The Impact of National Security Policies on Vulnerable Populations: A Human Rights Perspective

By Prof. Yusuf Ali, SAN FCIArb.

Being a paper delivered as the keynote speaker at the Gavel International Annual Lecture and Awards Conference 2025 on the 11^th day of November, 2025.

Courtesies!!!

ABSTRACT

“In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty, for which on recent authority, we are now fighting, that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subjects and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law. …… I protest, even if I do it alone, against a strained constitution put on words with the effect of giving an uncontrolled power of imprisonment to the Minister.”

 Lord Atkins in Liversidge vs Anderson (1942) A.C. 206.

While national security remains a legitimate and essential concern for every sovereign state, its pursuit often leads to policies and practices that disproportionately impact marginalized groups, including refugees, ethnic minorities, women, children, and human rights defenders.

This paper explores the complex intersection between national security policies and the protection of vulnerable populations from a human rights perspective. It argues that the lack of transparency and accountability in national security measures, contributes to systemic rights violations and social exclusion. The paper concludes by proposing a shift toward a human security approach, emphasizing inclusive governance, oversight mechanisms, and the centrality of human dignity in policy formulation.

INTRODUCTION

In the 21^st  century, national security has become one of the most dominant policy concerns across the world. From counter-terrorism and border, control to cyber surveillance, Nations are increasingly adopting expansive security measures to safeguard their territory and protect their citizens from evolving threats. However, these measures frequently generate complex human rights questions, particularly when they overlap with the lives of vulnerable populations and those who are least able to defend their rights or access justice.

The tension between safeguarding the state and preserving individual rights, lies at the heart of modern governance. While international human rights law recognizes that certain rights may be restricted in the interest of national security, such restrictions must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. In practice, however, the pursuit of security has often led to discriminatory profiling, mass surveillance, detention without trial, and the silencing of dissenting voices. Vulnerable groups such as refugees, ethnic minorities, children, women, etc, bear the brunt of these excesses.

This presentation interrogates the human rights implications of national security policies through both theoretical and practical lenses. Drawing on national and international examples, it highlights the urgent need to reframe security discourse from a state-centric to a human-centered model. The goal is to demonstrate that a truly secure state protects, rather than undermines, the dignity and rights of all its people.

WHAT IS A NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY?

The term ‘security’ has been defined by Samuel Makinda as

“The preservation of the norms, rules, institutions and values of society.”

He further argued that all such principles, institutions and rules of society need to be protected from “military and non-military threats.” ‘Security’ has also been defined as the state of being secure, especially from danger or attack.

Security of a state goes a long way in the determination of its sovereignty, social development and economic growth and well-being of her citizens.

According to the National Defense College of India,

“National security is an appropriate and aggressive blend of political resilience and maturity, human resources, economic structure and capacity, technological competence, industrial base and availability of natural resources and finally the military might.” National security protects not only citizens but also the economic stability of national institutions.”

The concept of “national security” advocates that the government and its legislature should put in place all necessary measures to protect the state and its citizens against all categories of national crisis, through a variety of power prognoses such as political power, diplomacy, economic power, military power, amongst others. The following are prognostic ideas posited by a writer on national security;

• Using diplomacy to rally allies and isolate threats;
• Mobilizing economic power to enhance or compel cooperation;
• Maintaining effective control of the armed forces;
• Implementing civil defence and emergency readiness measures, including anti-terrorism legislation;
• Ensuring the resilience and redundancy of cultural infrastructure, using intelligence services to detect and defeat or avoid threats and espionage, and to protect classified information;
• Using counter-intelligence services or secret police to protect the nation from internal attack.

National Security can also be endangered by natural disasters, such as the massive floods that have debased parts of the country and rendered several people homeless and strip them of their livelihood; and pandemics as witnessed by the recent COVID 19 pandemic among others, that ravaged the world as we knew it. The root causes of insecurity in Nigeria are listed thus:

• Militant Islamic Groups.
• Organized criminal gangs.
• Farmer- Herder conflict.
• Militant Biafran Separatists.
• Security sector violence against civilians.
• Kidnapping and Ransom taking.

A National Security Policy is an official description of how a state aims to provide for its own security and that of its citizens and population. It establishes a national understanding of the threats and risks of the security environment, and the values and principles that will guide the state in providing state and human security.

