INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8973
Politicization of the Security System: The Nigerian Experience in the
Fourth Republic
Muktar Bashir Ph.D
1
, Abubakar Jibril Ph.D
2
1
Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto
2
Department of Sociology Faculty of Social Sciences, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000731
Received: 02 November 2025; Accepted: 10 November 2025; Published: 22 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Security is the bedrock of any society, it serves as an avenue that brings the needed development. This is on
account of the fact that, no country can achieve the needed progress without stable security system. The
security agencies are expected to perform their duty freely without aligning to a particular selfish interest. This
article examines the politicization of Nigeria's security apparatus in the Fourth Republic, exploring its
implications for governance, democracy, and national stability. By delving into historical antecedents,
contemporary cases, and theoretical frameworks, qualitative research design is utilized in this study, relevant
documentary sources were also utilized. The study found that political interference undermines security, fosters
corruption, and weakens public trust. Drawing on primary and secondary data, the study provides policy
recommendations to depoliticize security institutions.
Keywords: Politicization, Security, Nigeria, Fourth Republic, Governance, Democracy
INTRODUCTION
Security is the bedrock of stable governance and an essential function of the modern state. In democracies,
security institutions such as the armed forces, police, intelligence services, and paramilitary agencies are
expected to operate under the rule of law, serve the public interest, and maintain a clear separation from
partisan politics. However, when the boundaries between state security apparatus and political interests become
blurred, the term politicization of the security system becomes glaring. Politicization means that security
institutions are used or influenced by political actors to serve partisan objectives rather than the common good
of the masses.
In the context of the Nigerian Fourth Republic (which began in 1999), the phenomenon of politicizing security
institutions has emerged as a critical challenge. The Fourth Republic promised a new democratic dawn after
decades of military rule, raising hopes for professional, impartial, and accountable security services
(Yagboyaju, 2011). Yet, the Nigerian experience has been fraught with episodes where security agencies have
been deployed for electoral manipulation, suppression of opposition, selective enforcement of laws, patronage-
driven security appointments, and institutional capture by political elites, all with the intent of serving the
interest of political class.
The historical context of Nigeria is germane for understanding how politicization took root. Decades of
military rule created institutional legacies whereby the armed forces and other security agencies were deeply
embedded in governance and political control. The transition to civilian democratic rule carried over many of
these legacies: centralized command structures, weak civilian oversight, blurred civil–military boundaries, and
a propensity for using security forces for internal control rather than external defence (Matfess, 2016). In
Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, the politicization of the security system manifests at several levels. First, through
command and appointment structures: political office-holders frequently appoint loyalists to key security posts,
undermining meritocratic professionalism and chain of command integrity. Second, through operational
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8974
deployment: security forces are often deployed during elections or political crises in ways that favour the
ruling party or suppress opposition groups (see Frontiers article on security challenges and elections in Nigeria,
2025). Third, through institutional capture: resources, intelligence, and enforcement powers may be directed at
political rivals rather than security threats, thereby reducing public trust and institutional legitimacy. Fourth,
through accountability deficits: oversight mechanisms remain weak, enabling impunity and the entrenchment
of partisan uses of security (Abdulrasheed, 2021).
The consequences of this politicization are multiple and severe. For one, the capacity of security institutions to
respond to genuine threats is degraded. When resources are diverted for political ends and institutional
priorities skewed toward regime protection, operational efficiency declines. Insurgencies such as that waged by
Boko Haram in the northeast, the militancy in the Niger Delta, and the rise of banditry and kidnapping across
the northwest have been exacerbated by institutional weaknesses, partisan interference, and lack of strategic
focus (Matfess, 2016). Furthermore, politicization undermines democratic consolidation. Democracies depend
on impersonal, impartial institutions that citizens trust to treat all groups equally. When security institutions
become aligned with the political interests of a regime or an elite faction, they lose legitimacy (Abdulrasheed,
2021; Adagbabiri & Okolie, 2018). This erosion of legitimacy fuels public cynicism, weakens social contract
relations, and may lead to backlash in the form of non-state actors taking up arms or communities forming
vigilante groups, further complicating the security environment.
Additionally, the relationship between governance, development, and security is adversely affected. The Fourth
Republic has seen persistent linkage between insecurity and under-development. For example, insecurity
increases costs for investment, reduces government capacity for social spending, and diverts budgets toward
security rather than development. Conversely, weak governance, corruption, and poor institutional capacity
provide fertile ground for insecurity (Adagbabiri & Okolie, 2018; Agbaenyi & Ezeanya, 2022). Therefore, a
focused study of how the security system’s politicization has unfolded in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic is
imperative. Such an analysis should examine: the structural and constitutional features that have enabled
politicization (for example centralisation of the police at the federal level, ambiguous concept of indigeneity,
and overlapping land-tenure systems) (Matfess, 2016); the procedural mechanisms (appointments,
deployments, oversight) by which political influences permeate the security sector; empirical cases (electoral
security deployment, militia co-option, intelligence utilisation); and the implications for both state security
performance and democratic governance.
Thus, the Nigerian experience in the Fourth Republic reveals that sustainable national security cannot be
achieved when institutions responsible for order and protection are routinely weaponised for partisan ends.
Reversing such trends requires institutional reforms enhancing civilian oversight, ensuring merit-based
appointments, insulating operational decisions from political interference, and fostering professional norms
within the security services. By doing so, Nigeria can strengthen both its democratic foundations and its
capacity to secure citizens and territory effectively.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This section reviews relevant concepts and empirical studies that bothers on the issue under investigation. This
is necessary to showcase the true meaning of relevant concepts used in the work as well as the empirical
studies that will provide the gap in the literature, which justify the direction of the paper.
