Reports of Ribadu’s fall are greatly exaggerated

In May 1897, American writer and humourist Mark Twain was travelling on a speaking tour to the United Kingdom when reports of his illness and death broke in the US. One newspaper even published his obituary. When a journalist finally reached Mr Twain and asked him his reaction to the widespread reports, Mr Twain quipped, “Reports of my death were an exaggeration.” The National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, is no Mark Twain, but for the last few weeks, reports of his political demise have been widely chronicled. This comes on the back of President Bola Tinubu’s appointment of Adeyinka Famadewa, a retired Major General, as Special Adviser on Homeland Security. Since this office did not exist prior to May 11 when it was announced, tongues have been wagging and churning out speculations and rumours. As in the case of Mr Twain, is it possible that these rumours of Ribadu’s political demise might be gravely exaggerated? In the arguments I have seen, the claims of Ribadu’s “political fall” are based on the interpretations of events by commenters, not necessarily on evidence. The assumption is that Mr Famadewa’s appointment implies Mr Ribadu has lost proximity to the president, from where he derives his political power, since our system is built around individuals not institutions. These narratives often ignore a crucial fact. Or even two. First is that Ribadu remains the National Security Adviser. And the second being that the presidency has been at pains to explain that Mr Famadewa’s appointment created an additional advisory position, but it did not remove Ribadu from office, alter his statutory role as NSA, or prevent him from continuing to represent Nigeria in major security engagements. The existence of another security adviser does not automatically demonstrate a loss of presidential confidence but expands the frontline of Nigeria’s response to its overwhelming security challenges. The claims of a rumoured loss of political proximity to the president also ignore the long association between the president and his NSA. Tinubu had supported Ribadu’s 2011 run for president under the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) even when the PDP-led government hounded both men. This relationship has been built on longstanding loyalty, which has been both visible and costly. Ribadu’s remarks on “Tinubu Gains”, for instance, are an open display of loyalty at a time when other political appointees had chosen silence. It was publicly costly for the NSA but demonstrated his willingness to take bullets for the president. While the commentaries have been mostly framed around Ribadu’s northern origins and sphere of political influence, it is also important to point out that he has remained one of the most visible northerners in the government. Understandably, this also makes him one of the most visible targets for criticism, especially in light of the numerous challenges the country and the north in particular are facing. People may disagree with Ribadu’s conclusions, but citing security metrics and defending the administration’s record falls within the purview of the NSA. While his delivery was tempered with his loyalty to the president, it is important to remind the NSA that his role is as a technocrat, and the greatest demonstration of loyalty he could show the president and the country is the efficient execution of his job and to curb insecurity to the barest minimum. That metric will speak for itself. Tinubu’s action in creating the new office of Special Adviser on Homeland Security has been viewed from two perspectives. First, as a political move, in the case where political commentary is confused with institutional reality. Or simply as a routine operational tweak in the national security architecture required to face the widespread insecurity in the country. The analysis of Mr Ribadu’s continued relevance must not fail to take into cognisance the fact that functionality in public office is dependent on constitutional authority, not perceptions of political influence. None of this analysis announcing Ribadu’s political demise presents evidence beyond speculations that the president has withdrawn confidence from the NSA, or curtailed his responsibilities or excluded him from key security decisions. The NSA’s statutory authority is maintained. Politics aside, Ribadu’s scorecard, at the end of the day, will not be based on how well he played his political cards or not, or even his proximity to Tinubu’s sleeves, but on measurable security indices. How well has Nigeria degraded terrorist networks? Are cases of kidnappings decreasing or not? Are we gathering the right sort of intelligence and are security agencies coordinating better? That for me should be the key focus for both Ribadu’s critics and the man himself. One of Ribadu’s biggest moments has been the US threats to Nigeria late last year. The Nigerian government’s response has been to strategically reframe that narrative in its proper context, instead of a verbal jousting with the US. In November 2025, the NSA led Nigeria’s delegation to engage critical US institutions, including the Congress, The White House and the State Department, among others. He would make another trip in January 2026 for the joint session of the US-Nigeria Working Group.These crucial interventions helped change the US posture from antagonism towards Nigeria to a partnership that is helping our response to the security challenges we are facing. It would be easy to underestimate the importance of the NSA to this strategic partnership but this rapprochement was possible mostly because of the integrity and good relations Mr Ribadu had built with his track record in the anti-corruption war in which he served with distinction and his affiliation with key partners in the US. Naturally, the NSA occupies a high-profile public office, and consequently will draw public scrutiny. This is worsened when the said official is perceived as being influential. And Mr Ribadu has been that from his early years in public service. He has also been a controversial figure even during his time as the head of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and has remained so as the NSA. Both offices are sensitive and are lightning rods for public and political ire. Yet, the regionalisation of the discourse around him diminishes the centrality of his role as ethnic and even religious lenses have been brought in to frame this discourse. National security is a federal responsibility and security appointments should be judged on competence and results. While the NSA could do far better, despite what the metrics he reeled out say (because the reality on the ground feels very different), I would say the jury is still out on his performance. Our duty is to hold his feet to the fire to ensure he delivers on the principal responsibility before him and yes, to constructively criticise him when he drops the ball. Criticism is natural, and encouraged, however, it should not be taken as evidence of failure. While rumours of a loss of political relevance are continuing, the NSA has continued to carry on his statutory role. Between May 4 and 11 alone, he undertook another strategic visit to the US and represented President Tinubu in high-level meetings with U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and senior American national security officials. These meetings centred on counterterrorism and intelligence cooperation and continued operational oversight through the ONSA. He has also received public reaffirmation from Presidency sources that he remains the NSA. All things considered, these are not indicators of a sidelined official. The NSA, having become a politician in 2011, might have dabbled far too much into politics than is necessary for his present office and I think this discourse around his continued political relevance serves one good. It helps refocus him on his principal duties. Increasing security challenges in the country, including the very ugly Oyo schools abduction, the elimination of bandits and terrorists should be top of the NSA’s agenda. The resolution of that crisis, securing the country from the multiple threats it faces, should be his priority and focus, not currying political relevance. In every administration, political dynamics evolve. However, these claims of a dramatic fall from power, like Mark Twain’s purported demise, are exaggerated and perhaps a little too hasty. Time will judge his performance and political standing, but the evidence available today does not support the obituary some commentators have already written.