They are the laws, strategies, and actions a government adopts to protect the state, its citizens, and its interests from threats, both internal (like terrorism, insurgency, or civil unrest) and external (like war or foreign interference).

They cover areas such as:

• Military defense and counterterrorism
• Law enforcement and intelligence gathering
• Border control and immigration
• Cybersecurity and surveillance
• Emergency powers and public safety measures

A national security policy can take the form of a single document and can also be reflected in a collection of existing documents that together, compose a coherent, integrated policy or law. A national security policy is defined by the purpose it serves and not by its title: it might also be called a plan, strategy, concept, doctrine, or similar.

Nigeria has several laws, policies, and strategies aimed at national security. Some are direct, while others operate under broader public safety goals.

A good example is the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(“the Constitution”), which is the apex law of the land, Section 14(2)(b) provides that national security shall be the primary purpose of the government and Chapter Four of the Constitution is devoted to the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizens. Both provisions are well applauded, however, when the rights of the citizens are at loggerheads with national security, national security tends to take precedence, this can be clearly seen in the same Chapter Four of the Constitution, which goes on to provide grounds for which the citizens’ fundamental rights can be derogated from and one of which is the protection of National security.

In 2014, Former President Goodluck Jonathan signed and launched Nigeria’s first ever National Security Strategy (NSS) to serve as the overarching national strategy document in framing the country’s pursuit of its national security.

The NSS outlines the major security concerns of the Nation for which policies and strategies have been articulated, and how the government plans to address them. It recognizes that the security environment has continued to evolve, giving rise to emergent challenges, including the intensification of pastoralists-farmers conflicts, escalation of banditry, and a significant upsurge in kidnapping and banditry, among other violent crimes.

In May 2022, Former President Muhammadu Buhari assented to the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (“TPA 2022”), which repealed the former anti-terrorism legislation, Terrorism (Prevention) Act No. 10, 2011, and amended in 2013. The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, which criminalizes a broad spectrum of terrorism-related activities, including financing of terrorism, recruitment, radicalization, hostage-taking, and proliferation of weapons. It empowers relevant authorities to take preventive measures, enforce asset freezing orders, designate terrorist entities, and cooperate internationally in combating terrorism and transnational organized crime.

The aim of the Act, among other things, is the detection, prevention, prohibition, prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism, terrorism financing, proliferation and financing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Nigeria. This Act, in short, aims to protect the Country from acts of terrorism, but it does not aim to do this in a lacuna, the Act provides that the Attorney General of the Federation may make regulations in line with the Act, for the procedure for the effective management and prompt prosecution of terrorist cases in line with the highest professional standards and international human rights standards.

It is important to point out that despite its best effort; this Act contains provisions that are affront to human rights, one of which is its Section 66 which provides:

1. Notwithstanding provisions in any other law, the Court may, pursuant to an ex-parte application, grant an order for the detention of a suspect under this Act for a period not more than 60 days, subject to renewal for a similar period, until the conclusion of the investigation and prosecution of the matter that led to the arrest and detention is dispensed with provided that in the case of renewal, the relevant agency shall involve the Attorney–General.
2. A person found on any premises or place or in any conveyance may be detained by the relevant law enforcement or security officer until the completion of the search or investigation under the provisions of this Act.

Both provisions are exceptions to Section 35 of the Constitution, which discourages detention for more than 48 hours without a court order.

The Act also allows for security agencies to apply to the court for an ex parte order for the interception of communication, for the prevention of terrorism, the detention of a terrorist, or the proscription of offenders, with the approval of the National Security Adviser. The court can issue an order compelling communication service providers to intercept and retain a specific communication or communications of a specific description received or transmitted or about to be received or transmitted by that communication service provider, including call record data or metadata. This provision is in contravention of Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which forbids States parties from invading the privacy of those under their jurisdiction and obliges them to provide legal protection for those individuals against arbitrary or illegal interference with their privacy. While acts of the states must be legal, it does not imply that states have unrestricted authority to interfere with privacy because any limitation on rights must be necessary to achieve legitimate goals and be proportionate to those goals. The government must pledge to prevent the wrongful use of this provision to infringe on privacy guarantees.

The Act is also limited in its enforcement of the legal rights of women and girls. This is because the Act does not explicitly criminalize the abduction and forced marriage of school girls by terrorists, leaving them vulnerable.

