By Ndaage, Barikuma Lazarus PhD.
ndaagebarikuma@gmail.com
Department of Political Science, Ignatius Ajuru University of Education, Port Harcourt, Rivers State
ndaagebarikuma@gmail.com
Udu Moses Ogechi PhD
osmosisu@yahoo.com
Nigeria Police Training School, Ikeja, Lagos
Abstract
This study examines the impact of insurgency and communal violence on public administration and service delivery in Nigeria, with a focus on how insecurity affects governance in conflict-prone regions. The objective of the study is to explore how public administration can adapt to these challenges and ensure continuous service delivery despite security disruptions. The study is anchored in the Structural Functionalism theory, which posits that the stability of societal systems depends on the functioning of its institutions. A qualitative approach was adopted, with data sourced from secondary materials, including textbooks, journal publications, government reports, and international news outlets. The study found that insecurity disrupts public administration by displacing staff, diverting funds from service delivery to security, and eroding local governance structures. The research highlights the importance of decentralisation, adaptive capacity, and community-based governance as key areas for reform. It also underscores the need for stronger early-warning systems and improved coordination among public institutions to respond effectively to crises. The conclusion suggests that, to improve crisis management in insurgency-prone areas, Nigeria’s public administration should adopt flexible resource allocation, enhance decentralisation, and prioritise community engagement. Recommendations include strengthening decentralisation and local governance, improving early-warning systems, and fostering community-centred governance to ensure service continuity during crises.
Keywords: Public administration, governance, insurgency, communal violence, service delivery, decentralisation, early-warning systems.
Introduction
In modern terms of discussing the topic of government of people, the concept of security governance covers the mechanisms, procedures, and institutions that allow a state and its communities to deal with the safety, conflicts, and violence-related issues. Security governance is about the structure in which security actors including state institutions, non-state actors, and local communities interact, coordinate and provide the functions of public order, prevention and response. Security governance cannot be limited to the military and policing reaction in the Nigerian situation where various types of insecurity are present, including insurgency, bandits, herderfarmer conflicts, communal violence, and terrorism (Jatau, 2025).
Furthermore, the issue of security governance is closely connected with the sphere of public administration, the system through which the design, implementation, and measurement of the public services (education, health, infrastructure, local government, and so on) are created. This leaves the Nigerian public administration with the challenge of providing services and at the same time maintaining security and their institutional resilience. It is especially crucial that the relation between security governance and the administration of the state organizations can be broken as the ability of the public institutions to deliver services is drastically undermined in case of a security crisis. According to recent research, one of the causes of the governance crisis in the security sphere in Nigeria is not only the presence of external threat factors but also the institutional gaps of corruption, fragmentation, poor coordination, and the lack of community interactions (Agwanwo, 2024; Boko Haram Special Report, 2018).
These security issues have complex and harsh implications on service provision and administration. Service delivery is the implementation of the commitments of the state, that is, health care, education, water and sanitation, infrastructure, social welfare, by the machineries of public administration. The internal operations taught in administration include planning, budgeting, agency coordination, monitoring, evaluation, human resources and accountability. Insurgent groups in the Northeast and frequent instances of communal violence in Plateau, Benue, and Bauchi states have affected school schedules, closed health facilities, displaced educators and health centers, and destroyed roads and bridges that link remote societies in Nigeria (Anierobi et al., 2024). As an example, insecurity in Benue State has demonstrated statistically significant negative effects on agricultural production, which in its turn influences the revenue of the local government, thus limiting the administrative capacity further (Ijirshar et al., 2025). Therefore, this develops into a vicious circle where violence compromises service delivery, which compromises the public administration, which compromises the institutional trust and legitimacy, and thus compromises security governance.
Statement of the Problem
The recent surge in insurgency and tribal violence in Nigeria has acutely compromised the ability of the population government to provide basic services, which is indicative of major governance crisis. Areas affected by the operations of armed groups including the north-east, north-west bandit belt and also the middle belt communal hot spots are plagued with disruptions everywhere in schools and clinics are being closed, roads being impassable and local government offices are being shuttered or used as security outposts. Akindoyin and Obafemi (2025) determined that insecurity in Nigeria has undermined institutional abilities, directed the spending of the masses toward security measures rather than development and reduced the legitimacy of the governance structures. The usual system of management fails at the challenge in these situations: budgeting procedures are disrupted, human resources are deployed left-handedly, and the oversight mechanisms fall apart as the focus shifts towards managing the crisis. The administrative backlash is two-fold, initially, the inability to sustain service-delivery infrastructure immediately, and, second, a negative impact on citizen trust in institutions over the longer-term. Insecurity therefore comes out as the cause and consequence of governance failure (Achinike et al., 2025). The violation of the social contract through violence in societies deprives the public administration of its anchor and reduces it to a reactive and not proactive mode where delivery of services becomes peripheral. Not only are the results underperformance, but paralysis of institutions in areas where citizens require support the most.