Concept of Security
Security is widely regarded as one of the most fundamental prerequisites for human survival, societal stability,
and state legitimacy. Traditionally, security was conceptualized through a state-centric and militaristic lens,
focusing on the protection of state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and regime stability against external threats
(Wolfers, 1952). This classical realist perspective views the military as the primary guarantor of national
survival in an anarchic international system. However, contemporary scholarship argues that such a narrow
conception fails to address the evolving range of threats confronting modern societies.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8975
The post-Cold War era ushered in a broader and more inclusive understanding of security one that shifts the
referent object from the state to individuals and communities. The United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP, 1994) introduced the concept of human security, emphasizing protection from economic deprivation,
health vulnerability, political oppression, and communal violence. This expanded framework recognizes that
insecurity can emerge from internal governance failures, poverty, terrorism, organized crime, environmental
degradation, and social injustice not only from interstate war.
Additionally, critical security studies question the power dynamics embedded in security practices, arguing that
security may be used as a tool for legitimizing state coercion and suppressing dissent (Buzan, Wæver, & de
Wilde, 1998). Thus, security is increasingly viewed as multidimensional encompassing political, economic,
social, environmental, and cybersecurity concerns. Overall, contemporary conceptualizations recognize
security as a continuum involving both state capacity and human well-being. Effective security provision
requires balancing state protection with democratic governance, respect for human rights, and community
resilience.
The Concept of Security Politicization
The politicization of security refers to the process by which state security apparatuses are manipulated to serve
the political interests of dominant elites, parties, or individuals, rather than the collective security of the
citizenry. This phenomenon blurs the lines between national interest and partisan objectives, often undermining
democratic principles and fostering authoritarian tendencies (Buzan, Wæver & de Wilde, 1998). At its core,
security politicization occurs when security issues are elevated from normal political debate to matters of
existential threat, thereby justifying extraordinary measures. The Copenhagen School of Security Studies
conceptualizes this as "securitization," wherein political actors frame certain issues as urgent security threats to
bypass normal political processes (Buzan et al., 1998). In the Nigerian context, this often involves framing
political opposition, dissent, or even social protests as threats to national security, thus legitimizing heavy-
handed responses.
In another development, Wilkinson (2004), political elites in fragile democracies often rely on the security
sector to maintain power, especially when facing credible electoral challenges. The security apparatus becomes
an extension of the ruling party, utilized to intimidate opposition, suppress dissent, and manipulate electoral
outcomes. This practice is particularly evident in countries with weak institutional checks and balances, where
security chiefs are beholden to political patrons rather than constitutional mandates (Luckham, 2003).
Similarly, Bayart, Ellis, and Hibou (1999) argue that in post-colonial African states, the politicization of
security is deeply embedded in the "criminalization of the state." They contend that security services are co-
opted into networks of patronage and rent-seeking, transforming them into tools for personal enrichment and
political survival rather than public protection.
Furthermore, Nathan (2007) emphasizes that the politicization of security institutions compromises their
professionalism, erodes public trust, and ultimately weakens the state’s capacity to manage genuine threats.
When security agencies become partisans in political contests, they lose their legitimacy in the eyes of citizens,
creating an environment conducive to violence and instability. In the Nigerian experience, scholars like
Akinrinade and Owoeye (2012) assert that the military’s historical involvement in governance has had
lingering effects on civilian control of the security sector. Civilian regimes in the Fourth Republic have
struggled to assert independent oversight, leading to the frequent instrumentalization of security forces for
political ends.
Additionally, scholars like Abrahamsen and Williams (2007) introduce the concept of "global security
assemblages," where domestic politicization of security intersects with global counter-terrorism frameworks.
In Nigeria, this dynamic is evident in how the government securitized the Boko Haram insurgency to secure
international military assistance, while simultaneously using the conflict as a political tool domestically (Olojo,
2020). Added to the above is the view of Ayoade (2008) who contends that the politicization of Nigeria’s
security sector is symptomatic of broader governance deficits, particularly the absence of political
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8976
accountability and the personalization of state institutions. This personalist approach undermines institutional
autonomy and professionalism, rendering security agencies vulnerable to manipulation during electoral cycles
and periods of political unrest.
In a nutshell, the politicization of security transforms neutral institutions into instruments of power
consolidation. This phenomenon not only jeopardizes civil liberties but also delegitimizes the state's capacity
to provide security in an impartial and effective manner (Hansen & Stepputat, 2001). The Nigerian experience
offers a vivid illustration of these dynamics, with repeated episodes of security politicization undermining both
democratic consolidation and national stability.
METHODOLOGY
This study adopts a qualitative research design to explore the politicization of Nigeria’s security system in the
Fourth Republic (1999–present). The qualitative approach is appropriate because it allows for an in-depth
understanding of the complex socio-political processes, institutional behaviors, and contextual factors that
underpin the relationship between politics and security governance in Nigeria. Data were generated primarily
from documentary sources, including government policy documents, security sector reports, legislative
proceedings, academic publications, media investigations, and reports by civil society organizations such as
Amnesty International and Transparency International.