The government introduced the National Counter Terrorism Strategy (NACTEST) in 2016 as a national plan to tackle terrorism. It focuses on preventing attacks, responding to incidents, and reducing citizens’ exposure to terrorist threats. Developed by the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), the strategy was created in response to the increasing activities of terrorist groups, particularly Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP).

Another law of note is the Armed Forces Act, which regulates the conduct of Nigerian Armed Forces, including counter-terrorism operations, requiring professionalism, adherence to rules of engagement, and respect for human rights. Soldiers have been court-martialled for abuses, such as the trial of two soldiers in Maiduguri for the extra-judicial killing of a Boko Haram suspect in January 2021. Despite Boko Haram’s atrocities, Nigeria’s laws and its obligations under the Geneva Convention forbid the execution of captured suspects without trial.

Court martial proceedings also protect the rights of accused soldiers, who enjoy fair trial guarantees similar to civilians in civil courts: right to counsel, presumption of innocence, objection to the court members, examination of witnesses, interpreter services, and protection against double jeopardy. Thus, Nigeria’s legal framework seeks to balance national security with the protection of human rights for both civilians and soldiers.

Other national security policies that have been introduced in Nigeria include the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, and the National Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy (NCPS) 2021, Administration of Criminal Justice Act, Police Act, Official Secret Act, and National Security Agencies Act, etc.

Hence, Nigeria’s national security policies framework represents a comprehensive, yet evolving system of legal and policy instruments designed to protect the state from both traditional and emerging threats.

However, while these policies, acts, and strategies collectively demonstrate the government’s commitment to maintaining national stability, they also raise critical questions about their implementation, coordination, and human rights compliance. In practice, the enforcement of these security policies has sometimes led to tensions between national security objectives and constitutional rights, particularly in areas such as freedom of expression, privacy, and personal liberty.

UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITY: WHO ARE THE AFFECTED POPULATIONS?

To fully understand what the term “vulnerable population” entails, we have to understand the meaning of the word vulnerability and what it means to be vulnerable.

The World Health Organisation in defining vulnerability adopted the definition of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) and defined it as:

“The conditions determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets, or systems to the impacts of hazards.” 

From the above definition, it can be clearly seen that vulnerability is determined by various factors, the combination of which make an individual, community, assets, or systems susceptible to different hazards which including but not limited to living in disaster risk areas or in poor housing, ill-health, political tensions, or a lack of local institutions or preparedness measures.

Some individuals are more susceptible to these hazards than others and these people are what are referred to as vulnerable populations, Factors that determine who is added to this population include age, gender, sexual identities, race, culture, religion, disability, socio-economic status, geographical location, or migration status.

When the rights of individuals are violated, it is often those of the vulnerable members of society that are affected, and that is why the government has enacted laws to protect these rights. However, when faced with national security challenges, human rights tend to take the backseat, and it is the most vulnerable members of society who are worst affected.

A vulnerable person is someone who belongs to a group within the society that is either oppressed or more susceptible to harm. Vulnerable persons are those in society who receive ill treatment due to special conditions. They are in positions that make them susceptible to abuse or, more specifically, susceptible to mistreatment by those who may potentially hold power over them.

In the context of national security, vulnerability refers to the condition in which individuals or groups are more likely to suffer harm or rights violations due to their social, economic, political, or legal status. Vulnerable populations often lack the power, visibility, or resources to protect themselves against the adverse effects of state actions, especially when national security measures are implemented without sufficient safeguards. In many cases, these groups are not inherently weak but are rendered vulnerable by systemic inequalities, discrimination, or exclusionary policies that amplify their exposure to harm.

Vulnerability can arise from both structural and situational factors. Structurally, it stems from systemic issues such as limited access to information, education, technology, and political representation. Individuals or groups with little influence or voice in decision-making are often more exposed to harm. Situational vulnerability, on the other hand, may result from personal conditions like physical frailty, gender, age, or lack of social support networks.

Broadly, vulnerability is shaped by the social, political, and economic structures that define people’s lives, including governance systems, economic inequalities, environmental practices, race and class dynamics, and gender roles. These factors determine how different groups experience and respond to insecurity.

