By Demola Bakare, fsi, anipr

For years, Nigeria has relied heavily on military operations, increased security spending and law enforcement to combat banditry, kidnapping and terrorism. While these measures remain important, they have not eliminated the underlying conditions that sustain violent crime. A more sustainable security strategy, I argue, should combine traditional security operations with reforms that target criminal financing and strengthen grassroots governance.

The Central Bank of Nigeria’s cashless policy offers one such opportunity. Criminal networks depend on cash to fund logistics, procure weapons and pay collaborators. Expanding digital payments can create financial trails that support investigations by agencies such as the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other law enforcement bodies.However, digitalisation must be matched by greater financial inclusion through improved banking access, telecommunications infrastructure and digital literacy, particularly in rural communities.

Equally important is local government autonomy. Communities facing insecurity often struggle with poverty, unemployment and weak public services. Empowering local governments with greater financial independence, while strengthening accountability through transparent digital governance, can improve service delivery and reduce conditions that enable criminal recruitment.

International experience suggests that stronger local institutions and transparent financial systems can complement security operations in tackling organised crime and violent extremism.

Nigeria’s long-term security will depend not only on stronger military responses but also on effective governance, accountable institutions and inclusive economic development. Combining financial transparency with responsive local governance can help build safer, more resilient communities.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication.

By Shemudara Blessing Morayo

Education is often described as the foundation of national development, yet in Nigeria, schools have increasingly become targets of violence. Over the last decade, attacks on educational institutions have transformed from isolated incidents into a persistent national crisis. Thousands of students have been displaced, hundreds of schools have been closed, and countless families now live with the fear that sending their children to school could place them in danger.

This crisis is driven by two distinct but interconnected forces: ideological extremism and criminal opportunism. Together, these forces have turned schools into battlegrounds and transformed education from a pathway to opportunity into a source of anxiety for many communities.The ideological dimension of school attacks in Nigeria is closely associated with Boko Haram, an extremist group that emerged in the early 2000s.

The group’s name is commonly interpreted as “Western education is forbidden,” reflecting its belief that secular education undermines Islamic values and traditions. To Boko Haram, schools are not merely buildings where children learn; they are symbols of a cultural and religious system the group seeks to reject. Schools that promote Western curricula, mixed-gender learning environments, or perceived Christian influence are viewed as threats to the society the group hopes to create.

For this reason, educational institutions became strategic targets. Attacking schools allowed insurgents to attract international attention, demonstrate the government’s inability to protect citizens, and recruit or indoctrinate young people. Students, particularly girls, became valuable tools for propaganda, forced marriages, and political bargaining.

Through these attacks, Boko Haram sought not only to spread fear but also to discourage participation in formal education altogether.The most famous example of this strategy occurred on April 14, 2014, when Boko Haram militants attacked Government Girls Secondary School in Chibok, Borno State. While students were preparing for examinations, 276 girls were abducted and taken into insurgent-controlled territory.

The incident sparked outrage across Nigeria and around the world, giving rise to the global #BringBackOurGirls campaign. Although many of the girls have since escaped or been released through negotiations and military efforts, dozens remain missing years later. The Chibok abduction became a symbol of the vulnerability of schools in conflict zones and demonstrated how extremist groups could use schoolchildren to gain international attention and political leverage.A similar incident occurred four years later in Dapchi, Yobe State.

Iin February 2018, fighters from the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), a faction that split from Boko Haram, kidnapped 110 students from a government girls’ school. Unlike the Chibok incident, most of the girls were released within weeks. However, one student, Leah Sharibu, remained in captivity after reportedly refusing to renounce her Christian faith. Her case highlighted the religious and sectarian dimensions that continue to influence some attacks on schools and demonstrated how ideological motivations remain deeply embedded within certain insurgent movements

.While extremist violence dominated headlines during the first phase of the crisis, a new threat emerged after 2018. Across Nigeria’s Northwest and parts of the North-Central region, heavily armed criminal groups commonly referred to as bandits began targeting schools.