The research utilized a case study design, focusing on key episodes of security politicization, including
electoral security operations, regional appointment patterns of service chiefs, and state responses to insurgency
and protest movements. The period of analysis spans from 1999 to 2023, covering successive democratic
administrations. Data were analyzed thematically using content analysis, which enabled the researcher to
identify recurring patterns, interpret narratives, and evaluate institutional behaviors in relation to political
influence. To enhance credibility and validity, triangulation was applied by comparing information from
multiple sources. Interpretive analysis was grounded in Institutional Decay Theory, which provided a
theoretical lens for explaining how repeated political interference erodes institutional professionalism and
effectiveness. Ethical considerations were maintained by ensuring objectivity, accurate citation of sources, and
the avoidance of partisan interpretations.
Method of Data Analysis
In this paper, a qualitative method of data analysis was employed where content of relevant documentary
sources as well as government reports, media publications, and policy documents were analyzed to examine
narratives surrounding security operations and governance. The qualitative approach enabled in-depth
interpretation of meanings, motives, and institutional behaviors underlying the politicization process. This
method provides contextual understanding of how political actors manipulate security institutions and how
such practices affect democratic consolidation and national stability in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic.
Theoretical Framework
Institutional Decay Theory and the Politicization of Nigeria’s Security System
Institutional Decay Theory explains how public institutions deteriorate over time when they fail to uphold
legitimacy, performance, and rule-based governance. Key proponents such as Samuel P. Huntington (1965),
Robert I. Rotberg (2010), and Francis Fukuyama (2014) argue that institutions decay when they become unable
to adapt, lose autonomy, and are subordinated to the interests of dominant political elites rather than public
welfare.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8977
Major Assumptions of the Theory
1. Institutions are expected to maintain autonomy and professional norms; when external actors impose
undue influence, institutions weaken (Huntington, 1965).
2. Decay occurs when informal patronage networks overpower formal rules, allowing personal loyalties to
replace institutional authority (Fukuyama, 2014).
3. Corruption and misallocation of resources accelerate institutional decline, reducing operational
efficiency and legitimacy (Rotberg, 2010).
4. Weakened institutions become trapped in a self-reinforcing cycle of dysfunction, struggling to recover
capacity once credibility is lost.
Criticisms of Institutional Decay Theory
Despite its relevance, Institutional Decay Theory faces several criticisms:
Overemphasis on internal institutional weakness:
Critics argue the theory insufficiently considers external factors such as economic crises, foreign influence,
global terrorism, or colonial legacies that may trigger decline (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).
Normative bias toward Western governance models:
The theory implies that institutions are “decayed” when they do not conform to Western-style bureaucratic
standards, potentially ignoring cultural and contextual variations in governance structures.
Limited attention to institutional resilience:
Institutions can adapt and regain functionality through reforms, leadership change, or societal pressure.
The theory tends to emphasize decline over recovery.
Elite agency underexplored:
While elites are acknowledged in driving decay, critics note a lack of explanation regarding why some political
classes choose reform while others promote deterioration suggesting gaps in predictive power.
State-centric focus:
The framework reduces complex security dynamics to state institutions and neglects the rising influence of
non-state actors (e.g., vigilantes, militias, private security), which play important roles in Nigeria’s
contemporary security landscape.
Relevance of the Theory to the study
Applied to Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, the theory explains how the security system initially designed to uphold
national defense and internal order has been steadily politicized. Decades of military rule produced centralized
and hierarchical security structures closely tied to governing elites. After democratization in 1999, instead of
restructuring these institutions to ensure professional autonomy, successive civilian governments inherited and
exploited these authoritarian legacies.
Political interference in appointments, promotions, and operational decisions has gradually replaced
meritocratic structures with loyalty-based patronage networks. As Huntington’s assumption predicts, such
intrusion erodes professionalism and distorts institutional purpose. Security agencies are now frequently
deployed to protect ruling party interests, influence elections, intimidate opposition, and suppress protests
undermining impartiality and eroding public trust. Rotberg’s argument on corruption is evident as defense
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8978
budgets and internal security funds are often mismanaged, weakening equipment readiness and tactical
capability. This fuels wider insecurity challenges such as insurgency, banditry, militancy, and kidnapping.
Institutional Decay Theory therefore illustrates that Nigeria’s politicized security system is both a product and
driver of institutional decline. Recovering lost capacity requires restoring autonomy, strengthening oversight,
and rebuilding professional ethics to ensure security institutions serve national not partisan objectives.
Historical Context of Politicization in Nigeria
The politicization of Nigeria’s security sector cannot be fully understood without situating it within the
country’s complex historical trajectory. From colonial administration to post-independence military rule and
the transition to civilian governments, the entanglement of politics and security institutions has been a
persistent feature of Nigeria’s statecraft.
Colonial Legacy
The origins of security politicization in Nigeria are traceable to the colonial era. The British colonial
administration designed security forces not as instruments of public protection but as tools of coercion to
suppress resistance against colonial rule (Killingray, 1986). The colonial police and military were primarily
deployed to enforce colonial ordinances, quell uprisings, and maintain the economic exploitation of indigenous
populations (Osaghae, 1998). This foundation entrenched a culture where security services served ruling
interests rather than communal welfare.
Here are several examples of colonial-legacies and how they contribute to the politicisation of the security
system in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic:
1. Colonial policing model geared to control rather than service Under British rule, policing in Nigeria
was designed to suppress dissent, protect colonial economic interests, and maintain political order
rather than to enforce rules impartially or serve citizens (Alemika, 1993). This legacy means that post-
colonial security institutions inherited a mindset oriented toward regime protection rather than citizen
security.