Groups often categorized as vulnerable populations include women and girls, children, refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), stateless individuals, national minorities, indigenous peoples, migrant workers, persons with disabilities, the elderly, individuals living with HIV/AIDS, persons with mental health conditions, prisoners, poverty-stricken people, and ex-convicts. These groups tend to experience higher levels of marginalization, limited access to justice, social exclusion, and inhuman treatment, which increase their susceptibility to the negative effects of national security measures and other societal risks.

Understanding who is vulnerable and why is central to a human rights approach to national security.

IMPACT OF NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES ON VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

National security measures in Nigeria have far-reaching and differing implications for various parts of society. While these policies aim to safeguard territories and protect citizens from terrorism, insurgency, cybercrimes, and other harms, their implementation often produces unintended human rights consequences, especially for socially and politically vulnerable populations.

There is no gainsaying the fact that an atmosphere of security is a prerequisite for any human endeavour. Without a reasonable level of guarantee of protection from unprovoked attacks, injuries, and the threats they pose to personal life, liberty, and property, life itself becomes a daily mirage. National security in Nigeria, while essential, often results in restrictions on civil liberties, displacement, fundamental rights and socio-economic exclusion of vulnerable persons. From a human rights perspective, the challenge is to balance security needs, with the protection of fundamental rights. Policies should be put in place to ensure that the fight against insecurity does not lead to further marginalization, abuses, or denial of dignity for those already at risk.

Its implication can be considered under two broad headings which are the positive and negative effects of its implementation.

POSITIVE IMPACT OF NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES

1. Protection from Terrorism and Insurgency: The Nigerian military’s counter-insurgency operations in the North- East have, despite its challenges, helped communities regain access to schools, markets, and hospitals destroyed by Boko Haram. The rescue of abducted women and children and the disruption of forced marriage operations, represent attempts to restore human dignity and rights. For example, Operation Hadin Kaihas rescued numerous civilians held captive.
2. Right to life and dignity of human person:Effective security presence tends to protect vulnerable populations from killings, kidnappings, terrorism etc. The Constitution emphasizes the need, that the security and welfare of people shall be the primary purpose of the government. National security policy seeks to prevent extra-judicial killings, insurgency, and armed banditry especially for those least able to protect themselves through the instrumentality of security agencies. Also, this right is globally recognized in Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) that further upholds the right to life. When national security is effectively implemented, these groups are shielded from killings, kidnappings, terrorism, and other violent crimes
3. Right to Health and Adequate Standard of Living: Stable security allows vulnerable groups to access hospitals, humanitarian aid, and clean water without disruption. The Constitution advocates for adequate medical facilities.
4. Promotion of Stability for Development: Security policies that reduce threats from insurgents, bandits, and kidnappers create an environment, where vulnerable persons can access education, healthcare, and markets without fear. This stability encourages humanitarian aid and community rebuilding, especially in conflict-prone areas.

THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES

1. Restrictions on Fundamental Rights: Certain fundamental rights are likely to be derogated from under the pretext of national security to wit:

• Right to freedom of movement: Security measures like curfews, military checkpoints, and road blocks often restrict the movement of vulnerable groups, especially displaced persons seeking food, healthcare, or work.
• Right to freedom of expression and association: Journalists, activists, and community leaders working with vulnerable groups may be silenced under national security pretexts.

2. Militarization of the Civilian Space: Heavy military presence in conflict-prone areas (e.g., North-East Nigeria due to Boko Haram insurgency) often leads to harassment, arbitrary arrests, and sometimes extra-judicial killings, disproportionately affecting poor rural dwellers that lack access to justice. Communities may face displacement due to military operations, worsening the humanitarian crisis.
3. Weak Accountability and Poor Access to Justice: Human rights abuses committed in the name of national security often go unpunished, as security operatives are shielded by laws or government protection. Vulnerable persons rarely have the resources or awareness to seek redress, leaving them without remedies. Hence, lack of accountability for abuses may deepen social alienation and trust in government
4. Gender Based Vulnerability: Women and girls are particularly at risk of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) by both insurgents and, in some cases, security operatives. Lack of protection mechanisms in IDP camps leaves them exposed to forced marriages, rape, and human trafficking. National security policies often fail to prioritize gender-sensitive protections.

The following sections examine how specific populations are affected and which national security instruments or policies contribute to their vulnerability.

