By Adamu Hamzer Marree Talum
The question of why President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has not paid a condolence visit to communities and states in Northern Nigeria devastated by banditry and Boko Haram insurgency remains a deeply troubling issue among many people across the Northeast, North Central, and Northwest.
Since the inception of President Tinubu’s administration in 2023, there has been growing concern over the President’s limited physical presence in some of the communities and areas that have suffered the devastating consequences of banditry, terrorism, mass kidnappings, and killings.
For many affected citizens, the absence of a presidential condolence visit has become symbolic of what they perceive as a lack of empathy and attention from the federal government.
Thousands of Nigerians have been killed or abducted, while families have been forced to pay enormous ransoms to secure the release of their loved ones. Communities have been displaced, farms abandoned, schools disrupted, and livelihoods destroyed. Yet many residents in these affected areas continue to ask a simple question: Where is the President’s personal expression of solidarity with the victims and their families?
For a region that has historically played a significant role in Nigeria’s electoral politics—and particularly in the votes that contributed to President Tinubu’s emergence as President—the perceived absence of the President in some of the worst-affected communities has generated disappointment and resentment.
The situation has become even more politically significant as the 2027 general election approaches. Some citizens now view recent political engagements and visits to the North with suspicion, questioning whether they are motivated by genuine concern for the people or by the approaching election season. After years of insecurity and hardship, many are asking why meaningful political attention appears to intensify only when electoral calculations become more prominent.
Beyond insecurity, the North is also grappling with the severe consequences of the rising cost of living. Food prices, unemployment, educational challenges, and difficulties facing farmers and the agricultural sector have placed enormous pressure on ordinary citizens. In many communities, people are living under conditions of prolonged economic hardship and deprivation.
There is also growing concern about the shrinking space for citizens to openly express their frustrations with government policies. When citizens feel unable to freely criticize or question those in power without fear of intimidation or legal consequences, public confidence in democratic institutions can inevitably suffer.
The combination of insecurity, economic hardship, and what many perceive as insufficient presidential engagement with affected communities is beginning to influence political sentiment across the North. Increasingly, some Northerners are looking toward alternative political leadership, including former Vice President Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, whom some see as a potential alternative capable of addressing what they regard as the political and socioeconomic failures of the present administration.
President Tinubu still has an opportunity to change this perception. A condolence visit cannot bring back those who have been killed, nor can it immediately restore communities destroyed by violence. But presidential presence matters. Visiting victims, meeting displaced families, listening to traditional and religious leaders, and standing publicly with communities affected by terrorism and banditry would send a powerful message that their suffering has not been forgotten.
Ultimately, the people of Northern Nigeria are not asking only for political promises.
They are asking for security, dignity, economic opportunity, justice, and evidence that their government genuinely cares about their lives.
As 2027 approaches, the question will not simply be who visits the North during campaign season. The more important question will be: who stood with the people when they were suffering?
Post a Comment