2. Centralised, top‐down command structure and limited local accountability The colonial system
established highly centralised security institutions (e.g., the Nigeria Police Force) with little community
input or oversight (Onyeozili, 2005). That institutional structure persists in Nigeria, facilitating
political control over the security apparatus and limiting decentralised, communitybased accountability.
3. Ethnic and regional imbalances rooted in indirect rule The British policy of indirect rule created, and
institutionalised, divides between the North and South, and among ethnic groups with security
structures used to favour some groups and suppress others (Ayika & Onwurah, 2025). Today, these
dynamics feed politicisation: security appointments, deployments and enforcement can reflect
regional/ethnic bias rather than professional criteria.
4. Ingrained culture of coercion, distrust and low legitimacy Colonial security forces often acted as
instruments of coercion rather than partners of civil society (Alemika, 1993). Post-independence, the
institutional culture of repression, low transparency and weak community engagement hindered public
trust. Politicians exploit this lack of legitimacy to deploy security institutions for partisan ends rather
than for impartial protection.
5. Legal and institutional frameworks inherited without transformation Many of the laws and institutional
arrangements governing Nigerian security agencies were inherited from the colonial era (e.g., policing
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8979
statutes, command structures) and were not substantially reformed to align with democratic oversight
and accountability. Because of this, the politicisation of security systems is structurally enabled.
6. Underdevelopment and structural inequalities rooted in colonial economy The colonial administrative
and economic model entrenched regional disparities and neglected large swathes of Nigeria
(north/south, rural areas). These disparities provided fertile ground for insecurity and political
manipulation of security agencies (Ayika & Onwurah, 2025). Politicians may then exploit insecurity for
political gain, using the security forces to protect or privilege certain communities.
7. On a final note, the violent suppression of anti-colonial movements such as the Aba Women’s Riots of
1929 and the Enugu coal miners' strike of 1949 demonstrated the instrumentalization of security forces
for political control (Afigbo, 1981). These events set precedents for the use of force to manage political
dissent, a pattern that persisted into the post-independence era.
Post-Independence Political Competition and Military Coups
Following Nigeria's independence in 1960, the political elite inherited the colonial security architecture
without significant reform. This continuity entrenched the use of security agencies as instruments of political
domination (Suberu, 2001). In the First Republic (1960–1966), intense regional rivalries and zero-sum politics
led to the politicization of security services. The Western Region crisis, also known as "Operation Wetie"
(1965), is a salient example. Political disputes between factions of the Action Group party escalated into
violent confrontations, with the police and security forces accused of partiality towards the federal
government’s preferred faction (Osaghae, 1998). The failure to manage these tensions culminated in Nigeria's
first military coup in 1966. Subsequent military regimes institutionalized the politicization of security, as
military leaders ruled both as heads of state and commanders-in-chief, subordinating national security to
regime security (Luckham, 1971). Under General Sani Abacha’s rule (1993–1998), for instance, state security
services such as the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) and the State Security Service (SSS) were
notorious for repressing political opposition and orchestrating human rights abuses (Ihonvbere, 1996).
Here are several concrete examples of post-independence political competition and military coups in Nigeria
and how they relate to the politicization of the security system in the Fourth Republic.
1. Frequent military coups, transition to civilian rule and the embedded politicised security apparatus
After independence in 1960, Nigeria experienced its first military coup in January 1966, followed by a
countercoup in July 1966. These coups and the ensuing military regimes increasingly placed the
security forces (army, military intelligence, police) under the direct control of the regime for political
ends rather than purely national defence. For instance, the military took over governance, giving the
army commanding political roles, and institutionalised a culture in which security services were
politically deployed (rather than strictly professionally) (Adeakin 2012). These legacies carry into the
Fourth Republic: many security institutions retain strong ties to political leadership, have weak civilian
oversight, and are used in election-period operations or to manage internal dissent.
2. Military regimes’ use of security forces for regime maintenance During periods of military rule (e.g.,
1983-1999) the regimes of Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida, and others institutionalised
practices of using the security apparatus (army, intelligence, police) to enforce the regime’s political
control, including suppression of opposition, arrests without trial, and direct deployment in political
tasks. The result: the boundaries between professional security mandate and political usage became
blurred. This fosters a culture where security agencies are perceived as instruments of the regime rather
than neutral defenders of state and society. In the Fourth Republic, such a pattern persists: security
agencies may be mobilised during election campaigns, political rallies, protests or to secure certain
elites.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8980
3. Post-coup transitions and weak civilian oversight over security institutions Each coup and military
regime period disrupted institutional development, oversight mechanisms, and professionalisation of
security agencies. For example, the frequent change of governors, martial decrees, and the army’s
dominant role inhibited the establishment of robust civilian control. (See trends of political instability
in Nigeria since independence.). Because of this institutional turbulence, when civilian rule resumed
(since 1999) the security system remained heavily politicised: lines of accountability, chain of
command autonomy, and a culture of loyalty to political officeholders persist.
4. Politicised security deployments in electoral and regional competition Post-independence political
competition in Nigeria has often been zero-sum, ethnic and regional. Coups and military rule magnified
these dynamics: officers and security commanders came from specific ethnic/regional backgrounds,
fostering distrust and favouritism. For instance, the counter-coup of 1966 reflected ethnic grievances
within the military. In the Fourth Republic, this translates into security appointments and deployments
that reflect political loyalty and regional/ethnic affiliation rather than purely merit or national interest.