1. Refugees and Migrants

Refugees and migrants are among the most exposed groups in Nigeria. Measures related to border control and immigration enforcement, such as those implemented under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, the National Counter Terrorism Strategy (NACTEST), and the National Migration Policy, have sometimes blurred the line between legitimate security enforcement and the violation of migrants’ rights. In border regions such as Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa States, areas affected by insurgency, refugees from Chad, Cameroon, and Niger have faced restrictions on movement, arbitrary detention, and forced repatriation, often justified as counterterrorism efforts.

Similarly, Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), though not crossing international borders, face security screening and militarized camp administration that limit their freedom and access to humanitarian aid. These practices, while meant to prevent infiltration by insurgents, often compromise the rights and dignity of displaced persons.

2. Women and Children

Women and children suffer under Nigeria’s national security policies, particularly in areas affected by insurgency and military deployment. Military operations against Boko Haram and ISWAP sometimes lead to mass displacement, family separation, and sexual violence against women and girls. Reports have documented cases of sexual exploitation, harassment, and abuse in IDP camps, with perpetrators rarely held accountable.
Children, meanwhile, face disrupted education and psychological trauma. Many have been forcibly recruited by armed groups or detained by the military under terrorism suspicions. Despite provisions under the Child Rights Act and Nigeria’s commitments to international conventions, these vulnerabilities persist due to inadequate monitoring and weak security mechanisms.

3. Journalists and Activists

Journalists, human rights defenders, and activists often become targets under the pretext of national security. The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 has been used to arrest and prosecute individuals for online expression or political criticism. For example, journalists reporting on military operations in the North-East have been detained for allegedly “undermining national security.”

Similarly, activists organizing peaceful protests, such as the #EndSARS movement, faced surveillance, travel bans, and intimidation, justified as measures to prevent public disorder. Such actions not only curtail freedom of expression but also impact the rights of vulnerable populations in Nigeria, as the security apparatus is used to silence voices that challenge government narratives.

4. Persons with Disabilities, the Elderly, and Other Marginalized Groups

Persons with disabilities, the elderly, and those with chronic health conditions are also indirectly affected by national security policy measures. During emergencies or security lockdowns, often declared under the provisions of Section 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended, these groups face restricted access to healthcare, mobility challenges, and neglect in evacuation or relief efforts. Insecurity in certain regions has further disrupted the delivery of essential social services, thereby affecting those already marginalized.

Prisoners and ex-convicts, who are already stigmatized, face intensified scrutiny under counterterrorism laws, particularly with growing fears of radicalization within correctional facilities. Yet, rehabilitation and reintegration programs remain underfunded and ineffective, leaving this group vulnerable to renewed cycles of insecurity and exclusion.

While national security policies are essential for protecting the country, their implementation leaves a lot to be desired and often produces disproportionate effects on vulnerable populations. These groups, already marginalized by poverty, discrimination, or lack of access to justice, face increased risks of abuse, neglect, and exclusion when security operations and policies are not guided by human rights principles.

Hence, addressing these challenges requires a human-centered implementation of national security policies, one that balances state protection, with the dignity and rights of individuals.

Strengthening accountability mechanisms, refining implementation procedures, promoting inclusive policymaking, and aligning national laws with international human rights standards, can help reduce the adverse effects of national security policies on vulnerable populations.

APPROACHES TO MINIMIZING THE ADVERSE IMPACT OF NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES ON VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

Balancing national security and human rights remains one of Nigeria’s governance problems. While the Nation is constitutionally empowered to safeguard territorial integrity and public order, the methods employed must respect the dignity, equality, and welfare of all citizens. Otherwise, there will be consequences for these poorly implemented national security policies. The following approaches outline practical ways to enact or enforce national security measures that minimize harm to vulnerable populations, while preserving national security and stability.

1. Targeting Beneficiaries through Inclusive Policy Design

It can be said that no single policy can meet the needs of an entire population, especially in a society as diverse and complex as Nigeria. Therefore, policies must be tailored to address the specific realities and vulnerabilities of distinct groups such as women, children, persons with disabilities, migrants, and internally displaced persons (IDPs). Broad, one-size-fits-all security policies tend to ignore the unique challenges faced by these groups, thereby increasing exclusion and inequality.

