The National Security Adviser to the President, Nuhu Ribadu, recently stated that the proliferation of illicit small arms and light weapons is a major threat to Nigeria’s national security, exacerbating terrorism, banditry, and other violent crimes.
He went further by directly accusing members of the police and military of supplying arms and ammunition from their formations to criminal elements. This is not the first time such allegations have surfaced.
In 2014, Dr. Stephen Davis, an Australian negotiator hired by the Nigerian government to facilitate the release of the kidnapped Chibok schoolgirls, publicly accused some military officers and politicians of selling weapons to terrorist groups like Boko Haram.
Since then, similar allegations have been made by various sources, including whistleblowers within the security forces. Ribadu’s recent comments, though significant, reflect a long-standing issue that many Nigerians have suspected or known about.
While Ribadu’s revelation highlights a serious issue, it may have been more strategically handled through internal channels rather than a public announcement. As the National Security Adviser, Ribadu could have presented these details in classified briefings to key government officials, security agencies, and lawmakers responsible for defence and national security oversight.
This approach would have ensured that the issue was taken seriously while protecting public confidence. Instead of bringing the problem to the public sphere, Ribadu could have worked behind the scenes to strengthen control measures, improve armoury management, and reinforce security protocols to prevent further weapons from being diverted into the wrong hands.
If it became necessary to address the public, Ribadu could have reassured the nation that the government is aware of security challenges and is taking proactive, concrete steps to mitigate them, without revealing sensitive information that could embolden terrorists or weaken public confidence.
In cases where external expertise or assistance was needed, Ribadu could have quietly collaborated with international security agencies to recover lost arms and strengthen monitoring systems, ensuring global cooperation without exposing vulnerabilities.
By containing the information within appropriate channels, he could have maintained public trust, avoided emboldening criminal elements, and given security agencies time to address the issue effectively.
The public disclosure of sensitive security information by a high-ranking official like Ribadu, especially the fact that government arms have fallen into the hands of terrorists, carries serious negative implications.
First, it significantly undermines public confidence in the government’s ability to manage its arsenal, raising doubts about the state’s capacity to safeguard its citizens.
Such a revelation could also embolden terrorist groups, signalling weaknesses within the security apparatus that they could exploit, potentially inviting further aggression.
On the international stage, this kind of disclosure damages Nigeria’s credibility. It risks straining relationships with foreign allies and diminishing trust in intelligence, and sharing arrangements, as external partners may hesitate to collaborate with a government that publicly admits such vulnerabilities.
Furthermore, it could demoralise the security forces, who might feel overwhelmed by the scale of the problem and disheartened by the knowledge that their efforts could be compromised from within.
While transparency is essential, especially when it comes to national security, exposing such critical information publicly can do more harm than good. It could weaken public trust, embolden