Why the NSA Must Accompany the President on Bilateral Visits
A grainy video from Windsor Castle has, rather predictably, ignited a storm in Nigeria’s ever-combustible public discourse. In it, Nuhu Ribadu, alongside other members of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s delegation, appears relaxed—waving from an open-top carriage during a ceremonial moment of a high-profile state visit to the United Kingdom. To some, the optics were jarring. […]
A grainy video from Windsor Castle has, rather predictably, ignited a storm in Nigeria’s ever-combustible public discourse. In it, Nuhu Ribadu, alongside other members of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s delegation, appears relaxed—waving from an open-top carriage during a ceremonial moment of a high-profile state visit to the United Kingdom.
To some, the optics were jarring. Coming on the heels of deadly attacks in Maiduguri, critics were quick to weaponise the imagery: why, they asked, was the National Security Adviser not “at home fighting terrorists”?
It is an emotionally resonant question. But it is also the wrong one.
Optics vs. Strategy
Public outrage in moments of national grief is understandable. What is less defensible is the deliberate distortion of roles within Nigeria’s security architecture. The expectation that the NSA should be physically present at the scene of attacks reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the office represents.
The NSA is not a field commander. He does not lead troops into battle, nor does he command battalions in the theatre of war. His power—and responsibility—lies elsewhere: in intelligence coordination, strategic advisory, and the orchestration of Nigeria’s entire security ecosystem.
To demand his physical presence in Maiduguri at the expense of critical international engagements is to prioritise symbolism over substance.
The Global Nature of Local Threats
Nigeria’s security challenges are no longer confined within its borders. Groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP operate within a web of transnational linkages—financing networks, arms supply chains, ideological pipelines—that stretch far beyond the Lake Chad Basin.
Confronting such threats requires more than boots on the ground. It demands intelligence-sharing agreements, counter-terrorism partnerships, surveillance technology, and coordinated international pressure.
These are not secured on the battlefield. They are negotiated in diplomatic rooms.
And that is precisely where the NSA becomes indispensable.
The President’s Security Bridge
In bilateral engagements—such as the recent UK visit hosted by King Charles III—security is never a side conversation. It is central. Intelligence protocols, joint operations frameworks, counter-terrorism financing measures, and cyber-security cooperation are woven into the fabric of these discussions.
Without the NSA present, the President is effectively negotiating complex security arrangements without his principal adviser on national security. That is not just inefficient—it is risky.
Nuhu Ribadu serves as the bridge between Nigeria’s domestic security priorities and the international partnerships required to actualise them. His presence ensures that agreements are not merely ceremonial, but actionable.
Coordination, Not Combat
There is a persistent tendency in Nigeria’s political commentary to conflate visibility with effectiveness. When attacks occur, the instinct is to look for a single figure to blame—and increasingly, the NSA has become that convenient target.
Yet the structure is clear: operational agencies—the Armed Forces, Police, and intelligence services—are responsible for execution. The NSA’s office coordinates intelligence, aligns strategy, and ensures that decision-makers are properly advised.
To hold the NSA singularly accountable for operational lapses while ignoring the broader chain of command is not just unfair—it is analytically weak.
Politics Masquerading as Outrage
It would be naïve to assume that all criticism is organic. In a political climate already tilting toward 2027 calculations, high-profile figures like Nuhu Ribadu inevitably attract coordinated pushback.
The speed and uniformity of the backlash to the Windsor imagery suggest something more deliberate than spontaneous public anger. The narrative is simple: create a visual contrast between perceived luxury abroad and suffering at home, then weaponise it.
But governance—especially in matters of national security—is rarely that simplistic.
The Quiet Work That Matters
Diplomacy does not trend on social media. Intelligence-sharing agreements do not go viral. Joint task force frameworks are not captured in viral clips.
Yet these are the mechanisms through which real security gains are made.
Every successful bilateral engagement strengthens Nigeria’s access to intelligence, enhances the capacity of its armed forces, and improves coordination with global partners. These are force multipliers—quiet, often invisible, but profoundly consequential.
A Matter of Necessity, Not Preference
The question, then, is not whether the NSA should accompany the President on bilateral visits. It is whether Nigeria can afford for him not to.
In a world where security threats are increasingly borderless, the answer is self-evident.
The image from Windsor Castle may have captured a fleeting ceremonial moment. But the real work of national security is rarely visible. It unfolds in briefings, negotiations, and agreements that, while lacking spectacle, ultimately determine whether nations are safe.
Reducing that complexity to a viral video may be politically convenient. It is not strategically sound.
Maxwell Olarotimi, a Public Affairs and Security Risk Analyst, sent this piece from Abuja,