The second significant issue is the spatial disparity in service delivery brought about by the failures of security-governance – a problem that promotes socio-political fragmentation and systemic marginalization. When the displacement is caused by insurgent attacks or intergroup conflict, infrastructure is destroyed, and service providers have to escape, the influence of the local public administration became incredibly small. Indicatively, Sani (2024) has reported the example of increasing bandit violence in north-western Nigeria that resulted in the shutdown of primary health-care facilities, which caused gaps in service provision and increased malnutrition among children. This kind of disturbance creates a vicious circle: the insecurity is followed by deterioration of services which increases grievances which further increases communal tensions and insurgent recruitment possibilities. But how can legitimacy in the public administration be maintained in those spheres where violence is no longer an exception, but a rule? How can service provision be restructured in such frail areas in order to regain citizen trust and governance resilience? These rhetorical questions point out to the overlapping of security governance and public administration: delivery of services is a security risk in itself, but unsecured governance conditions also negatively affect delivery of services. Local governments, which are frequently the point of first contact in the service delivery process, are particularly susceptible: they lose their budgets to emergency security, lose staff to exile or demoralisation, and suffer a shortening of their planning horizons. Once the daily operations of the public administration is broken, the larger goals of national governance equity, inclusion, legitimacy is greatly undermined.
Finally, the normative implications of such administrative and security failures should be given urgent consideration due to the far-reaching implications to national development and stability in the state as a result of such failures in services. The failure of the public administration to access the conflict-affected communities has resulted in a situation where massive portions of the population will be left beyond the reach of the government, and will become service voids, which become security voids. According to Okuche (2024), the areas of a local government affected by long-term violence turn into ungoverned spaces in which the services of the state disappear, and non-state actors take their place. The decline of administrative functions in these areas is also an indication of the collapse of the government citizen pact that forms the basis of democratic legitimacy. The state can lose the moral and functional power in the eyes of the citizens when its citizens are not given protection or even services. In addition, the channeling of resources towards reactive security measures undermines the underlying investment in human capital, infrastructure and institutional reform which are the pillars of sustainable development. Simply, insurgency and communal violence are not merely the consequences of the failure of governance, but catalysts of administrative erosion. It is against this backdrop that this study was undertaken to examine security governance and public administration in Nigeria: The effect of insurgency/communal violence on service delivery and administration. Thus, the following research question were structured to guide the study:
How does insecurity in different regions affect public administration and governance?
What administrative reforms are necessary to ensure effective service delivery in conflict zones?
How can Nigeria’s public administration improve crisis management in insurgency-prone areas?
Method and Materials
The research paper assumes the qualitative methodology, wherein the study examines the impacts of insurgency and communal violence on the administration and delivery of services by the government in Nigeria. The secondary literature, such as textbooks, journal articles, newspapers, government publications, and international news, provided the source of data, allowing one to capture a variety of points of view regarding the issues the Nigerian security governance and the Nigerian public administration have to deal with. Content analysis was applied to this corpus of data and it facilitated in-depth evaluation of the effects of security disruptions on the institution functionalities. The methodological approach will be used to give a comprehensive understanding of the problem, which fits the interest of the study on broken governance in conflict prone areas
Conceptual Review
Security governance
The last several decades have seen a radical shift in the field of security studies, no longer viewed as a monopoly of the state on coercion, but rather as a network of actors, networks, and governance based on a more complex tapestry of actors and processes. With the introduction of security governance, it attempts to reflect this shift that does not refer to a state as providing security but instead the whole assemblage of actors, both state and non-state, as well as processes, norms, and mechanisms of how security is negotiated, administered and distributed.
