Imagine you are a teacher in a village where bandits strike with impunity, and the nearest police station is always deserted because its few officers are serving as drivers and bodyguards for a politician miles away in the city. Now, imagine you are that politician, and the constant threat of kidnapping makes an armed convoy feel like a matter of life or death.
This is the sharp, human tension at the core of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decisive, two-part security overhaul, the mandatory withdrawal of police officers from VIPs and the urgent mobilisation of security to support comprehensive livestock and ranching reforms.
The initial, sweeping directive to remove all police personnel attached to Very Important Persons (VIPs) was issued on Sunday, November 23, 2025, following a crucial security meeting at the State House. Driven by a wave of mass abductions, including over 300 schoolchildren in Kebbi, Kwara, and Niger States, the order was designed to free up thousands of officers for core policing duties, community patrol, highway security, and investigation.
But the real force came on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, when President Tinubu, visibly frustrated by the slow pace of compliance, reiterated the order just before the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting, making it clear there was “no going back.”
“I honestly believe in what I said… It should be effected,” the President insisted. He ordered ministers and other officials who felt exposed to contact the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) for special clearance, adding, “If you have any problem because of the nature of your assignment, contact the IGP and get my clearance.”
This time, the President put a clear enforcement structure in place: the Minister of Interior, the IGP, and the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) were directed to coordinate the replacement of police with NSCDC personnel for those truly needing protection. The core objective is simple: return the police to the people.
The directive, though widely applauded by the public, immediately created a fissure within the elite, raising fundamental questions about the law, equity, and personal risk.
The National Assembly was the first to openly push back, crying foul over what they termed the ‘selective’ implementation of the order. Senator Abdul Ningi (PDP, Bauchi Central) led the protest on the floor of the Senate, pointing out the hypocrisy in the withdrawal. He claimed that while many lawmakers had their single police orderly removed, other high-profile figures still moved in convoys.
“I have no personal problem with the withdrawal, but this policy must apply across the board. Let’s see what happens from the office of the President, to the Vice President, to the Senate President, to the Speaker of the House, ministers and beyond,” Ningi demanded.
Other Senators like Aliyu Wamakko and Tahir Monguno argued that the timing was poor, exposing lawmakers, who are high-value targets for kidnappers to avoidable risks during a period of escalating insecurity. Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin acknowledged the seriousness and directed the Committee on Police Affairs to investigate the alleged selective enforcement, assuring his colleagues that they were working to convince the Presidency to exempt the National Assembly. “By the grace of God, the National Assembly will be exempted. We have a listening President,” he stated, revealing the depth of the resistance.
The legal perspective brought a necessary nuance to the debate, particularly concerning the judiciary. The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, clarified that judges were exempted from the presidential directive. Her media aide, Tobi Soniyi, explained that judges handling sensitive cases such as terrorism, corruption, and high-profile criminal matters require adequate protection to safeguard the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
However, even the judiciary saw inconsistencies. Justice Joel Agya, Chief Judge of Taraba State, reported that police orderlies assigned to judges were withdrawn on December 8, a move he described as a potential threat to judicial independence. This highlights a persistent challenge, the difference between a high-level presidential directive and its chaotic, often arbitrary, implementation on the ground.
The Critics and the Defenders
The reaction was also polarized among political commentators and civil society.
Former Senator Shehu Sani expressed profound scepticism, calling the order a “good policy statement” that would “only begin and end up as a statement,” given the history of similar unexecuted directives.
The most potent criticism, however, came from Nobel Laureate Professor Wole Soyinka, who focused on the disproportionate security detail afforded to the President’s son, Seyi Tinubu. Soyinka remarked on the heavy armed security observed in Lagos, suggesting that such deployment “distorts national security priorities” and arguing that public office should not confer undue privilege on family members.
Conversely, groups like the Grassroots Mobilisation Initiative (GMI) and the Democracy Watch Initiative (DWI) rose to Seyi Tinubu’s defence, arguing that his father’s office exposes him to unique security threats. They affirmed their belief that he deserves protection based on his “unique circumstances and exposure.”
The police withdrawal, however, is not a standalone policy, it is fundamentally intertwined with a massive security mobilisation to support reform in the livestock sector, a critical strategy to end the decades-long herder-farmer conflicts.
President Tinubu tasked Vice President Kashim Shettima, as Chairman of the National Economic Council (NEC), to work with state governors to identify old grazing reserves that could be “salvaged or rehabilitated into ranches, livestock settlements.”
The newly freed-up police personnel are intended to bolster the security architecture around these new settlements, ensuring safety for all participants and reducing the risk of clashes. The President made the economic and security connection explicit:
“We must eliminate the possibility of conflicts and turn the livestock reform into economically viable development. The opportunity is there. Let’s utilise it.”
He also addressed the often-unpoliced nature of Nigeria’s vast forests and remote areas, the hideouts for bandits and kidnappers by directing the arming of another security layer.
“I know some of our people are exposed… The Civil Defence are equally armed, and I want to know that from NSA to arm our forest guards too. Take it very seriously,” he stated.
By reinforcing the NSCDC for VIP duties, mobilising the police for community protection, and arming forest guards for deep rural security, the administration aims to create a three-layered security net that addresses different facets of the crisis. The final piece of the livestock puzzle rests on the constitutional reality that land belongs to the state, demanding full cooperation from governors to convert conflict areas into zones of prosperity.
President Tinubu’s directive represents a bold attempt to correct a historical distortion where public security resources are privatised by a privileged few. The Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, has reported the withdrawal of 11,566 personnel, a significant number that could genuinely boost police presence in crisis-ridden communities.
Yet, as history shows, these directives often fail due to the sheer political and economic clout of the VIPs involved. The true test of this reform will not be in the initial announcement, but in the sustained political will to ignore the complaints of the elite. Can the government ensure that the NSCDC is adequately equipped and trained to take on VIP protection without creating new security vacuums? Can the police force, now supposedly back in the community, be reformed to be effective, professional, and incorruptible?
For the ordinary Nigerian, the directive is a beacon of hope, a sign that their safety might finally be prioritised over the comfort of the politically powerful. The challenge now lies in the disciplined execution of the order, ensuring that the police are indeed returned from private service to their core, constitutional duty of protecting all citizens.