Unlike Boko Haram, these groups are primarily motivated by financial gain rather than ideology. For them, schools represent attractive opportunities because they contain large numbers of vulnerable victims whose families, communities, and governments may be willing to pay significant sums for their release.This shift transformed student kidnapping into a profitable criminal enterprise. Boarding schools became especially vulnerable because hundreds of students often reside in one location with limited security.

Criminal groups discovered that by abducting dozens of children at once, they could maximize pressure on authorities and families while increasing potential ransom payments. As a result, school kidnappings evolved into a business model sustained by fear, weak security structures, and the desperation of affected communities.Niger State became one of the regions most affected by this trend.

In February 2021, armed men attacked Government Science College in Kagara, killing a student and abducting dozens of students and staff members. Just a few months later, another large-scale kidnapping occurred at Salihu Tanko Islamic School in Tegina, where approximately 136 children were taken captive. Unlike attacks carried out by extremist groups, these incidents were largely driven by economic motives. The objective was not to challenge educational values but to generate profit through ransom payments.A key factor enabling both insurgents and bandits is the presence of vast forested areas across northern Nigeria.

Forests such as Sambisa, Kamuku, and Rugu provide natural hideouts where armed groups can train, plan operations, and hold abducted victims. These remote areas are difficult to monitor and often lie beyond the effective reach of security forces. The forests function as safe havens that allow criminal and extremist groups to evade capture while launching attacks on nearby communities and schools.The impact of these attacks on education has been devastating. Thousands of children have missed months or even years of schooling. Many parents, fearing for their children’s safety, have withdrawn them from school altogether. Some states have closed boarding schools in high-risk areas, disrupting education for entire communities.

Beyond the immediate loss of learning, survivors often experience severe psychological trauma that affects their ability to return to normal academic life. Teachers, too, face increased risks, making it difficult to recruit and retain qualified personnel in vulnerable regions.The Nigerian government has responded through a combination of military operations, policy initiatives, and community-based approaches.

Following the Chibok abduction, the Safe Schools Initiative was launched to improve security infrastructure and emergency preparedness in schools. Military campaigns have targeted insurgent and bandit camps, while local vigilante groups have been mobilized to assist security agencies in some states. Nevertheless, significant challenges remain, including inadequate funding, corruption, difficult terrain, and the limited capacity of security institutions to protect thousands of schools spread across vast rural areas.

Addressing the crisis requires more than military action alone. Schools must be physically secured through improved fencing, surveillance systems, communication networks, and trained security personnel. At the same time, long-term solutions must tackle the root causes of insecurity, including poverty, unemployment, and the marginalization of rural communities. Efforts to improve trust in formal education, while respecting local cultural and religious values, can also reduce the appeal of extremist narratives.

Furthermore, survivors of abduction and violence need sustained psychological support and educational opportunities to rebuild their lives.The story of insecurity in Nigeria’s education sector is ultimately a story of faith, fear, and forests. Faith represents the ideological beliefs that motivate extremist attacks on education. Fear reflects the psychological weapon used by both insurgents and criminals to disrupt learning and intimidate communities. Forests symbolize the physical spaces that enable these groups to operate beyond the reach of the state.

Understanding the relationship between these three elements is essential for developing effective solutions. Protecting schools is not simply a security challenge; it is an investment in Nigeria’s future. Without safe learning environments, the country’s hopes for development, stability, and prosperity will remain under threat.

Shemudara Blessing Morayo is a graduate of Veritas University Bwari, Abuja, and she’s currently serving as an NYSC Corper at the Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution (IPCR). She can be reached via shemudarablessing2002@gmail.com

By Professor Udenta O. Udenta

The June 2026 publication of ‘More Just and Equitable Global Governance: China’s Principles, Proposals and Actions’ by the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China represents one of the most consequential contributions to contemporary debates on the future of international governance. At a time when the international system is increasingly strained by geopolitical rivalries, widening inequalities, persistent development deficits, climate challenges, and growing dissatisfaction with existing global institutions, the white paper offers a comprehensive critique of the prevailing order while advancing an alternative vision anchored on sovereign equality, multilateral cooperation, international law, and inclusive development.