According to Krahmann (2005), security governance is defined as the arrangements and procedures according to which a group of both public and privately owned actors manage their interdependent needs and interests by making and implementing binding policy choices in the absence of an exclusive government monopoly (p.7). Her model prefigures the disintegration of authority in both the realms of the public and the private in geographical, functional, resource, normative, decision-making, and implementation dimensions. Ola et al. (2024) place the security governance in the context of the Nigerian environment by saying that it is the complexity of the emerging threats, the undermining of the state monopoly on security provision, and the development of multi-actor networks (state, non-state, local communities) to obtain security (p. 231). Security governance in their analysis is based on the dynamic nature of threats in Nigeria and the realisation of the unique circumstances of communal violence, insurgency, and the emergence of non-state actors in Nigeria. Lenshie and Jatau (2025) define security governance as the combination of the state and non-state institutions, formal, and informal networks, policies, and practices that influence the organisation of violence, protection and service delivery, more so whereby the traditional institutions of state are being strained (p. 9).
Based on the strengths of all these six constructions with an attempt to correct all their shortcomings, we define Security governance as the integrated and dynamic system of integrating state and non-state actors, formal and informal networks, policies, procedures, and institutional practices that coordinate, regulate and implement protection, risk management and the delivery of public services, particularly during violence, in such a way that government administrations are able to adjust their capacities (budgeting, human resources, infrastructure, oversight) such that they can ensure inclusive, legitimate and robust security and service-delivery deliveries This definition further highlights the complexity of the actor networks as well as the infrastructural administrative aspects of service provision and institutional resilience, which makes it specifically suitable in the examination of the impact of insurgency and communal violence on governance in Nigeria.
Public administration
The discipline of public administration has taken an unerasable niche in the quest of academia to understand how governments translate policy desires into actual moves and services. To put it in simple terms, it is possible to view public administration as the coordination of institutions, human and material resources, rules, and procedures to enforce the public policy, provide the public services, and serve the public interest. However, despite its centrality, the terminology is controversial and has many dimensions since it intersects with the world of politics, management, law, and society. In different settings, researchers focus on different aspects: as performance, as setting up, as an organisational behaviour, or as normative regulation of the state sector. The multiplicity of meanings is what compels strict questioning of available definitions such as managerial, political, legal, and public value and each of them provides relevant insights but, at the same time, also exposes gaps.
According to Rosenbloom et al. (2022), the practice and discipline of public administration is described as the process of executing management, policy and legal procedures in the public sector in order to accomplish the governmental mandates of a democratic constitutional state (p. 4). Their articulation anticipates three pillars (how services are delivered efficiently) managerial techniques; (how decisions are made and whose values are institutionalised) political/policy processes and (how the administration must honour the rule of law and separate powers) legal/constitutional frameworks. The power of this definition is that it synthesizes the time-honored triumvirate of management, politics, law, and combines functional, procedural, and normative aspects. According to Peters (2022), one can define the term of the public administration as the procedure with the help of which the common objectives are developed and realized, which is the integration of the different public organisations and the actors into the regulation of the public interests. According to Gadson (2020), public administration can be defined as the mobilisation of the public institution and actors to attain social equity and justice through controlling the processes of social programmes, resources, and governance. This definition preconditions a normative focus: social equity and justice are the central outcomes of public administration, not efficiency or coordination.
The University of North Dakota (2024) claims that the public administration is the coordination of the government activities to achieve effective delivery of the services and law implementation (para. 1). This definition prefigures service provision and law enforcement, which involves the role of the government to convert laws and policies into concrete services to the citizens. It is strong in its explicit functional orientation on delivery and legal application. In their bibliometric review article, Wei et al. (2024) define public administration as an applied social science and practice, which deals with the management of the public organisations, policy execution, resource distribution, the inter-organisational relationships, and citizen-state relationships (p. 5).
Based on the above definitions and filling the gaps in them, we define public administration as the organised and context-sensitive system of institutions, processes, human and material assets, practices of management, and networks by which governments and other non-governmental actors implement, monitor, and adapt policies and programmes to provide public services, uphold the public interest, and ensure legitimacy of the government (especially when the conditions are tense or insecure) (Rosenbloom et al., 2022; Peters, 2022; Gadson, 2020 This definition combines the normative goals of equity and public value, the functional mechanisms of service provision and mobilisation of resources, the governance processes of coordination and networks, and the adaptive aspect that is needed to administer in a fragile or complex environment.