This politicisation undermines impartiality of the security system, making it vulnerable to being used as
a tool by political elites in competitive elections.
Civil War and Militarization of Politics
The Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970) further entrenched the politicization of security. The federal military
government framed the secessionist attempt by Biafra as an existential threat to the nation’s unity, justifying
massive militarization (Madiebo, 1980). The post-war policy of "No victor, no vanquished" masked deeper
politicization, as the security establishment continued to view political opposition through the lens of
existential threats, justifying surveillance and repression (Osaghae & Suberu, 2005).
Second and Third Republics: Militarized Democracy
The brief return to civilian rule during the Second Republic (1979–1983) did little to de-politicize the security
apparatus. President Shehu Shagari’s administration was frequently accused of deploying security agencies to
suppress opposition parties and rig elections, particularly during the 1983 general elections (Diamond, 1988).
This abuse of security forces contributed to the military coup that ended the Second Republic. Similarly, during
General Ibrahim Babangida’s transitional program (1985–1993), the military maintained tight control over the
political process. The annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election, widely regarded as Nigeria’s freest
and fairest, was enforced through security crackdowns on pro-democracy activists (Adebanwi & Obadare,
2011).
Fourth Republic: Continuities and New Dimensions
The return to democracy in 1999, marking the beginning of the Fourth Republic, raised hopes for the
professionalization of the security sector. However, old patterns persisted. Successive civilian administrations
have continued to instrumentalize security agencies for political ends. Under President Olusegun Obasanjo
(1999–2007), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other security agencies were
allegedly used to target political adversaries under the guise of anti-corruption campaigns (Ibeanu & Momoh,
2008).
In more recent times, the 2019 general elections saw accusations of military interference, with reports of armed
forces being deployed to intimidate voters and opposition strongholds (International Crisis Group, 2019). The
#EndSARS protests of 2020 against police brutality highlighted the extent of security politicization, as
peaceful protesters were met with lethal force at the Lekki Toll Gate, widely believed to be a politically
motivated crackdown (Amnesty International, 2020).
Furthermore, the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East and widespread banditry in the North-West have
often been securitized along political lines, with accusations of selective responses based on regional political
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8981
affiliations (Olojo, 2020). These dynamics illustrate the entrenchment of politicization even in the face of
genuine security threats.
Manifestations of Security Politicization in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic
The Fourth Republic, beginning in 1999, was expected to usher in a new era of democratic consolidation and
professionalization of Nigeria's security institutions. However, instead of becoming neutral enforcers of state
laws, security agencies in Nigeria have frequently been co-opted into the political arena, serving partisan
interests and undermining democratic processes. This section explores the various manifestations of security
politicization during the Fourth Republic, supported by empirical examples and scholarly analyses.
Electoral Security Manipulation
One of the most visible manifestations of security politicization in the Fourth Republic is the manipulation of
security forces during electoral processes. Security agencies, including the police, military, and Department of
State Services (DSS), have been consistently accused of partisan conduct during elections (Omotola, 2010).
Instead of ensuring a level playing field, security forces have often been deployed to intimidate opposition
candidates, suppress voter turnout in strongholds of rival parties, and provide security cover for electoral
malpractices such as ballot box snatching and vote-buying (Bekoe & Burchard, 2017).
For instance, during the 2007 general elections widely regarded as one of the most flawed in Nigeria’s history
observers noted widespread misuse of security forces to rig elections in favour of the ruling People's
Democratic Party (PDP) (International Crisis Group, 2007). Similarly, the 2019 elections witnessed the
deployment of military personnel to collation centres, a move criticized by civil society organizations and
international observers as a form of electoral intimidation (Yagboyaju, 2019).
Here are some examples of electoral-security manipulation in Nigeria that illustrate the use or abuse of security
agencies for partisan electoral advantage:
Examples
In a study of elections in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, it was observed that security agencies were “compromised
by political elites to achieve their parochial interests … used by politicians to create palpable fear and tension
to scare potential voters away particularly in the strongholds of the opposition.” Analysis of the 2019 general
elections shows that various security agencies and personnel (including military and paramilitary) were
deployed for election-duties. The paper states key challenges: “incompetence, lack of independence and
professionalism, negative attitude of the political class … deployment of the military for election” duties.
A 2025 article on policing and electoral violence states that during election periods the Nigeria Police Force
(NPF) regularly “abuse Nigerians by beating, humiliating, and detaining those who hold opposing political
opinions”. It also states the police “serve as instruments of the ruling party … rather than upholding
neutrality”. A vulnerability-study of Nigeria’s electoral system since the Fourth Republic indicates misuse of
the power of incumbents, ethnicity/religion, and weak enforcement of laws as factors enabling electoral
manipulation; it specifically cites “intimidation, ballot box snatching, falsification of results” among abuses.
These examples show that security agencies are deployed not purely for protecting the electoral process, but
for favouring the incumbent or ruling party (via intimidation, selective deployment, suppression).
The fact that the military or paramilitary agencies are used in election-security roles (rather than purely neutral
policing) suggests institutional overlap between partisan politics and security functions. In addition, the pattern
of intimidation and targeting opposition strongholds indicates the security system is instrumentalised as a tool
of political competition rather than acting impartially. Moreover, the deficiencies in independence,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8982
professionalism, and oversight of security agencies during elections reflect a decay in institutional autonomy,
making manipulation easier.