Far from being a mere diplomatic statement, the document is a carefully articulated philosophical and policy framework that seeks to address the growing disconnect between twenty first century realities and institutions largely shaped by the power configurations of the post Second World War era. Its central proposition is both simple and profound: a stable and sustainable international order can only emerge when all nations, regardless of size or economic strength, possess a meaningful voice in shaping the rules that govern humanity’s collective future.

The significance of this white paper lies not only in what it says about China’s global ambitions, but also in what it reveals about the changing aspirations of the Global South. For decades, developing nations have sought a more representative international system capable of reflecting their demographic, economic, and political importance. China’s call for a more just and equitable model of global governance therefore resonates beyond Beijing, finding increasing support among countries that perceive existing institutions as insufficiently responsive to their interests and developmental priorities.

Whether one agrees entirely with China’s prescriptions or not, the white paper raises questions that can no longer be ignored: Can global governance remain legitimate if large segments of humanity remain underrepresented in decision making? Can international stability endure when economic benefits and political influence are concentrated within a narrow circle of states? By confronting these questions directly, China has placed itself at the centre of an emerging global conversation about fairness, representation, and shared prosperity, offering a vision that many regard as an important step toward a more balanced and democratic international order.

The international order stands at an inflection point. The institutions that have underpinned global governance since the conclusion of the Second World War are confronting challenges of legitimacy, representation, and effectiveness unprecedented in recent decades. Economic power has dispersed across continents, new centres of influence have emerged, and the aspirations of developing nations have grown increasingly difficult to ignore. Yet many of the mechanisms through which global affairs are managed continue to reflect the geopolitical realities of a bygone era.

It is within this context that China’s vision for a more just and equitable system of global governance has attracted increasing attention. More than a mere diplomatic proposition, it represents an attempt to re-imagine how international relations, economic development, and multilateral cooperation should function in an increasingly interconnected world.

The central premise is deceptively simple: a world that has fundamentally changed requires institutions capable of changing with it.

The Imperative of Reform

One of the most compelling arguments advanced by China is that the architecture of global governance no longer adequately reflects contemporary economic realities.

Emerging economies now account for a substantial share of global growth, trade, industrial production, and innovation. Countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East have become indispensable contributors to global prosperity. Nevertheless, decision making within many international institutions remains disproportionately concentrated among a relatively small number of advanced economies. Such asymmetry inevitably raises questions concerning legitimacy.

A governance system derives its authority not solely from historical precedent but from its capacity to represent the interests of those it seeks to govern. As global economic gravity shifts, demands for greater representation become not merely desirable but unavoidable.

China’s advocacy for reform within institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank reflects this broader concern. The objective is not the dismantling of the existing order but its adaptation to contemporary realities.

Economic Development as a Pillar of Global Stability

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of China’s approach lies in its insistence that development occupies a central place within global governance. For decades, international discourse has often prioritised political frameworks whilst treating economic transformation as a secondary concern. China’s experience suggests the opposite. Sustainable governance, social stability, and national resilience are difficult to achieve in the absence of broad based economic development.

This philosophy is reflected in the Global Development Initiative, which seeks to place poverty reduction, infrastructure development, food security, digital transformation, and sustainable growth at the heart of international cooperation.

The underlying logic is difficult to dismiss. A society burdened by unemployment, inadequate infrastructure, and chronic underdevelopment is unlikely to enjoy long term political stability. Economic empowerment is not merely a development objective; it is a governance imperative.

For Africa, where infrastructure deficits and development financing gaps remain significant obstacles, this perspective carries particular relevance.

The Belt and Road as Economic Diplomacy

No discussion of China’s vision for global governance can be complete without reference to the Belt and Road Initiative. Often misunderstood solely as an infrastructure programme, the initiative represents a broader exercise in economic diplomacy. Through investments in transportation networks, energy infrastructure, ports, railways, and industrial corridors, it seeks to enhance connectivity between nations and facilitate economic integration.

