—Ubuntu Rooted in Humanity —  

Nigeria’s insecurity crisis is widely discussed in terms of terrorism, banditry, and communal violence, but a deeper question arises when we examine patterns over decades: Is insecurity in certain regions being used as a deliberate economic weapon—a means to maintain dependency, underdevelopment, and elite control? While superficially insecurity appears as the product of extremist ideology or ethnic conflicts, a closer analysis of economic, political, and governance patterns suggests that it can also serve strategic economic purposes for powerful actors.

1. Patterns of Regional Vulnerability

In Nigeria, insecurity is heavily concentrated in northern and central regions, particularly the northeast, northwest, and parts of the Middle Belt. These areas, historically rich in agriculture, trade, and artisanal production, have become perpetually destabilized. Key observations include:

• Persistent poverty despite resource potential: Northern states like Borno, Yobe, and Zamfara are rich in agricultural potential, livestock, and minerals, yet remain among the poorest in the country.

• Chronic underdevelopment: Infrastructure—roads, electricity, water, and schools—is disproportionately underfunded compared to the south, limiting economic growth.

• Displacement cycles: Recurring attacks by Boko Haram, bandits, and communal militias force farmers, traders, and artisans to abandon land, markets, and productive activities.

The consistent underdevelopment of these regions is not accidental; patterns of insecurity and limited state intervention create economic stagnation, effectively keeping local populations dependent on external aid and elite-controlled channels.

2. Mechanisms of Economic Subjugation Through Insecurity

Insecurity affects local economies in ways that benefit external actors and entrenched elites:

1. Displacement as labor and resource control: Millions of IDPs in camps are dependent on government and NGO assistance. Their labor, limited economic opportunities, and survival needs make them vulnerable to exploitation, including cheap labor, forced compliance, or coercion.

2. Suppression of local enterprise: Constant attacks on farms, markets, and artisanal workshops reduce competition, allowing external suppliers or politically connected traders to dominate the supply chain. For example, northern food markets often rely on southern imports, partially because local production is disrupted by insecurity.

3. Control of aid and reconstruction contracts: Humanitarian and reconstruction funds flow into insecure areas. When elites or politically connected actors monopolize these resources, local populations remain dependent, while funds are diverted away from long-term development.

4. Debt and dependency cycles: Underdeveloped regions facing insecurity are often prioritized for federal subsidies or emergency loans, but mismanagement and corruption prevent these resources from building sustainable local economies.

These mechanisms create a structural dependency, where insecurity is not just chaos but a lever to maintain economic subjugation.

3. Political Incentives and the Economics of Insecurity

The persistence of insecurity aligns with certain political and economic incentives:

• Elite power consolidation: Politicians may exploit insecurity to control votes, manipulate local economies, or maintain patronage networks. Populations dependent on government or NGO aid are less likely to resist political influence.

• Resource capture: Insecure regions often contain valuable resources, including agricultural potential, minerals, or strategic trade routes. By keeping areas unstable, elites prevent locals from fully exploiting resources, enabling outsiders to extract profits.

• Suppression of opposition: Insecurity can be leveraged to weaken opposition movements, particularly if communities are too preoccupied with survival to organize politically.

• External investment diversion: Persistent instability discourages external investment in local industries, ensuring that northern regions remain dependent on external markets and southern-based industrial hubs.

In this sense, insecurity functions as both a political and economic tool, shaping the distribution of wealth and opportunity across Nigeria.

4. Impact on Agriculture, Trade, and Industry

Economic weaponization through insecurity is evident in sector-specific consequences:

1. Agriculture: Farmers flee or abandon crops due to raids, banditry, or threats from insurgents. This reduces local food production, increases dependence on southern imports, and depresses rural incomes.

2. Trade: Highway ambushes and market destruction disrupt commerce, allowing politically connected traders to control scarce goods and inflate prices.

3. Artisan and industrial work: Small workshops and factories in affected areas are abandoned or destroyed. Without infrastructure protection, artisans cannot produce goods efficiently, while external actors exploit the void for profit.

The result is structural economic underdevelopment, where regions are kept economically fragile and reliant on external interventions.

5. Social Consequences Reinforcing Economic Dependency

Beyond direct economic impact, insecurity generates social consequences that deepen dependency:

• Education disruption: Schools are closed or destroyed, reducing human capital development and limiting future economic mobility.

• Health crises: Inadequate healthcare due to insecurity increases vulnerability to disease, reducing labor productivity.

• Psychological trauma: Persistent fear discourages entrepreneurial risk-taking and long-term investment by local communities.

• Urban migration: Rural populations flee to cities or safer regions, leaving productive land underutilized and reinforcing regional inequalities.

These social effects create a self-reinforcing cycle, where economic underdevelopment fuels insecurity, and insecurity prevents economic development.

6. Evidence of Deliberate Neglect and Policy Choices

While not all insecurity is deliberately manufactured, certain policy choices and governance patterns indicate deliberate or negligent economic outcomes:

• Selective security deployment: Military and police presence is sometimes concentrated in politically important areas, leaving economically rich but politically less influential regions vulnerable.

• Delayed disaster response: Reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure and aid delivery is often slow, perpetuating dependency and discouraging local economic recovery.

• Corruption in aid and security spending: Diverted funds meant for reconstruction or counter-terrorism prevent the establishment of sustainable local economies, allowing elites to benefit financially while communities remain impoverished.

These examples suggest that insecurity can function as a strategic tool, even if indirectly, in maintaining regional underdevelopment.

7. Breaking the Cycle of Economic Weaponization

To prevent insecurity from being exploited as an economic weapon, Nigeria must adopt multi-layered strategies:

1. Transparent budgeting and accountability: Ensure funds for security, reconstruction, and humanitarian aid reach their intended beneficiaries.

2. Integrated development planning: Invest in infrastructure, education, and industry in historically insecure regions to reduce dependency.

3. Community-based security: Empower local communities to protect farms, markets, and transport routes, reducing vulnerability to both insurgents and corrupt elites.

4. Economic empowerment of IDPs: Provide displaced populations with access to credit, skills training, and market integration to restore independence.

5. Political reform and decentralization: Ensure that local governments have the resources and autonomy to develop economically without undue elite interference.

Sustainable development and security must go hand in hand, ensuring that economic dependency is replaced by resilience and opportunity.

8. Insecurity as a Tool of Structural Control

While terrorism, banditry, and communal violence in Nigeria are real threats, their economic consequences reveal a deeper dynamic: insecurity is often allowed to persist in ways that maintain dependency and limit regional development. By destabilizing agriculture, trade, and local industries, insecurity ensures that communities remain reliant on external aid, elite patronage, and central government intervention, while elites and connected actors capture wealth from reconstruction, security contracts, and aid flows.

Breaking this cycle requires holistic strategies—combining security, transparency, economic empowerment, and infrastructure development. Without this approach, insecurity remains not just a humanitarian crisis but a strategic instrument of economic control, preventing communities from realizing their potential and sustaining cycles of poverty and dependence.

Ubuntu reminds us: “I am because we are.” Nigeria’s prosperity depends on lifting every region, protecting livelihoods, and ensuring that insecurity is addressed not just militarily, but economically, politically, and socially. Only then can formerly marginalized regions reclaim agency, productivity, and dignity.