To ensure inclusivity and fairness, vulnerable populations should not merely be treated as passive recipients of policy outcomes but as active participants in the policy-making process. Their involvement at the formulation, implementation, and evaluation stages of national security strategies allows for better alignment between policy intentions and lived realities.

For example, consulting women’s associations, disability rights groups, and IDP community leaders before drafting counter-terrorism or resettlement frameworks would provide insight into ground-level challenges, such as access to aid, protection from abuse, and movement restrictions, that policymakers might otherwise overlook.

2. Integrating Human Rights Principles into National Security Policies

Integrating human rights norms into all stages of security policy design and enforcement, ensures that counter-terrorism and policing measures do not undermine the very people they are meant to protect. Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) affirms that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government,” thereby linking national security directly to human security. National Security Policies such as the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, should be reviewed to include clearer safeguards against misuse, including judicial authorization for surveillance and independent human rights oversight.

Strengthening the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and mandating periodic human rights audits of security agencies would also ensure accountability and protection for civilians, journalists, and activists.

3. Interaction and Communication between Government and Other Organizations

An effective approach to minimizing the adverse impact of national security policies on vulnerable populations lies in fostering constant interaction and communication between the government and other non-state actors. National security cannot be sustainably achieved through the state alone; it requires the active involvement of other stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), professional associations, the organized private sector, and civil society groups. These organizations often operate closest to the affected populations and possess valuable insights, data, and advocacy capacity that can enrich the policy process.

By encouraging dialogue and collaboration with such groups, the government can design more balanced and humane security policies. For instance, civil society organizations working in conflict-affected regions such as the CLEEN Foundation, Human Rights Watch (Nigeria Chapter), and the International Rescue Committee (IRC), have consistently documented how counter-insurgency measures affect displaced women and children. Regular engagement with these bodies can help identify gaps in implementation, expose human rights violations, and recommend corrective actions.

Similarly, professional bodies like the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) can provide legal and ethical perspectives to ensure that, security practices remain consistent with constitutional guarantees and reduce the impact of National Security Policies on vulnerable populations.

4. Enhancing Accountability and Oversight of Security Agencies

Abuses committed by law enforcement and military personnel are notorious and often stem from inadequate oversight and weak disciplinary measures. Strengthening institutional accountability through independent review boards, legislative oversight committees, ombudsman, and public complaint systems is essential. The #EndSARS protests of 2020 revealed issues of brutality, unlawful detention, and lack of redress within the Nigerian Police Force. Therefore, establishing a transparent and well-funded Police Complaints Response Unit and empowering the NHRC to investigate security related abuses will help rebuild public confidence.

Nigeria can also draw lessons from Kenya’s Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), which provides a model for civilian oversight.

5. Prioritizing Community Engagement

Community approaches enhance local security initiatives and build trust between the citizens and state institutions. In the North-East, joint civilian-military initiatives, such as the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF), have contributed to intelligence gathering but require stronger human rights oversight. Structured community dialogue platforms led by traditional and religious leaders can also serve as early-warning systems against radicalization.

6. Providing Adequate Resources

One of the most persistent challenges in the effective implementation of national security policies in Nigeria, is the lack of adequate material, financial, and human resources. Even well-designed policies cannot achieve their objectives if they are not backed by sufficient operational capacity.

Security initiatives that aim to protect vulnerable groups often suffer from under-funding, limited logistics, and poorly trained personnel. The result of this is inconsistent enforcement, corruption, and neglect of the most at-risk populations.

Ensuring budgetary transparency and sustained investment in both the security and social sectors is therefore essential. Furthermore, human resources should be strengthened through continuous training, fair compensation, and strict accountability mechanisms to discourage abuse and improve public trust.

7. Enhancing Effective Communication

Another crucial factor in minimizing harm to vulnerable populations, is establishing effective communication between policy implementers and target beneficiaries. Many security-related programs fail not because of poor design but because affected communities are inadequately informed or excluded from communication channels.

When displaced persons, rural women, or minority communities are unaware of security operations or emergency protocols, they are more likely to experience fear, misinformation, and unintentional non-compliance. Establishing clear feedback mechanisms, such as town hall meetings, local radio briefings, and community liaison officers, can bridge this gap. This two-way communication not only ensures transparency and trust but also allows beneficiaries to express concerns and provide feedback on how security operations affect them.