Critics have raised legitimate concerns regarding debt sustainability, project transparency, and geopolitical influence, yet it is equally undeniable that the initiative has provided many developing countries with access to infrastructure financing that might otherwise have remained unavailable.

From China’s perspective, economic interdependence promotes stability, reduces barriers to development, and creates shared prosperity. Whether one accepts this argument in its entirety or not, the initiative has unquestionably altered the landscape of international development finance.

Sovereignty and Strategic Autonomy

Another cornerstone of China’s approach is its emphasis on sovereign equality. In an era characterised by sanctions, geopolitical rivalries, and competing ideological narratives, China consistently advances the principle that nations should retain the freedom to determine their own developmental pathways without external coercion. This principle resonates strongly throughout much of the Global South.

Many developing countries possess historical memories of colonial domination, foreign intervention, and externally imposed policy prescriptions. Consequently, calls for mutual respect, non interference, and sovereign autonomy find a receptive audience.

The challenge, naturally, lies in ensuring that such principles are applied universally rather than selectively. Nonetheless, the emphasis on sovereign equality remains a significant feature of China’s diplomatic engagement.

Security Through Cooperation

Economic development alone cannot sustain global order. Stability also requires security. Recognising this reality, China has advanced the Global Security Initiative, which advocates cooperative security arrangements, dialogue based conflict resolution, and the rejection of Cold War mentalities.

The proposal rests upon the premise that security should be indivisible. In other words, one nation’s security should not be achieved at the expense of another’s insecurity.

While critics debate the practical implications of this doctrine, its broader philosophical foundation reflects a growing recognition that contemporary security challenges, from terrorism and cyber threats to regional conflicts and transnational crime, demand collective rather than unilateral responses.

Civilisational Pluralism in a Multipolar Age

A particularly intriguing dimension of China’s vision is its emphasis on cultural and civilisational diversity. Through the Global Civilization Initiative, China argues that no single civilisation possesses a monopoly on wisdom, modernity, or governance. Different societies, shaped by distinct histories and traditions, should be permitted to pursue development models suited to their unique circumstances.

This proposition challenges assumptions that political and economic progress must necessarily follow a singular template. Whether one agrees with this view or not, it raises important questions about the relationship between governance, culture, and national identity in an increasingly multipolar world.

The Rise of the Global South

Perhaps nowhere is China’s influence more visible than in its engagement with the Global South. Its support for the expansion of BRICS, advocacy for increased African representation within international institutions, and efforts to amplify the voices of developing nations all reflect a broader strategic objective: the creation of a more inclusive international order.

This does not imply the replacement of one hegemon with another. Rather, it suggests a gradual diffusion of influence across a wider spectrum of states. The aspiration is a world in which global governance is shaped not by a narrow concentration of power but by a broader coalition of stakeholders whose interests reflect the diversity of humanity itself.

The Ultimate Test

The enduring significance of China’s principles, proposals, and actions lies not in the rhetoric surrounding them but in the questions they compel the international community to confront. Can institutions designed for the twentieth century effectively govern the twenty first? Can economic development be elevated from a peripheral concern to a central pillar of global governance? Can sovereignty, cooperation, and mutual respect coexist within an increasingly interconnected world? Can developing nations secure a greater voice in shaping the rules that govern global commerce, finance, and diplomacy?

These questions transcend China itself. They speak to the future of international legitimacy, economic justice, and political stability. Whether China’s vision ultimately succeeds remains uncertain. History teaches us that every rising power combines idealism with strategic interest. China is unlikely to prove an exception. Yet the broader debate it has invigorated is both necessary and timely.

A more just and equitable global order will not emerge through declarations alone. It will require institutions capable of adapting to new realities, economies committed to shared prosperity, and diplomacy rooted in genuine inclusiveness. In that respect, the conversation is no longer about China’s future role in the world. It is about the kind of world the international community wishes to build.

Professor Udenta O. Udenta is a Nigerian scholar, literary theorist, and public intellectual known for his contributions to critical theory, political economy, and African cultural studies. He has been an influential voice in progressive intellectual discourse in Nigeria, consistently engaging questions of governance, ideology, and development within the African context.