The Nigerian Police Force’s press release on June 16, 2025, detailing the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Kayode Adeolu Egbetokun’s visit to Benue State in response to the tragic killings of residents, presents an image of proactive engagement and commitment to restoring peace. However, a critical examination of the attitude displayed by the Nigerian Police and, by extension, the armed forces reveals a mix of commendable intent overshadowed by systemic shortcomings, reactive measures, and a tone that risks appearing performative rather than transformative.
The IGP’s visit to Benue, accompanied by senior officers, including the Chief of Defense Staff, signals a high-level acknowledgment of the crisis. The condolence visit to the State Governor and the Yelwata Community, coupled with the deployment of additional tactical teams, suggests an attempt to reassure affected communities and demonstrate action. The public condemnation of the killings as “senseless” and “an act of terrorism” is a strong rhetorical stance, aligning with the expectations of a security apparatus tasked with protecting citizens. Furthermore, the promise of welfare and logistical support for officers indicates an awareness of the need to boost morale and operational capacity.
However, these actions, while necessary, do not fully address the deeper issues surrounding the attitude of the Nigerian Police and armed forces toward recurring violence in Benue and similar regions. The response appears to prioritize visibility and public relations over substantive, preventive strategies, raising questions about the sincerity and efficacy of the approach.
The deployment of additional tactical teams and assets, while a practical step, underscores a reactive posture that has long characterized the Nigerian security apparatus’s response to such crises. The press release does not mention proactive intelligence-gathering mechanisms, community-based policing initiatives, or long-term strategies to address the root causes of the violence, such as ethnic tensions, land disputes, or economic marginalization. The IGP’s visit and the subsequent deployment seem triggered by the scale of the tragedy rather than informed by anticipatory measures to prevent such incidents. This reactive approach risks perpetuating a cycle of violence, where security forces only act decisively after significant loss of life, leaving communities vulnerable in the interim.
Moreover, the assignment of a Deputy Inspector-General to oversee operations in Benue, while a step toward centralized coordination, does not clarify how this will differ from previous efforts that have failed to curb the violence. The lack of transparency regarding the specific tactics, timelines, or success metrics for these operations fosters skepticism about their potential impact.
The press release’s tone, while empathetic, leans heavily on assurances and promises—phrases like “the Nigeria Police Force would carry out its best efforts” and “remains resolute towards bringing the perpetrators to justice”—that are vague and lack measurable commitments. Such language risks being perceived as performative, especially given the history of unfulfilled promises in addressing insecurity in Benue and other parts of Nigeria. The absence of any acknowledgment of past failures or lessons learned from previous interventions in the region further erodes confidence in the security forces’ ability to deliver lasting solutions.
Additionally, there is no mention of accountability mechanisms for either the perpetrators of the violence or the security forces themselves. The press release does not address allegations of complicity, inaction, or inadequate response by local police or military units in Benue, which have been raised in public discourse. This omission reinforces a perception of institutional defensiveness, where the focus is on projecting action rather than critically assessing internal shortcomings.
While the IGP’s engagement with community leaders in Yelwata is a positive step, the press release does not elaborate on how these interactions will translate into trust-building or sustained collaboration with affected communities. The attitude reflected in the statement seems top-down, with decisions made at the highest levels without clear evidence of incorporating local knowledge or addressing community-specific concerns. For instance, there is no mention of initiatives to protect vulnerable groups, such as farmers or displaced persons, who are often the primary targets of such attacks.
The reference to the Governor’s “ease and delight” at the IGP’s visit, while possibly diplomatic, risks creating a disconnect with the lived realities of Benue residents who continue to face existential threats. This framing may alienate communities who perceive the response as more about political optics than genuine empathy or solutions tailored to their needs.
The involvement of the Chief of Defense Staff in the IGP’s visit highlights the collaborative role of the armed forces in addressing the Benue crisis. However, the press release does not clarify the military’s specific contributions beyond this symbolic presence. Given the armed forces’ history of being deployed in internal security operations, their attitude often mirrors that of the police: reactive, heavy-handed, and insufficiently integrated with community-driven solutions. The lack of detail on how the police and military will coordinate effectively in Benue suggests a continuation of siloed operations, which have historically undermined comprehensive security management.
To address the Benue killings and similar crises more effectively, the Nigerian Police and armed forces must adopt an attitude that prioritizes prevention, accountability, and community engagement. This includes:
Proactive Intelligence and Prevention: Invest in early-warning systems and community-based intelligence to anticipate and mitigate conflicts before they escalate.
Transparency and Accountability: Publicly acknowledge past shortcomings, establish clear metrics for success, and hold both perpetrators and underperforming security units accountable.
Community-Centric Approaches: Foster sustained dialogue with local leaders and residents to co-design security strategies that reflect ground realities.
Holistic Strategies: Address the socio-economic and political drivers of violence, such as land disputes and marginalization, in collaboration with civilian authorities.
Military-Police Synergy: Clearly define and communicate the roles of the police and armed forces in joint operations to avoid duplication and ensure efficiency.
