On Tuesday, April 14, 2026, at the commissioning of the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) Corporate Headquarters in Abuja, Senate President Godswill Akpabio made remarks that trivialised the tragic wave of killings of Nigerian soldiers and civilians, reducing the nation’s grief to political jest. In a tone that seemed dismissive of the bloodshed, Akpabio portrayed the escalating insecurity as nothing more than a political ploy orchestrated by opposition parties desperate to wrest power from the All Progressives Congress (APC) ahead of the 2027 elections. He accused them of being the architects of banditry and terrorism that have destabilised Nigeria in recent years, suggesting that the violence was deliberately sponsored to undermine the government.
Akpabio declared, “Insecurity is increasing because an election is coming, because people don’t know what to do again. Immediately after the election, two weeks after the election, the insecurity will stop. The insecurity is being sponsored by people.” Such a statement, made against the backdrop of mass killings and national mourning, not only downplays the gravity of Nigeria’s security crisis but also risks normalising violence as a mere extension of political rivalry. By framing terrorism and banditry as temporary, election-driven antics, the Senate President inadvertently diminishes the lived suffering of victims and undermines the seriousness of Nigeria’s long-standing structural security challenges.
Ordinarily, taxation—the intended focus of the event—bears no direct relation to the relentless spate of killings across Nigeria. Yet, in a manner both jarring and mischievous, Senate President Godswill Akpabio forced these incompatible issues side by side, trivialising a national tragedy in the process. What might have been dismissed as mere political jest becomes deeply troubling when it emanates from the third-highest officeholder in the land. His remarks cannot be brushed aside; they demand serious scrutiny.
Several presuppositions emanate from the two sentences credited to Akpabio. First, he has implicated the idea that the insecurity in Nigeria is politically motivated and driven by opposition figures who sought to destabilise the ruling party. It also presupposes that the killings will continue and that Nigerians will not enjoy any relief from violence until after the elections. It further implies that the rising violence is not driven solely by criminal motives but is intentionally used as a distraction technique to hinder the ruling party. On the other hand, Akpabio has contradicted the government’s posture that it has the capacity and has tackled insecurity decisively. If the government is so strong and effective, why is insecurity worsening? Most annoying of all is Akpabio’s projection that insecurity would end two weeks after the 2027 elections, yet terrorists and bandits have stolen peace from Nigeria in more than a decade now. What magic strategy can the government employ to bring insecurity to an end in 14 days after the 2027 elections?
There are several elements of logical fallacies and contradictions in the Senate President’s statement, but it squarely fits observations by security experts that each election cycle in Nigeria since 2011 has unleashed bloodshed upon the people. Politicians have creatively found a ‘winning formula’ in the bloody activities of bandits and terrorists, which provides cover for scaring away strong opposition candidates from the strongholds and provides strong cover for rigging elections.
During the 2011 general elections, widespread insecurity created conditions that undermined transparency. Politicians exploited the tense atmosphere by deploying thugs and manipulating security agencies to intimidate voters and electoral officials. In areas plagued by violence, ballot materials were either delayed or destroyed, giving room for manipulation of results. The insecurity also justified heavy militarisation of polling zones, which in some cases restricted opposition supporters from voting freely. This climate of fear allowed ruling party figures to consolidate votes in their strongholds while suppressing participation elsewhere, thereby skewing the electoral outcome.
In 2015, insecurity linked to Boko Haram insurgency provided another cover for electoral malpractice. The government initially postponed the elections, citing security concerns, which critics argued were a tactic to buy time for the ruling party. In many conflict-affected areas, displaced individuals were disenfranchised, and polling was either cancelled or poorly monitored. Politicians leveraged the chaos to manipulate voter registers and inflate figures in safer regions. The “do-or-die” mentality, combined with brigandage and electoral malfeasance, meant insecurity was not only a genuine challenge but also a political tool. By framing the political violence as unavoidable, the political elites attempt to justify irregularities and limited oversight, enabling rigging under the guise of protecting lives.
As Senate President, Akpabio is expected to have intelligence on politicians, from both ruling and opposition parties, colluding with bandits and terrorists to disrupt the country for electoral gain. The government must direct security agencies to investigate, arrest, and prosecute politicians involved with bandits and terrorists, rather than dismissing the killings as part of a power struggle. Nigerians should not be used as sacrificial lambs on the altar of devilish politics, either by those in power or by opposition party leaders.
Apart from the death of hundreds of civilians from various attacks, in the past six months, Nigeria has lost several top military officers to terrorist attacks in the North-East. Beyond the immediate tragedy of losing experienced commanders, the broader danger lies in the precedent it sets: if terrorism can be manipulated as a political tool, then violence becomes normalised as part of Nigeria’s electoral process. That would entrench a cycle where insecurity is deliberately sustained to tilt political outcomes, leaving ordinary citizens perpetually vulnerable. This exploitation of human suffering for power is sheer wickedness, which must not be allowed to persist.
Nigerians deserve to be protected from the schemes of politicians who thrive on the blood of the people. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has the constitutional duty to checkmate politicians who use terrorists and bandits as tools for winning elections. This government must not trivialise or reduce such belligerent political crimes to mere jest, as Senate President Akpabio dangerously attempted. Such rhetoric undermines the gravity of terrorism, emboldens perpetrators, and erodes public trust in leadership at a time when Nigeria desperately needs seriousness, empathy, and decisive action. Any scheme that fosters bloodshed must be frowned upon and thwarted.