Insecurity: Buratai’s lockdown proposal

IN a recent television appearance, former Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant-General Tukur Buratai (retd), proposed a nationwide lockdown similar to the COVID-19 pandemic response as a decisive strategy to crush banditry, terrorism, and kidnapping. He argued that the same level of resource mobilisation, public mobilisation and collective sacrifice that characterised the response to the pandemic should be deployed to combat terrorism, banditry and kidnapping. While this suggestion underscores the severity of Nigeria’s security crisis, it raises critical questions about feasibility, humanitarian concerns, and the underlying causes of insecurity that a lockdown cannot address. Buratai recalled the collective national effort, the massive mobilisation of resources and the profound public sacrifice that defined the pandemic era. If that same singular focus and unwavering resolve were applied to the scourge of insecurity, he contended, the menace could be decisively defeated. He further pointed to the outpouring of support during the Maiduguri floods as evidence of Nigeria’s capacity for unified action in the face of disaster.

This suggestion arrives at a moment of profound national anguish. The National Human Rights Commission’s latest report, which laments the worsening violation of the right to life and notes over 50 people killed in separate attacks in a single week, provides a grim statistical backdrop to Buratai’s warning. His central thesis is that insecurity must be elevated to the status of a national crisis, not merely a military operation. It is a problem for every citizen, requiring the sacrifice of every citizen. “Look at COVID-19 – how much was spent, how much was invested… The whole nation was locked down. We can do the same thing,” he asserted, framing a shutdown as a mechanism to force the entire country to concentrate its collective will on this single, existential threat. On the surface, the logic possesses a certain compelling, almost intuitive, appeal. The COVID-19 lockdowns did, for a time, create an unusual quietude. The streets emptied, movement ceased, and the state, for all its flaws, demonstrated an ability to impose a dramatic pause on national life. In theory, such an environment could be a nightmare for asymmetric actors who thrive on movement and chaos. A lockdown could disrupt supply lines, restrict the free flow of terrorists and weapons, and provide security forces with a controlled landscape in which to operate with greater clarity and focus. Some security think tanks, like the Crest Research and Development Institute, have even entertained a refined version of this idea, suggesting that short, sharp, intelligence-driven lockdowns in specific conflict zones could yield tactical advantages without paralyzing the entire nation.

Yet, for all its surface-level appeal, the proposal of a nationwide lockdown as a security strategy unravels under the slightest scrutiny, revealing itself to be a dangerously simplistic solution to a profoundly complex problem. It is a proposal that seems divorced from the gritty realities of Nigerian life and the intricate anatomy of its insecurity. The first and most immediate objection is economic. The COVID-19 lockdown, while a public health necessity, inflicted a devastating blow on an economy already teetering on the brink. It exposed the fragility of millions of Nigerians who live hand-to-mouth in the vast informal sector. To propose another shutdown, not for a health emergency but for a security one, is to ignore the lesson that such a measure could very well starve the population it purports to save. The question hangs heavy in the air: who will feed the millions of Nigerians who are barely able to feed themselves even in times of full economic activity?

Furthermore, the proposal assumes a level of competence, integrity, and logistical capability within the security apparatus that has often been found wanting. A lockdown is only as effective as its enforcement. Given the well-documented instances of corruption, extortion, and human rights abuses by security forces during the COVID-19 lockdown, what guarantee exists that a security shutdown would not degenerate into a nationwide carnival of bribery and brutality? Would it not simply become another tool for oppression against the very citizens it is meant to protect? The proposal also glosses over the critical internal challenges within the armed services themselves, such as the alleged corruption in procurement, the occasional failures of intelligence, and the poor morale of troops on the front lines. A lockdown does nothing to address these fundamental weaknesses; it merely changes the backdrop against which they persist.

Most critically, General Buratai’s suggestion mistakes a symptom for the disease. The rampant banditry, kidnapping and terrorism are not spontaneous eruptions of evil. They are the violent manifestations of deep, festering root causes: extreme poverty, systemic unemployment, catastrophic governance failures, and a crippling lack of opportunity, particularly for the youth in the affected regions. A lockdown is a tactical gambit, a physical solution. It does not plant a single seed, build a single school, create a single job, or address the gaping void of hope that fuels recruitment into criminal gangs. It treats the security situation as a mechanical failure to be fixed with a wrench, when in reality it is a societal cancer requiring chemotherapy, nutrition, and long-term care.

The desperation that fuels such a proposal is understandable. The situation is dire enough to demand thinking outside the conventional toolbox. However, the answer does not lie in repeating the traumatic and economically ruinous experiment of a nationwide lockdown. Instead, the solution must be as multi-faceted as the problem itself. It requires a sustained, patient, and holistic approach that combines aggressive, intelligence-driven military operations with an even more aggressive campaign of development. It means investing in community policing to rebuild trust, creating real economic alternatives for potential recruits of terror, securing borders through regional cooperation, and leveraging technology for surveillance and tracking.

A nationwide lockdown is a blunt instrument that risks causing more harm than good. Instead of imposing a national lockdown that risks economic collapse and humanitarian disaster, the government must focus on targeted, intelligence-driven operations, addressing root causes, and rebuilding trust in state institutions. Above all, Nigeria must resist the temptation of quick fixes. The fight against insecurity is not a sprint but a marathon requiring patience, innovation, and the courage to confront governance failures. Ultimately, the call for a lockdown is a dramatic gesture, but what Nigeria needs is not drama; it is diligence, dedication, and an unwavering commitment to addressing the hard, unglamorous, underlying truths of its national crisis. The government must resist the allure of knee-jerk reactions and instead pursue ideas that can actually work, fostering security not through the enforced silence of a locked-down nation, but through the earned peace of a prosperous and just one.

As the debate continues, one truth stands above all others: defeating insecurity is not solely the job of soldiers or police. It is a collective national project that demands good governance, economic opportunity, and a commitment to the dignity and well-being of every Nigerian. Buratai has opened the floor for bold ideas, but Nigeria must choose wisely.

READ ALSO: Poverty, exclusion driving youth recruitment into Boko Haram, others — Buratai