Selective Enforcement of Law and Order
Another hallmark of politicization is the selective application of law enforcement powers, often targeting
political opponents while shielding allies of the ruling party. Security agencies have been accused of failing to
investigate or prosecute ruling party affiliates involved in electoral violence or corruption scandals, while
zealously pursuing opposition figures (Human Rights Watch, 2007). The Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC), Nigeria’s foremost anti-corruption body, has been at the centre of such controversies.
Scholars argue that while the EFCC has prosecuted several high-profile cases, it has disproportionately
targeted members of opposition parties, particularly during election cycles (Ibeanu & Momoh, 2008; Smith,
2010). Under President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration, the anti-corruption campaign, though popular,
has been criticized for its selective focus, with critics alleging that it functions as a political weapon against
rivals (Amnesty International, 2018).
Militarization of Internal Security
The increasing reliance on military forces to address internal security challenges further reflects politicization.
Instead of strengthening the police and other civilian law enforcement agencies, successive administrations
have frequently deployed the military for roles traditionally reserved for civil authorities (Adebanwi, 2017).
The deployment of soldiers for internal operations, such as "Operation Python Dance" in the South-East and
"Operation Crocodile Smile" in the Niger Delta, has raised concerns about the militarization of civilian spaces
and the targeting of politically sensitive regions (Onapajo, 2017). During the 2017 Operation Python Dance,
military forces clamped down on members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a group advocating for
secession, in what many analysts described as politically motivated repression (Nwaubani, 2017).
Here are several examples of militarization of internal security in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic (1999 onwards)
and how they relate to the politicization of the security system:
Examples
The deployment of the Nigerian Army for internal security operations (ISOs) well beyond their constitutional
role of external defence. For instance, scholars note the Army’s dramatic increase in internal deployment in the
Fourth Republic due to the failure of the Nigeria Police Force to handle internal threats, thereby shifting
responsibility from civilian policing to the military.
Consequence: This blur between military and policing duties weakens the professional separation between
defence and internal security, making the security system more amenable to political manipulation (since the
military is more directly under presidential/elite control).
In areas such as the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East, the military has become the primary instrument
of internal security. This militarized approach to internal threats reflects the constitutional and institutional
legacy of using the armed forces as the default security provider.
Consequence: When the military is used for internal security (rather than community policing or law
enforcement), it tends to employ force-centric tactics, which may favour regime security over citizen security,
thereby injecting politics into security operations.
The creation of special army brigades or military formations dedicated to internal security zones. For example,
the establishment of dedicated formations tasked with internal security in volatile regions (banditry,
herderfarmer conflicts, kidnapping) rather than strictly external missions.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8983
Consequence: The institutional structure of the security sector becomes oriented toward internal political tasks
(such as securing regimes, stabilizing regions aligned with ruling coalitions) rather than purely neutral state
security functions.
The militarization of policing and local peace-keeping: police and other civilian agencies become hybridised
with military tactics, equipment, command structures and logics (joint task forces, military command
involvement in internal operations) rather than being distinct civilian law-enforcement bodies.
Consequence: This diminishes civilian oversight, increases chances for human rights abuses, fosters a security
paradigm that privileges regime control rather than accountability and citizen protection, and thus furthers
politicization.
How this links to politicization of the security system
When the military is routinely used for internal security, the chain of command becomes closer to the executive
(president/federal government) rather than mediated through civilian institutions (parliament, independent
oversight). That gives political actors greater ability to use the security apparatus for partisan ends (e.g.,
managing dissent, elections, controlling opposition strongholds). Institutional autonomy of civilian policing is
undermined when the military takes over internal operations: appointments, deployments and mandates get
politicised, since military loyalty and national leadership loyalty can dominate over constitutional obligations.
The use of force-centric militarization often bypasses normal oversight mechanisms (judicial review, civilian
review boards) and thus is open to partisan manipulation—e.g., selective application of security operations to
favour regions or groups aligned with the ruling elite.
The perception and reality that security operations are controlled by political elites damages institutional
legitimacy, erodes public trust, and makes citizens view security agencies as tools of the regime rather than
protectors of the public.
Suppression of Peaceful Protests and Civic Movements
The Fourth Republic has also seen the securitization of civil dissent, whereby peaceful protests are framed as
threats to national security and suppressed through forceful means. A notable example is the #EndSARS
protest of 2020, which started as a peaceful youth-led movement against police brutality but was met with
violent repression (Amnesty International, 2020).
The military’s involvement in the Lekki Toll Gate incident, where live ammunition was used against unarmed
protesters, epitomizes the politicization of security forces. Human rights organizations have argued that the
government’s heavy-handed response was aimed at quelling a movement perceived as a challenge to the
political establishment (Obi, 2021). Similar patterns were observed during protests against fuel price hikes and
government austerity measures, where security forces were deployed to disperse demonstrators violently
(Falola & Heaton, 2008).
Regional Bias and Politicization of Security Appointments
Another dimension of politicization in the Fourth Republic is the perceived regional and ethnic bias in the
appointment of security chiefs. Analysts have observed that successive presidents tend to appoint heads of
military and security agencies from their ethnic or regional constituencies, thereby raising concerns about the
neutrality of these institutions (Adebayo, 2019). For example, during President Buhari’s tenure, critics accused
the administration of favouring officials from the northern region in key security appointments, undermining
the federal character principle and fostering distrust among other regions (Campbell, 2020). This perception of
ethnic favouritism has weakened public confidence in the impartiality of security services and further
entrenched regional tensions.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8984
The article “Federal Character Principle and Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria: An Appraisal of Buhari’s
Appointments of Heads of Security Agencies” argues that under Muhammadu Buhari (2015-2023) many
security-agency heads were selected more on regional/ethnic/party loyalty than merit, undermining neutral
professional appointments. This shows how the “federal character” principle (intended to ensure regional
balance) becomes a mechanism for political bargaining rather than purely professional security institution
design. Also, the effect: appointments reflect regional/ethnic calculations, reinforcing patronage networks and
reducing autonomy of security institutions.
