By Shu’aibu Usman Leman
There are moments when a national incident transcends the status of a mere security report and becomes a definitive test of how a society values the truth. The recent events concerning the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, fall squarely into that category.
For those of us who have had the privilege of working within the institution, such moments are not merely external developments captured in the headlines; they are sobering reminders of how fragile our most strategic national spaces can be when confronted with evolving security threats and the equally delicate nature of public interpretation.
In my Wednesday column for The Niche, I examined the attempted attack on NIPSS through the lens of my own tenure as a Consultant on Media and Public Communication between 2009 and 2010. Since then, I have come to realise that beyond the question of physical security lies a more profound and enduring concern, the preservation of trust, the discipline of public reasoning, and fidelity to evidence in the wake of sensitive security incidents.
The public communication that followed the incident—most notably the comments made by the Director-General of NIPSS, Professor Ayo Omotayo, during his interview on Arise TV—has unfortunately served to heighten sensitivities rather than resolve them. By specifically characterising the attackers as ‘Berom militias’, Professor Omotayo’s remarks have sparked a robust and justified public reaction.
When an institutional leader of such standing chooses to label a specific community before a professional investigation is concluded, it carries immense weight. It risks misplacing blame, alienating the host community whose goodwill is essential, and potentially inflaming ethnic tensions. The backlash from the Plateau North Senatorial District underscores the danger of this approach; it demonstrates how rapidly an institutional security issue can be transformed into a wider socio-political crisis.
One of the enduring lessons of my career in journalism and institutional life is that crises rarely remain confined to their immediate facts. They expand rapidly into narratives, interpretations, and assumptions, often long before the relevant authorities have concluded their investigations. It is precisely at these junctures that the discipline of evidence becomes indispensable.
At this stage, despite the volume of public commentary, no credible investigation has conclusively established the perpetrators of the attack on NIPSS, their precise motives, or whether the incident is linked to any of the interpretations currently circulating in public discourse. Until professional security and intelligence agencies have completed their work, it is both prudent and necessary that public commentary remains anchored in restraint rather than premature conclusion.
This restraint is not a desire to avoid difficult questions; on the contrary, it is about posing them responsibly. It is entirely legitimate to interrogate security lapses, institutional vulnerabilities, and the adequacy of intelligence gathering around strategic national assets. What is unacceptable, however, is the substitution of verified facts with conjecture, or the premature attribution of responsibility to individuals or communities based on speculation. Whether the terminology employed is ‘local militia’, ‘armed gangs’, ‘kidnapping networks’, or any other label, the principle must remain constant, that allegations are not evidence, and labels are not proof.
Furthermore, it is vital to situate this incident within a broader and more sombre context. This represents the second reported attack involving NIPSS within a relatively short period. While each incident must be investigated on its own merits, such recurrence at a strategic national institution inevitably raises legitimate questions regarding evolving risk patterns, institutional vulnerability, and the adequacy of existing protective frameworks. Without resorting to hasty conclusions, it would be irresponsible not to acknowledge that repeated incidents of this nature warrant a fundamental reassessment of security assumptions.
Simultaneously, it is necessary to recognise that the relationship between NIPSS and its host community in Kuru is far older and more consequential than the events of recent weeks. For over four decades, the Institute has operated within a community that has provided it with continuity, stability, and a sense of rootedness. That coexistence has not been without its complexities, but it has largely endured based on mutual respect and shared interests. It would therefore be deeply unfortunate if an unresolved security incident were allowed to strain a relationship that has taken decades to nurture.
In this regard, trust should not be viewed as an abstract moral sentiment, but as a tangible component of institutional security. No strategic institution can function effectively in an environment where its host community becomes alienated or mistrustful. The goodwill of the people of Kuru has, over time, formed part of the quiet but essential foundation upon which NIPSS has operated. That goodwill must be preserved with care, just as legitimate community concerns must be addressed through structured and lawful engagement rather than neglect or dismissal.
In moments such as these, leadership is measured not only by responsiveness but by the discipline exercised in avoiding interpretations that may harden perceptions before the facts are established. I maintain that only a credible, professional, and transparent investigation can provide authoritative answers. Such an investigation must be allowed to proceed without interference, speculation, or premature closure.
Beyond immediate security concerns, this episode invites a broader reflection on the nature of public communication in an era defined by speed and immediacy. As someone who has spent a significant part of his professional life in journalism and public communication, I am persuaded that resisting the urge to offer speculative conclusions has become a civic obligation for all who engage in public commentary—not least for those in positions of high institutional authority.
It should be noted that what is at stake is not only the physical security of an institution but the integrity of how we process the truth as a society. NIPSS remains one of Nigeria’s most significant intellectual assets, just as Kuru remains its long-standing host community. Neither can afford the erosion of trust that follows unresolved speculation. The true measure of this moment will lie not only in how the investigation is conducted, but in how responsibly all stakeholders—including institutional leaders—conduct themselves in its aftermath.
Leman is a former National Secretary of Nigeria Union of Journalists-NUJ
