Philosophers and political theorists have attempted to define the state through different prisms. There is the evolutionary theory, which posits that the state is a natural, gradual development spanning centuries — from family units to clans, tribes, and eventually states. The social contract theory, advanced by Thomas Hobbes and supported by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, views the state as an artificial creation based on the voluntary consent of individuals. According to this view, humans in the pre-political “state of nature” — where “might was right” and life was “nasty, brutish, and short” — surrendered their absolute freedom to a central authority in exchange for the protection of their remaining rights and security.
Other explanations include the Force theory, which attributes the emergence of states to military conquest and domination; the Divine theory, which traces state authority to divine ordination; the Patriarchal theory, which sees the family as the earliest unit of society that expanded into the state; and the Marxist theory, which interprets the state through the lens of economic class interests.
Among these postulations, the Hobbesian perspective appears most widely accepted and seems to best capture the essence of human relationships today. This is not to dismiss the relevance of the other theories in explaining how certain states emerged. Harold J. Laski, in his Grammar of Politics, aligned with the Hobbesian view and concluded that modern humans live under the authority of government and the obligation to obey its orders, arising “from the facts of his nature.” Man, according to Laski, is by nature a community-building animal, driven by the instinct to live among others — an essential condition for rational existence.
Laski, however, noted that the activities of a civilised society are “too complex and too manifold” to be left to the blind regulation of impulse. Even if individuals can generally be relied upon to act intelligently, society still requires a “customary standard” by which it distinguishes right from wrong, so that errant members can be held accountable.
Sections 14(1) and 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) capture the essence of the Nigerian state in line with modern expectations. Section 14(1) states: “The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a state based on the principles of democracy and social justice.” Section 14(2)(b) adds: “The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.”
Recent developments in Nigeria have cast serious doubt on these constitutional promises and suggest a dangerous derailment of the Nigerian state — whether viewed as a social contract, a product of conquest, or a divinely ordained entity. It has become increasingly difficult to locate Nigeria within the theoretical frameworks of state evolution. The chief culprit in this derailment is the pervasive state of insecurity.
In the words of Harold Laski, once a state has evolved, it must uphold a “customary standard” to distinguish right from wrong. Failure to do so strips the state of its authority — its capacity to “bark and bite” — and risks returning it to the Hobbesian state of nature, where “might is right” and life is “nasty, brutish, and short.” Recent events suggest that Nigeria, once seen as a potential leader in Africa and beyond, is drifting closer to that primordial state than to the realities of a functional modern nation.
Kidnap and Killing of Major General Rabe Abubakar
On May 30, 2026, former Defence spokesman Major General Rabe Abubakar and his wife were abducted by bandits along the Maraba Musawa-Kafinsoli Road in Matazu Local Government Area of Katsina State. The general’s pitiable appearance in a proof-of-life video released by his captors, in which he pleaded for government intervention, should have served as a wake-up call. If that incident did not propel the military into urgent action to rescue one of its own, it is difficult to imagine what would.
Growing up, the fear of the military was the beginning of wisdom. One recalled the “unknown soldier” episodes at Fela Anikulapo-Kuti’s residence and the heavy-handed responses that followed. Communities would scatter at the sight of soldiers. Brutal as those methods were, they projected military invincibility. Operations in Odi (Bayelsa State) and Zaki Biam (Benue State) remain stark reminders of how the military once responded decisively to attacks on its personnel. The same force helped restore order in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Today, that sting appears missing. Although the military eventually secured the release of General Rabe’s widow, the bandits had already done their worst.
Edo Shuts Schools Over Terror Threat
On June 13, the Edo State Government announced the closure of three schools in the Akoko-Edo axis — Ososo Grammar School, Makeke Secondary School, and Ososo Comprehensive High School — following intelligence reports of planned mass abductions by terrorists. The schools have since reopened, but the decision to close them in the first instance looks like a state surrendering to the kidnappers and bandits. The ideology of Boko Haram is to discourage Western education, though one wonders why they perpetrate their evil acts using guns and other equipment developed through the instrumentality of Western education. The state should rather fortify security around the schools than shut them down. Such an action would look like helping the deranged ideology of ‘Western education is sin’ being propagated by Boko Haram. So, rather than shut the schools, authorities should fortify security in the area and root out the bandits from their hiding places. A functioning state should protect its citizens and institutions, not surrender to threats.
Oriire’s Continued Hostage Saga
Since May 15, 2026, students, pupils, toddlers, and teachers from three schools in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State have remained in the custody of bandits who abducted them and took them into the Old Oyo National Park. This supposed national monument has become a bandits’ den. While it may be premature to apportion full blame, both the federal and state governments bear responsibility. The federal government is expected to secure national parks through its forest guards, yet reports suggest poor coordination with other security agencies. The state government also appears to have abandoned previously effective forest policing strategies.
More than three weeks after the visit by the National Security Adviser, the Minister of Defence, and other security chiefs, the silence from Oriire remains deafening. Whatever their strategy, the kidnapped victims must be rescued immediately. Added to this is the idea of shutting schools in solidarity with the Oriire kidnap victims. This is a double-edged sword, so to speak. Here you are, seeking to mount pressure on the state and federal government to take all necessary steps to free the teachers and their students, and at the same time, you are riled by the closure of the schools in protest against the government. No sacrifice is too big to make for the sake of the kidnapped children of Oriire and Borno, so one cannot condemn the Nigerian Union of Teachers (NUT), which declared a strike until the kidnapped victims are back, but the government must take action so that the schools will not be closed for too long. We have to note that any prolonged shutdown of the schools would amount to helping Boko Haram achieve its aim of seeking to deny our children the benefit of education.
Attack on NIPSS, Kuru
Last week, terrorists attacked the Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) in Kuru, Jos, Plateau State, in an audacious attempt to overrun the institution. That this happened at a facility where no fewer than 75 per cent of the population consists of military officers raises troubling questions. Similar breaches have occurred at the Nigerian Defence Academy in Kaduna. Such incidents point to possible collusion or undue familiarity between security personnel and informants feeding intelligence to bandits.
A defining characteristic of the modern state is its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The state cannot stand by while non-state actors wield instruments of violence with impunity. As Nobel Laureate Professor Wole Soyinka famously said, “The tiger does not proclaim its tigritude; it pounces.” The Nigerian state needs to stop its descriptive essays on the state of insecurity in the land. It should act decisively against errant behaviour in the land. As Laski submitted, the government must enforce the “customary standard” that distinguishes right from wrong in society, while imposing heavy punishment on criminal acts. The Nigerian state is under an obligation to act decisively. The heroes of our independence struggle did not risk their lives to have a nation that is held to ransom by bandits, terrorists, and kidnappers who could hold the nation hostage.
You can get every of our news as soon as they drop on WhatsApp ...To get all news updates, Join our WhatsApp Group (Click Here)
