Opinion
Food Security: A Hoax?
Nigeria, a country of about 150 million people, finds it difficult to feed itself, not to talk of meeting the raw materials needs of its local industries. By the way, we should be talking of exporting our agricultural products either as raw, semi-processed or processed products.
Nigeria, as Africa’s most populous nation with a clement weather, very fertile land and large expanse of arable land, has no business importing food, especially rice, wheat, sugar, fish or beef.
The modern world views hunger and poverty as a sign of under-development and the inability of a nation to provide adequate food for its citizenry. That is the more reason why the country’s policy makers right from the point of formulation to implementation of agricultural programmes for food security, should involve the major stakeholders, including the people and take practical steps to realise set objectives of self-sufficiency in food.
Previous governments, especially at the federal level, have only paid lip service to food security programmes and issues as it affects the nation.
The Umaru Musa Yar’Adua administration enunciated the seven-point Agenda, and among the agenda, was food security. Also, his predecessor, Olusegun Obasanjo had his food security programme with the ambitious plan of providing adequate food for the Nigeiran populace. To some extent, he tried in the “grow cassava project” as Nigerians embraced it and our production of cassava for some time was one of the largest in the world. Then, of course, credit must be given to that government for helping to revive cocoa production and export. But it should have done more on major staples and other areas.
Food security means self-sufficiency in food production and entails growing enough food to feed the entire citizens and cocoa industries as well as for export to other countries. To achieve this, government needs to take a more holistic and pragmatic approach to issues of food security. Such steps must include increased production of most of our agricultural produce, particularly based on comparative advantage.
Since some agricultural produce do better in certain parts of the country than others, the various research institutes and space technology centres can go a long way in driving this vision.
Nigeria can produce cassava, rice, yam, cocoa, groundnut, sesame, soya bean, oil palm, cotton, wheat, maize and other cereals including potatoes.
The country can also produce other things to enhance our beef and poultry etc. Indeed, the country has all it takes to produce these agricultural products in large quantity for both domestic consumption and industrial uses as well as for export to garner foreign exchange for the country.
For instance, cassava can do very well in most parts of the country while rice does very well in the Eastern, North central as well as Southern parts of the country. And for cocoa, the Western states grow it most while some Southern states grow it well too. Cotton and groundnuts thrive very well in the North alongside most cereals. Same could be said of oil palm which thrives most in the East. Also yams, sesame and soyabeans do very well in the North central and the ‘food basket region’ of the country.
All these agricultural products, if properly harnessed with each area of the country concentrating on its ‘product’ of advantage, would go a long way in boosting Nigeria’s food security. This country requires at least, two fertiliser plants in each geopolitical zone to be able to attain food self-sufficiency, especially taking our population into cognisance.
It is pertinent to note that good storage and post-harvest handling of products is very important to stem wastages and maximise harvests/profits for farmers. Also, there is need to increase capacity for the local processing of these products.
It is a known fact that semi-processed or processed agricultural products are of more value in the international market than when it is unprocessed.
Mechanical farming must be embraced and our crude farming methods jettisoned, if we must attain food security. Indeed, with machines you can farm a large expanse of land than, what humans can do. Also, the Land Use Act and the land tenure system need to be reformed for improved and better use of the vast arable land.
In addition, there is need for the construction of dams in rivers for irrigation purposes, especially in the North, to ensure all-season farming. It could also be used for fresh water fishery purposes.
In a related development, cattle and dairy farming should be encouraged and keyed into, as a cardinal part of food security, since our protein needs form a major part of our lives, either in form of beef, milk, fats and oil or cheese. Dairy and cattle farming could generate a lot of foreign exchange for this country and help improve the standard of living.
Consequently, fish farming, which is still at a relatively subsistence level in the country, needs to be improved upon and expanded beyond the scope it is now practised.
In most of the South-South states of the nation, people use canoes, fishing nets and baskets when the world has gone ‘computer,’ using travlers and other modern fishing gadgets or gears. The government could buy these equipment through the fisheries agency and hire them out to fishermen at reduced rates through co-operative societies. Also, fish pond farms should be encouraged and established for the populace.
Finally, food security or self-sufficiency in food production could only be realised if our youths are encouraged and engaged in agriculture by making it attractive and providing incentives. We know the youths constitute a large segment of our population and therefore, could be gainfully engaged in the Fadama I and Fadama II projects as well as in fish farms and cattle/dairy farms. A strategy should be worked out to properly remunerate them, possibly through Public Private Partnership (PPP). Addressing these aforementioned factors would go a long way in guaranteeing food security in Nigeria.
Ayooso, a public affairs analyst, resides in Port Harcourt.
Samson Ayooso
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