In the scholarly work “Ethnic mobilisation and state fragility in Nigeria” (2025) by O. Madueke, the author
demonstrates how political elites use regional/ethnic identity to influence appointments in security agencies as
part of broader elite competition. He notes that when security leadership is drawn disproportionately from
certain ethnic/region groups (or rotated superficially), it signals to other elites that the institution is politicised.
In addition, this dynamic contributes to public perceptions of bias, weakens legitimacy and fosters intra-elite
mistrust, which opens space for politicised security operations.
The PLAC Security Sector Mapping Report (2019) points out structural oversight weaknesses in Nigeria’s
security sector and highlights how appointments to high commands often neglect strict merit and
professionalisation, favouring regional/elite interests. For example, top military and intelligence appointments
sometimes follow political regime changes and align with ruling-party interests rather than strategic
institutional continuity. Moreso, this linking of appointments to regime survival reinforces that security
agencies serve partisan ends.
Partisan Framing of Security Threats
Politicians in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic have frequently framed security threats through a partisan lens to
justify the use of force against rivals or discredit opposition-held territories. Insurgencies, separatist agitations,
and communal conflicts are often interpreted and addressed in ways that align with political calculations rather
than objective security assessments (Olojo, 2020). The Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East, for instance,
has at times been politicized, with accusations that political actors exaggerate or downplay the crisis depending
on their electoral interests (Campbell & Harwood, 2018). Similarly, clashes between farmers and herders,
particularly in the Middle Belt, have been subject to politicized narratives that undermine impartial conflict
resolution (International Crisis Group, 2017).
CONCLUSION
The politicization of Nigeria’s security system in the Fourth Republic represents one of the most persistent
threats to democratic consolidation, rule of law, and national cohesion. Since the country’s return to democratic
governance in 1999, successive administrations have been accused of manipulating the security architecture to
serve partisan, ethnic, and personal interests rather than national objectives. This pervasive trend has
transformed Nigeria’s security institutions from the police and military to intelligence and paramilitary
agencies into instruments of political control, thereby undermining professionalism, accountability, and public
trust. Historically, the roots of this politicization can be traced to colonial and postcolonial legacies. The
colonial security apparatus was designed primarily to protect imperial interests rather than citizens,
establishing a coercive and hierarchical system that lacked legitimacy. This authoritarian orientation was
perpetuated under military regimes, which subordinated the security services to the whims of the ruling elite.
Consequently, the transition to democracy in 1999 did not substantially alter institutional culture or operational
frameworks. The same structures that once served colonial and military rulers were retained, enabling civilian
politicians to inherit and exploit an already politicized system. Thus, what emerged was not a clean break from
authoritarian control but a continuity of patronage-based and loyalty-driven security governance.
Throughout the Fourth Republic, the manipulation of the security system has been most visible during
electoral cycles. Security agencies have frequently been deployed to influence elections, intimidate political
opponents, and suppress dissent. Reports from the 2003, 2007, 2015, and 2019 elections revealed how the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8985
police, military, and intelligence agencies were strategically positioned to favor ruling parties. Such
interference has compromised the credibility of electoral processes and deepened public cynicism toward both
the security establishment and democratic institutions. In a democracy, security agencies are expected to serve
as neutral arbiters that ensure safety and order. However, in Nigeria, their involvement in partisan politics has
blurred this neutrality, eroding institutional legitimacy and the people’s faith in the state.
Furthermore, politicization has manifested in the lopsided appointment of service chiefs and senior security
officials based on ethnic or regional affiliations. Successive presidents, particularly during the Buhari
administration (2015–2023), were criticized for disproportionately appointing officers from specific regions to
top security positions. This regional imbalance created perceptions of exclusion among other groups and
fostered distrust in national institutions. As a result, the security architecture appeared more as a reflection of
political and ethnic patronage than as a national defense system. Such practices weaken interagency
cooperation, fuel internal divisions, and make collective national security responses ineffective.
The consequences of politicization are profound. The Nigerian security system has witnessed institutional
decay, operational inefficiency, and declining professionalism. Political interference often determines
command decisions, resource allocations, and even responses to crises. This undermines intelligence
coordination, demoralizes officers, and emboldens insurgent and criminal groups who exploit institutional
weaknesses. Moreover, the prioritization of regime security over citizen security has diverted attention from
pressing internal threats such as terrorism, banditry, secessionist violence, and kidnapping. The resultant
insecurity across regions from Boko Haram insurgency in the Northeast to banditry in the Northwest and
separatist agitations in the Southeast—exemplifies how politicized security institutions fail to respond
effectively to complex, multidimensional threats. Institutional Decay Theory provides a useful lens for
interpreting these dynamics. The theory posits that when institutions are repeatedly manipulated for political
gain, they lose coherence, effectiveness, and legitimacy. In Nigeria, the consistent use of the security apparatus
for partisan purposes has eroded professional norms and institutional integrity. This decay has produced a
security system that is reactive, compromised, and increasingly distrusted by citizens. Moreover, it perpetuates
a vicious cycle: as institutions weaken, politicians find it easier to manipulate them, further deepening the
decay.
