1. He Was Comparing Today’s Situation With the Peak of Insurgency Years

The statement by Godswill Akpabio appears to focus more on the reduction of large-scale territorial insurgency compared to the darkest years of terrorism in Nigeria.

During the peak of the insurgency under previous administrations, especially in the North-East, insurgent groups reportedly controlled territories, hoisted flags in some communities, carried out coordinated bomb attacks in major cities, and openly challenged state authority.

Akpabio’s argument is likely that, although insecurity still exists, Nigeria is no longer witnessing the same level of widespread territorial occupation and frequent urban bombings that once created national panic.

Critical Reality

Many Nigerians, however, argue that insecurity has merely changed form rather than disappeared. Kidnappings, banditry, farmer-herder attacks, killings in rural communities, and attacks on security formations still remain serious national concerns.

2. The Statement Was Strongly Political and Intended to Defend the Tinubu Administration

As Senate President and a leading figure in the ruling establishment, Akpabio’s remarks also carry clear political undertones aimed at defending the administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Governments across the world often highlight visible gains to strengthen public confidence, especially when facing criticism over economic hardship or security failures.

By emphasising the end of insurgent flag-hoisting and coordinated bomb attacks, Akpabio was likely attempting to project the image that the government has restored stronger state control and improved national stability.

Critical Reality

Critics believe such statements can appear disconnected from the daily experiences of Nigerians living in fear of abductions, attacks, and violent crimes in several regions of the country.

3. He Was Trying to Shift the National Security Narrative From “Collapse” to “Containment”

Another major reason behind the statement is the attempt to redefine how Nigeria’s security situation is measured.

Instead of presenting security as “perfect,” Akpabio’s comments suggest the government now wants the conversation to focus on whether the state still retains control over national sovereignty and major institutions.

In essence, the message appears to be:

• Nigeria is battling insecurity,
• but the country is not collapsing,
• insurgents are no longer openly controlling territories,
• and large-scale coordinated terrorism has reduced compared to previous years.

This is a strategic political communication approach often used by governments facing prolonged security crises.

Critical Reality

For many citizens, however, the absence of insurgent flags does not automatically translate to safety. Nigerians often judge security by everyday realities — ability to travel safely, sleep peacefully, farm without fear, or avoid kidnapping on highways.

The Bigger National Debate

Akpabio’s statement reflects the widening divide between official government assessments and public perception of insecurity in Nigeria.

While authorities may point to:

• reduced large-scale bombings,
• weakened insurgent territorial control,
• and improved military operations,

many Nigerians continue to focus on:

• rising kidnappings,
• rural massacres,
• bandit attacks,
• communal violence,
• and economic insecurity linked to violence.

That is why the statement has generated strong reactions across different parts of the country.