8. Encouraging a Culture of Continuity

Policy inconsistency and abrupt discontinuity have long undermined governance and security effectiveness in Nigeria. The frequent abandonment of existing security programs or reforms with each change in administration, weakens national security policies and wastes resources. Encouraging a culture of continuity is therefore critical to reducing the negative impact of national security policies on vulnerable populations.

The National and State Assemblies should enact laws that guarantee the continuity of effective policies, particularly those addressing the welfare of vulnerable populations.

Continuity does not mean rigidity; it means maintaining the commitment to policies that work, even while improving or reforming them.

9. Expanding Access to Justice and Legal Remedies

Justice for victims of national security policies related abuses is essential for accountability and deterrence. The judicial system must be accessible, affordable, and independent, especially for vulnerable populations and marginalized groups.

Establishing mobile courts or legal aid centers in affected regions can help address grievances and reduce impunity. The Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACON) and civil society organizations such as SERAP (Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project) have played key roles in providing legal representation for victims of unlawful detention, torture, and media repression. Strengthening their capacity and ensuring full compliance with judicial decisions, will reinforce the rule of law within the security sector and reduce the impact of National Security Policies on vulnerable populations.

Finally, by incorporating these recommended approaches, Nigeria can significantly reduce the adverse impact of national security policies on vulnerable populations and promote a more inclusive framework for national stability.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, we proffer the following strategies as panacea for resolving the lingering security threat in Nigeria.

1. It is generally believed that security begins and ends with the government. What this means is that democracy appeals to political representation. The latter controls the machinery and affairs of the state on behalf of the people. It is therefore incumbent on the government to rightly deploy its machinery of social control, to checkmate any form of deviance behaviour, among members of the society considered to be detrimental to the national interest and security.
2. There is a need to identify the core, pivotal virtue and ethical values that should guide and regulate the conduct and behaviour of members of the Armed Forces and other security agencies to mitigate abuse. The value should be built on the respect for human life, regard for human dignity, right to life and security of the people, freedom of thought, religion, freedom of expression and opinions.
3. To ensure the success and sustainability of national security initiatives, the Ministry of Defence and Police Commission should establish robust evaluation and monitoring mechanisms, to continuously assess their effectiveness and identify areas for improvement. Regular assessments and adaptations of soft policing methods, should be informed by community feedback, effectiveness studies, and emerging best practices, allowing for data-driven decision-making and refinement of strategies. By prioritizing continuous evaluation and adaptation, soft policing initiatives can remain responsive to evolving community needs and threats, ultimately enhancing their impact and effectiveness.
4. Media campaigns and strategic communication should be leveraged, to promote positive narratives around law enforcement and community cooperation in crime prevention and national security. Community members should be actively involved in crime prevention strategies, through neighbourhood watch programs, forums, and collaborative decision-making.
5. The Federal government should formulate and effectively implement policies and programs capable of addressing the root causes of insecurity in Nigeria.
6. Compulsory Military Service: As contained in Section 220(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as Amended; military trainings should be infused into secondary schools curriculum aimed towards equipping the youths/citizens with foundational defensive methodology and strategy against any form of inhumane treatment or terrorism.

CONCLUSION

National security remains one of the most important responsibilities of the Nigerian government. However, as this paper has shown, the pursuit of security often affects vulnerable populations in different and unequal ways. Refugees, women, children, persons with disabilities, and other marginalized groups frequently experience the negative side of security operations, including displacement, abuse, and loss of rights. While laws such as the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and the Cybercrimes Act, 2015, were created to protect the country, their enforcement has sometimes resulted in actions that threaten the same people they aim to protect.

A different approach to national security policies is therefore necessary to correct these imbalances. Policies should be designed and implemented in ways that respect human dignity, protect civil liberties, and ensure justice for all.

In the end, true security goes beyond military strength or law enforcement. It includes the social and economic well-being of every citizen, especially those who are most at risk. When human rights and national security work together, they create a stronger, fairer, and more peaceful society.

Nigeria’s progress toward lasting peace and stability will depend on how well it balances the protection of the state with the protection of its people.

Let me close by quoting the moto of Liberia which says:

“The love of liberty, brought us here”

I thank you for your rapt attentive listening.

Prof. Yusuf Ali, SAN FCIArb., is the Principal Partner & Founder, Yusuf Ali & Co., and is the 1^st Kuliya Ngari of Ilorin Emirate