Addressing these challenges requires deliberate depoliticization and structural reform. First, security
appointments and promotions must be guided by merit, competence, and regional balance rather than political
loyalty. Second, legislative and civilian oversight of security institutions should be strengthened through
empowered committees, transparent budgeting, and public accountability mechanisms. Third, the security
doctrine must shift from a state-centric to a human-security approach, focusing on citizens’ welfare,
community trust, and socioeconomic stability. Fourth, capacity building, ethical training, and improved welfare
for security personnel should be prioritized to enhance morale and professionalism. Finally, civil society, the
media, and academia must continue to advocate for transparency, accountability, and rule of law in security
governance.
In conclusion, the politicization of Nigeria’s security system in the Fourth Republic reflects the country’s
broader governance deficits weak institutions, elite capture, and the personalization of power. Security
agencies, which should protect the state and its citizens, have often been transformed into tools of political
domination and repression. Reversing this trend demands sustained political will, institutional reform, and
societal commitment to democratic norms. Without depoliticizing the security architecture, Nigeria’s
democracy will remain fragile, and its quest for sustainable peace and development will continue to be
undermined. Therefore, reclaiming professionalism, neutrality, and accountability within the security system is
not merely a governance reform it is a prerequisite for the survival of Nigeria’s democratic project and the
realization of national security in its truest sense.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8986
REFERENCES
1. Abdulrasheed, A. (2021). The menace of legitimacy crisis and insecurity in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: A
discourse using Thomas Hobbes’ social contract theory. SSRN.
2. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and
poverty. Crown Publishers.
3. Adagbabiri, M. M., & Okolie, U. C. (2018). Corruption and the challenges of insecurity in Nigeria’s
Fourth Republic. Journal of Political Science and Leadership Research, 4(3), 45-59.
4. Agbaenyi, A. N., & Ezeanya, E. V. (2022). Democratic deficit, insecurity and development in Nigeria’s
5. Fourth Republic. Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, 10(8), 364-372.
6. Ejiroghene, A. O., & Oghuvbu, B. O. (2016). Political economy of insurgency and insecurity in
Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law.
7. Eze, S. C., & Okwu, A. T. (2024). Institutional capacity and insecurity in Nigeria. Journal of African
Security Studies.
8. Eze, M. O., & Alabi, A. (2020). Institutional capacity and insecurity in Nigeria. Journal of African
Security Studies, (…), (…).
9. Hoffman, L. K., & Wallace, J. (2022). Democracy in Nigeria. Chatham House Africa Programme.
10. Huntington, S. P. (1965). Political development and political decay. World Politics, 17(3), 386-430.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2009286
11. Ivorgba, E. A. (2024). The need for democratization of security in Nigeria. International Journal of
Research in Innovation & Social Sciences (IJRISS), (…), 1320-1332.
12. Matfess, H. (2016). Institutionalizing instability: The constitutional roots of insecurity in Nigeria’s
Fourth Republic. Stability – International Journal of Security & Development, 5(1), 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.5334/sta.458
13. Nkwota, E. E., & Matthew, U. J. (2024). The politicization of traditional institutions and national
security in Nigeria. Journal of Psychology and Political Science, 4(5), 1-11.
14. https://doi.org/10.55529/jpps.45.1.11
15. Onyishi, A. E. (2019). Political elites in Nigeria and the politics of democratization. [Journal Name],
(…), (…).
16. Okoi, O., & Iwara, M. A. (2021). The failure of governance in Nigeria: An epistocratic challenge.
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs.
17. Oni, E. O., Faluyi, O. T., Asumu, L. O., & Olutola, A. A. (2025). Security challenges and election
administration in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. Frontiers in Political Science, 7, 1458303.
18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1458303
19. Orjinta, I. (2024). Governance and the challenges of human security in Nigeria. African Journal of
Political and Administrative Studies (AJPAS), (…), (…).
20. Usman, I. A. (2022). Ethnic politics and institutional decay in Nigeria: A governance challenge. Journal
of African Political Studies, 18(3), 45-61.
21. Rotberg, R. I. (2010). When states fail: Causes and consequences. Princeton University Press.
22. UNDP. (1994). Human Development Report 1994: New dimensions of human security. Oxford
University Press.
23. Wolfers, A. (1952). “National security” as an ambiguous symbol. Political Science Quarterly, 67(4),
481-502.
24. Yagboyaju, D. A. (2011). Nigeria’s Fourth Republic and the challenge of a faltering democratization.
African Studies Quarterly, 12(3), 89-106.
25. “Institutional decay and failure of institutions, the rise of violent conflicts and security challenges in
Nigeria and way forward.” (2025). Journal of Political Science and Leadership Research, 11(5), 140152.
https://doi.org/10.56201/jpslr.vol.11.no5.2025.pg140.152
26. “Governance, weak institution and sustainable development in Nigeria.” (2025). Journal of African
Security Studies, (…), (…), 130-142.
27. “Historical drivers of insecurity in Nigeria and its bearing on today’s security challenges.” Ayika, P. M.
& Onwurah, B. C. (2025). Crowther Journal of Arts and Humanities, 2(5), 166-178.
28. “National security and democratization in Nigeria: The case of insurgence.” (Year). Conscientia Beam:
Journal of Social Science, (…), (…).
