“Persistent Insurgency in Borno: A Security Analyst Speaks on Military Sacrifices and Government Response”

Interview with Abbas Yushau Yusuf
Featuring Security Analyst and Retired Captain Abdullahi Bakoji Adamu

In this interview, retired captain and security analyst Abdullahi Bakoji Adamu sheds light on the tragic killing of soldiers in Borno.

What is your perspective on this incident?

Adamu: I can say the killing of soldiers in Borno is a tragic reminder of the persistent security challenges in the region. At this moment, such attacks are often driven by renewed insurgent regrouping, attempts to assert dominance, and exploit gaps in intelligence or security coordination.

It may also be linked to increased military pressure on insurgents, pushing them to retaliate, as well as the use of asymmetric tactics like ambushes.

This situation highlights the urgent need for stronger intelligence gathering, improved equipment, better inter-agency coordination, and enhanced welfare for troops on the Frontline. Their sacrifice must not be in vain—there must be a renewed, strategic, and sustained effort by all stakeholders to end insurgency and restore lasting peace in the Northeast.

But losing senior officers like that—isn’t it a failure on the part of the Nigerian military?

Adamu: Well losing senior officers in such attacks is deeply concerning and raises serious operational questions, but it should not be viewed in isolation as outright failure of the military.

Modern insurgencies, especially asymmetric warfare like in Borno, are unpredictable and often target high-value personnel to create psychological impact and gain propaganda advantage. Senior officers sometimes move close to the frontlines to boost morale and supervise operations, which can increase their exposure to risk.

However, incidents like this do point to possible gaps in intelligence, force protection, movement protocols, or coordination that must be critically reviewed. It underscores the need for stronger surveillance, better risk assessment, and stricter operational security when deploying high-ranking officers.

So, rather than labeling it simply as failure, it is more accurate to see it as a serious setback and a signal for the Nigerian military to reassess and strengthen its strategies, protection measures, and intelligence systems to prevent a recurrence.

But experts say when insecurity persists for many years, like the Northeastern insurgency, it shows the government is not serious. We are now in the 17th year—remember it started in 2009?

Adamu: Yes of course many experts argue that when insecurity persists for so many years, it raises legitimate concerns about the level of seriousness, consistency, and effectiveness of government response.

Seventeen years after the insurgency began in 2009, the continued attacks suggest that beyond military action, there have been gaps in strategy, coordination, and long-term planning. Prolonged conflicts like this often point to deeper issues such as weak intelligence systems, insufficient political will at critical moments, poor continuity of policies, and limited focus on root causes like poverty, governance, and community engagement.

While there have been undeniable efforts and sacrifices by the military, the duration of the crisis indicates that more decisive, well-coordinated, and sustained actions are needed. Ending such insurgency requires not just force, but a comprehensive approach that combines security operations with development, justice, and strong institutional accountability.

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

The Federal Government is set to introduce Learner Identification Number, LIN, for school children right from primary school level to be able to track their academic progress, as they continue their education journey.

The innovation is part of what the Federal Ministry of Education is working on to improve the sector and also allow for higher completion rate for pupils moving from basic education level to senior secondary school level.

The Minister of Education, Dr Tunji Alausa, disclosed this on Saturday during an interactive session with some journalists in Lagos.

“We have over 50,000 public primary schools in the country with over 23 million pupils. However, from statistics available to us, only a little over 3 million among those pupils move to the junior secondary school level in our public schools, then the question is, where are the about 20 million not enrolled in our public secondary schools? It is obvious that we cannot say our private schools accommodate all of them.

“The issue is simply lack of access and we are working on that. There is need to build more schools and I have met the Nigerian Governors’ Forum over that. State governments need to build more schools to accommodate more pupils and students.

“To also follow up on our pupils and students, we are introducing the Learner Identification Number right from primary school level for our children. It will be unique to each child and they will have the number no matter where they started schooling or later transferred to. If somebody is expected to be in JSS class one and he is not there, we will be able to know the reason why he is not continuing his education,” he said.

Alausa also said the government would soon phase out common entrance examination for pupils moving from primary school level to junior secondary school level.

“It will be replaced by Continuous Assessment, CA. The CA will reflect the performance of the pupil from primary one and even if a pupil is transferring from one school to another, he will take it along to his new school,” he explained.

The Minister added that efforts are on to resuscitate the school feeding programme, so as to attract more pupils to the nation’s public schools.

He gave the hint that the programme would be transferred from the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs to the FME for property monitoring.

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has sharply criticized the £746 million port rehabilitation agreement signed by President Bola Tinubu during his recent state visit to the United Kingdom, describing it as a “mugu” deal—a Nigerian slang term for a foolish or exploitative arrangement—that disproportionately benefits the British economy while saddling Nigeria with significant debt.

In a statement issued on Sunday by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC argued that the agreement, which aims to rehabilitate the Tin Can and Apapa ports in Lagos, effectively functions as a commercial loan designed to channel Nigerian funds toward the preservation of UK industries.

“While the APC government has tried to pass off the deal as President Tinubu’s major achievement, it is in fact an achievement of the UK Government, which, through this deal, has managed to save its steel industry, protect thousands of UK jobs, and get Nigeria to pay for it,” the statement read.

According to details cited by the ADC from the UK Government’s official website, the agreement is structured through UK Export Finance’s (UKEF) Buyer Credit Facility, arranged by Citibank, N.A., London Branch. The party noted that such facilities are typically used to finance the procurement of UK goods and services.

The ADC highlighted specific contractual obligations, noting that at least £236 million of the total will be awarded to British companies. Additionally, British Steel is set to supply 120,000 tonnes of steel billets under a £70 million contract, described by UKEF as its largest export order of its kind.

The party expressed alarm that Nigeria appears to be assuming substantial debt to fund foreign industrial interests. The ADC called on the Federal Government to provide full transparency regarding the agreement, demanding details on interest rates, repayment terms, local content provisions, job creation for Nigerians, and skills transfer requirements.

“If the APC government has answers to these questions, it should make them available to Nigerians,” the statement added. “Otherwise, Nigerians are justified in concluding that, 66 years after independence, President Bola Tinubu has travelled to London to sign an agreement that resembles a colonial-era treaty, one that risks mortgaging the country’s future for limited value and symbolism.”