When a government under pressure turns outward to repair its reputation instead of inward to repair its foundations, it invites a dangerous question: is the problem perception, or performance? Nigeria’s reported decision to spend nine million dollars on United States lobbying efforts has ignited precisely that debate. At a time when insecurity continues to claim lives across multiple regions, the optics of investing heavily in foreign image management rather than domestic stabilisation have unsettled many citizens. Public relations may recalibrate tone abroad, but it cannot silence gunfire at home.
The controversy intensified after reports that millions were paid to a Washington based lobbying firm following the United States designation of Nigeria as a country of particular concern over religious violence. The sequence of events raised eyebrows. Diplomatic tension emerged. Lobbying contracts followed. Public praise from foreign quarters appeared not long after. Meanwhile, within Nigeria’s borders, communities in parts of Kaduna, Niger, Plateau and other vulnerable states continued to report killings, kidnappings and displacement. For families directly affected, the distinction between narrative and reality is not theoretical. It is measured in funerals and empty classrooms.
Nigeria’s insecurity is neither new nor geographically isolated. Since 2009, the country has battled insurgency in the northeast, farmer herder conflicts in the north central region, banditry in the northwest, separatist agitation in the southeast and urban crime in major cities. The human cost has been staggering, with thousands of fatalities, widespread internal displacement and severe economic consequences. Analysts frequently describe the crisis as multidimensional, driven by governance deficits, porous borders, arms proliferation, poverty and ethno religious tensions. None of these root causes can be resolved through diplomatic persuasion abroad.
Critics argue that the symbolic weight of a nine million dollar lobbying effort during a period of visible domestic distress sends an uncomfortable message about priorities. Security infrastructure requires funding. Intelligence coordination requires reform. Community trust requires rebuilding. When public resources are channelled into image enhancement campaigns overseas, citizens inevitably ask whether perception management has begun to overshadow policy execution. Governments, like individuals, are ultimately judged not by curated portraits but by lived outcomes.
Supporters of the administration may contend that international legitimacy carries tangible benefits, including diplomatic cooperation, security partnerships and foreign investment. That argument is not without merit. Nations do operate within reputational ecosystems. However, reputation is most durable when anchored in demonstrable progress. International partners are rarely persuaded for long by narratives that diverge sharply from ground realities. In an interconnected world, images of violence travel faster than press releases.
There is also a deeper issue at stake: the social contract. Citizens expect that their taxes will be directed first toward safeguarding life and property. When insecurity persists and resources appear to be deployed elsewhere, public trust erodes. That erosion cannot be reversed through external validation. It requires visible improvements in safety, accountability and governance effectiveness. Transparency regarding expenditure decisions becomes crucial in maintaining democratic legitimacy.
Nigeria does not lack capable security personnel, nor does it lack legislative authority to act. What many observers question is strategic coherence and political will. Investment in intelligence gathering, border surveillance, rapid response capabilities and conflict prevention mechanisms could produce measurable impact. Strengthening state police debates, improving interagency coordination and addressing socioeconomic drivers of violence are policy avenues that demand sustained attention. These initiatives require patience and domestic focus rather than international image recalibration.
History offers cautionary tales about governments that prioritised perception over reform. Lobbying may influence foreign policymakers temporarily, but it rarely rewrites structural deficiencies. Sustainable reputation is built incrementally through consistency between policy and practice. Where such consistency is absent, scepticism grows both domestically and internationally.
Ultimately, Nigeria’s global image will not be decided in Washington boardrooms or diplomatic receptions. It will be shaped in villages where farmers return safely from their fields, in highways where travellers move without fear of abduction, and in schools that operate without the shadow of armed intrusion. If those realities improve, international opinion will adjust accordingly. If they do not, no amount of external persuasion will permanently alter the narrative.
The fundamental question is not whether lobbying is permissible. It is whether it is proportionate and timely given prevailing conditions. In moments of national strain, symbolism matters. Citizens look for signals that leadership recognises urgency at home. Image management may polish surfaces, but only governance reform can strengthen foundations. And in the end, it is foundations, not finishes, that determine whether a nation stands secure.
– Inah Boniface Ocholi writes from Ayah – Igalamela/Odolu LGA, Kogi state.
08152094428 (SMS Only)
