers were paid a 13th month salary as a further incentive. They also have access to free transport to take them to and fro their offices. The Permanent Secretaries were offered a number of morale – boosting incentives, including official cars, to enable them offer essential leadership in their respective departments and ministries.

Before I took over the mantle of leadership, vital roads in Imo state had become death traps due to prolonged periods of negligence and half-hearted attempts to fix them. However, when President Muhammadu Buhari visited the last time, he commended us for what he described as “infrastructure revolution”. That includes no fewer than 100 roads across the state. We also reconstructed two of the most important roads linking the state capital to many local government areas. Those are the Owerri – Okigwe road and the Owerri – Orlu road. Currently, we are working on the Owerri – Mbaise- Umuahia road and Orlu – Mgbee – Akokwa-Uga road as well as Oguta, Okporo, Orlu road, these signature projects will be completed this year. You may not be familiar with these roads, but these are strategically important roads in the state. The aim of fixing them is to stimulate economic activities and grow the economy of the state. Also we are doing 5 kilometers of road in each of the 27 local government areas of the state to enhance the movement of goods and services from the rural areas to the urban centres.

Other critical aspects of governance and development, such as education, health, agriculture, urban renewal and youth empowerment, have also received due attention.  We are also breathing life into hitherto moribund industries with a view to creating employment opportunities for our people and turning the economy around.

The natural question would be how we managed to achieve all these in the midst of the security challenges in the state? That is where the issue of strategic planning comes in. Because I came in prepared to be Governor, I refused to be distracted by the shenanigans put up by the opposition.  Even without the security challenges, I would still have worked with the security agencies to secure Imo State and all the residents, knowing that this is the primary duty of government. Ever before the intensification of insecurity by the perpetrators and their sponsors, I had donated more than 100 security vans and communication equipment to the security agencies to enhance their operations. Abinitio, I knew that the game plan by the opposition was to cripple me financially, distract me sufficiently from performing my duties, and subsequently present me to Imo people as a failure. This accounts for why they always seemed to up the ante of their game whenever we record a significant achievement in the state.

However, I was mindful of history. I was mindful of my social contract with the people as documented in my inaugural address. And I was mindful of the judgment of God. Mercifully, through the help of God, the gallantry of our Armed Forces and the fatherly disposition of President Muhammadu Buhari, we have been able to reasonably contain the renegades and terrorists. What you now find in Imo state in terms of insecurity is the last kicking of a dying horse. By the last half of last year, Imo had regained its pride of place as the hospitality capital of Eastern Nigeria. We hosted high profile conferences including those by the Army, Police, journalists and Nollywood actors, signifying that peace has returned to the state. May I once more thank President Muhammadu Buhari, the service chiefs and our gallant members of the Armed Forces for this feat.

In all the challenges, let me reveal a secret to you. Contrary to the propaganda of the opposition, majority of Imo people have always been supportive of me and my administration. Why? At the inception of my administration, I promised to run an accountable, transparent and inclusive government. I promised to ensure that corruption and nepotism were dealt a fatal blow. I also promised that I will live above board. By the special Grace of God, I have kept faith with those promises. I have never allocated any land to either myself, my friends or a member of my family since I assumed office as the Governor. This was the stock in trade of the previous administration, who appropriated many properties belonging to government and individuals. I have openly and repeatedly challenged anyone, including my political opponents, to point out any act of corruption I have been involved in. And not one report has been received.  Trust me, there won’t be any. But above all, I carry the people along in whatever decision I make for the good of all. Every quarter, we hold a stakeholders forum where I render my account of stewardship and subject myself to scrutiny through questions by Imo people. They also proffer suggestions on how to run the state better because nobody has the monopoly of knowledge. In this manner, I have been able to build trust and confidence in our administration among the people. That is why my popularity in the state has not waned. So, what is the secret to my success, you may ask? My answer will be: I came prepared as a strategic leader. I adopted a problem – solving approach to governance, I assembled a good team, I govern with empathy and compassion, I use the resources and my authority judiciously, I communicate my programmes effectively and I listen too, above all, I have been running a transparent and accountable administration. In summary, I came prepared and have stayed loyal to my vision and the social contract I reached with Imo people.

9.0) CONCLUSION

Arising from all the aforementioned, I honestly submit that the way forward in enhancing Strategic Leadership in GOVERNANCE as well as politics in Nigeria lies in transparent and accountable leadership as has been provided by President Buhari in the last seven and half years.  Once a leader is honest, transparent and accountable, half of the problems in governance processes are solved. A transparent leader will ensure the faithful implementation of the constitution, irrespective of his personal interest. An accountable leader will distance himself from corruption no matter how tempting. And a credible leader will be just in the exercise of power, ensuring that he leads by example.

When I addressed the challenges of effective leadership in Nigeria, I was emphatic that until we tame the twin evil monsters of ethnicity and religion, we may be dwarfed in our quest to achieve our national goals.  A focused government must, therefore, identify and isolate these evils for it to satisfy the yearnings of majority of Nigerians. This calls for sacrifices. This demands the attention of patriots and statesmen determined to rise above the challenges holding the country down from fulfilling its destiny.

My esteemed officers and men, distinguished audience, I believe that the magic of good leadership or strategic leadership, is honesty, unwavering patriotic zeal, knowledge and vision. What Nigeria needs is that strategic leader who is honest, accountable, knowledgeable and visionary, with uncommon patriotism and love of country. The presence of these attributes in a leader will dismantle the roadblocks of ethnicity, religious bigotry and corruption. It will inspire zeal and commitment from the citizenry and unleash the latent skills and industry in Nigerians, and development will flow unstoppably, just like a river does. Above all, it will make Nigerians proud of their country, and many more of us will be willing to die for our country.

I repeat, as complex and intractable as our National challenges of insecurity and development may appear, it can disappear like an early morning dew does once the Sun appears, once we enthrone an honest and visionary leadership. This has to be done at various critical levels of governance. We have seen how intertwined national security and national development are. So too are visionary, honest leadership and sustainable national development. This is so because a visionary and honest leadership will inevitably lead to an accountable and development – driven government, based on equity and justice. With equity, justice and development enthroned, ethnicity, nepotism,  religious bigotry, separatism and other forms of divisiveness and associated criminalities will fizzle out.  So, with, a vision filled and integrity driven leadership, most of the challenges we currently face in the land will become a thing of the past.

Permit me to end this lecture with these instructive words of the legendary Nelson Mandela of South Africa, on Nigeria: “THE WORLD WILL NOT RESPECT AFRICA UNTIL NIGERIA EARNS THE RESPECT. The black people of the world need Nigeria to be great as a source of pride and confidence”

Distinguished compatriots, I am an incurable optimist and my name is Hope. Thus, I am hopeful that better days are ahead and the current season of fear and insecurity will come to pass, sooner than later. As I conclude, I will like to align my thoughts with those of late Chinua Achebe who summed up that the trouble with Nigeria is leadership.  In a less than two weeks, Nigerians will have the opportunity to make the choice of who will deepen the visionary strides we have seen in the last seven and half years. That choice is entirely that of Nigerians to make. If we get it right, our story will change. As the saying goes: “as we make our bed, so must we lie on it”.

Thank You all and God bless all of us.

Long live the Nigerian armed forces!

Long live Imo State!!

Long live the Federal Republic of Nigeria!!!