The attack on Koro Town was carried out by armed bandits who sought to overrun the community. They were met with resistance from local vigilante groups, supported by personnel of the National Park Service (NPS)—a federal agency increasingly drawn into frontline security roles due to Nigeria’s evolving internal security challenges. The assailants were ultimately repelled and forced to withdraw before taking control of the town. Yet the cost was severe. Samuel Abimbola, a personnel of the National Park Service, lost his life in the line of duty, paying the ultimate price in defense of civilians.
While residents have expressed gratitude that the attackers were pushed back, the broader public reaction has been far more critical—and rightly so. The central question echoing across social media, radio discussions, and newspaper columns is blunt and uncomfortable: Why do Nigeria’s security forces so often stop at repelling attacks instead of decisively neutralizing the threat?
A Doctrine of Reaction, Not Prevention
Security experts widely agree that reactive policing and military responses are among the weakest forms of internal security management. When forces wait for assailants to strike before responding, they surrender the initiative to criminals. The Koro Town incident fits squarely into this pattern. The bandits attacked, met resistance, withdrew, and disappeared—likely into nearby forests or ungoverned spaces that have long served as sanctuaries for armed groups.
The frustration expressed by citizens is not necessarily a call for reckless violence; rather, it is a demand for strategic follow-through. In security studies, deterrence is achieved not merely by repelling an attack, but by ensuring that attackers lack the capacity, confidence, or safe havens to return. When assailants retreat unchallenged, they often regroup, rearm, and strike again—sometimes in the same community, sometimes elsewhere.
This is why many Nigerians argue that the best form of defense is prevention, and prevention requires proactive intelligence-led operations, not episodic firefighting.
The Perception of Complicity
Perhaps the most damaging consequence of this repeated pattern is the growing public perception that authorities are complicit or indifferent. This perception does not arise in a vacuum. Over the years, numerous reports by civil society organizations, security analysts, and investigative journalists have pointed out that security agencies often possess prior intelligence about the locations, movements, and hideouts of armed groups.
When communities hear that “security agencies know where these criminals are,” yet see no decisive action taken to dismantle those camps, suspicion naturally follows. The question then shifts from capacity to will. Are the authorities unable to act—or unwilling?
This perception erodes trust, and trust is the cornerstone of effective security. Once citizens begin to believe that the state is either tolerating or managing insecurity rather than eliminating it, cooperation with law enforcement declines, intelligence dries up, and vigilantism fills the vacuum.
Vigilantes as First Responders: A Symptom of State Failure
The prominent role played by local vigilante groups in confronting the Koro Town attackers is both commendable and alarming. It is commendable because it reflects community courage and solidarity. It is alarming because it underscores how non-state actors have become first responders in many parts of Nigeria.
Across the country—from the North-West to the Middle Belt and parts of the South—vigilante groups have emerged as de facto security providers. This trend is well-documented by security think tanks and human rights organizations. While community-based security can complement formal policing, it becomes dangerous when it substitutes for it. Poorly regulated vigilante groups risk human rights abuses, ethnic profiling, and escalation of violence.
The death of NPS personnel Samuel Abimbola further highlights the blurring of institutional roles. The National Park Service was originally mandated to protect wildlife and forest reserves. Its increasing involvement in counter-banditry operations reflects how forested national parks have been converted into operational bases for criminal groups—another long-acknowledged security challenge in Nigeria.
The Cost of “Repel and Withdraw”
Every time attackers are repelled without being dismantled, the cost multiplies:
1. Human Cost: Security personnel like Samuel Abimbola lose their lives, while civilians live with trauma and displacement.
2. Economic Cost: Farming, trading, and local commerce grind to a halt under persistent fear.
3. Psychological Cost: Communities lose faith in the state’s ability to protect them.
4. Strategic Cost: Armed groups gain confidence, learning that the worst outcome of an attack is temporary resistance.
Security analysts consistently warn that insecurity thrives where consequences are minimal. A system that allows attackers to withdraw safely after violent incursions unintentionally normalizes violence as a low-risk enterprise.
Intensified Patrols: Necessary but Not Sufficient
Following the Koro Town attack, security patrols were intensified, and local vigilance increased to prevent a possible return of the assailants. While this response is standard and necessary, it is also insufficient if not paired with deeper structural action.
Intensified patrols often amount to short-term reassurance. Once patrols thin out, attackers exploit the gap. Sustainable security requires:
Persistent intelligence operations targeting supply lines, financing, and leadership structures of armed groups.
Inter-agency coordination between the police, military, NPS, and intelligence services.
Territorial control of forests and borderlands through technology, surveillance, and permanent presence.
Judicial follow-through, ensuring that arrested suspects are prosecuted transparently and swiftly.
A Call for Strategic Clarity
The outrage following the Koro Town incident is not rooted in bloodlust; it is rooted in exhaustion. Nigerians are tired of press statements that announce attacks, casualties, and withdrawals without clear evidence of long-term resolution. They are tired of hearing that security is “on top of the situation” while the same situation repeats itself in different towns.
For Nigeria to reverse this narrative, the government must articulate and implement a clear, proactive security doctrine—one that prioritizes prevention over reaction, accountability over ambiguity, and citizen safety over bureaucratic caution.
Honouring the Fallen Through Action
The true way to honour Samuel Abimbola and others who have died defending their communities is not merely through condolences, but through decisive reforms that reduce the likelihood of future attacks. Every fallen officer is a stark reminder that half-measures cost lives.
Koro Town survived this attack—but survival should not be the benchmark of success. Security success is measured by the absence of attacks, not the ability to repel them. Until Nigeria moves decisively from reaction to prevention, from withdrawal to disruption, and from opacity to accountability, the cycle of violence will continue—and public trust will continue to erode.
And that, more than anything else, is the real national security threat.
0 Comments