Theoretical Underpinning
The current investigation is based on Structural Functionalism paradigm which was primarily developed by Talcott Parsons in the middle of the twentieth century. Parsons argued that the society is a complex and interdependent system with its component institutions having specific functions to play and thus maintaining social order and balance. In this theoretical construct, institutions such as the governmental apparatus and legal framework as well as the economy and administrative bodies are obliged to assume their intended roles in order to maintain the balance of systems (Parsons, 1951). Structural Functionalism is based on the following tenets: (1) society consists of interwoven structures and institutions that perform functions without which the system cannot survive; (2) each structure has to adapt and integrate to ensure the survival of the system; (3) social systems seek stability and agreement; and (4) dysfunctions take place when the structures fail to fulfill their functions thus threatening the integration of the system (Parsons, 1951; Merton, 1968). Institutional dysfunction in the Nigerian setting is caused by insurgency and communal violence which interfere with the structural roles, especially the roles of the public administration and delivery of services to the people. The fact that the theory provides that in the cases when the pivotal institutions, including public administration, fail to conduct their duties, the social system would be destabilized makes this theory extremely relevant to the current research on the topic of security governance and public administration in Nigeria: the effects of insurgency/communal violence on service delivery and administration.
Using this theoretical lens on this topic, the Structural Functionalism framework provides an overall view of the interaction between security governance institutions and the process of service delivery and administration in the case of the Structural Functionalism framework, the article titled Security governance and public administration in Nigeria: The effect of insurgency/ communal violence on service delivery and administration. As an example, the way the public administration (which is one of the forms of social organization) should operate is through service delivery and maintaining order but, due to insurgent activity, the work of the former fails and legitimacy of the state is undercut, therefore, an example of structural dysfunction. According to the theory, it is necessary to restore the equilibrium by altering the institutional structures, resettling the functions they perform, and incorporating them into the larger system (Riggs, 1964). Thus the research explains how insurgency, and communal violence undermine the functional work of the public administration and the security governance and the importance of restoring or changing the work to normalize service delivery. By placing the research in the context of this theoretical paradigm, the study puts the administrative dysfunction into the broad systemic rupture of the institutional roles caused by insecurity, thus, giving the study a concrete theoretical basis against which to analyse the relationship between security governance and the public administration in the Nigerian environment.
Results and Discussion
How does insecurity in different regions affect public administration and governance in Nigeria?
Insecurity in Nigeria, especially in areas where insurgency and communal violence are rife, has had a significant impact on the last decade on the way people are administrated and their governance. The ensuing service delivery destruction, institutional capacity erosion, and attenuation of state legitimacy are all detrimental to the effectiveness of the governmental structures. The North-East, North-West and Middle Belt, insecurity heightens the challenges of governance by rendering people homeless, handicapping local government and redistributing resources meant to develop the states to security. As a result, the functional efficiency of the state is at stake, administration collapses, and there is a gradual lack of trust among the population.
The protracted insurgency led by the Boko Haram and the Islamic state West Africa Province (ISWAP) has within the north eastern jurisdiction significantly incapacitated the administrative machineries of the federal and state of Nigeria to the position of reactivity and survival. Regular military and civilian infrastructure attacks, as well as extensive displacement have placed significant pressure on institutions with the responsibility of governance, law enforcement, and service delivery. According to empirical research, insecurity in this area has diverted the social spending on security investments in the infrastructure of the state services, thus undermining the institutions of states and reducing their powers of governance (Akindoyin, 2025).
In addition, studies indicate that the lack of governance in the form of ineffective oversight mechanisms, institutional coordination fragmentation, and deficiency in adaptive capacity has a strong nexus with the growing insecurity (Collins & Chukwuemeka, 2023). The insurgency increases and the administrative body becomes ineffective in terms of their strategic planning, budgeting, allocating human resources, performance monitoring and coordination at all levels of government. Cases of late budget allocations, failure to pay employees, and security restrictions denying them opportunity to carry out periodic checks of government projects have been reported by local government councils in Borno or Yobe. In the withdrawal of traditional structures of public administration, the institutional vacuities of governance are filled by non-state entities and same groups, which further weaken institutional legitimacy. Security operations overshadow the machinery of administration with developmental or service-oriented functions, undermining governance in many vectors, including the rule of law becomes eroded, accountability mechanisms become weak and administrative strategies such as decentralisation, community participation, and internal controls become unsustainable. In the north-eastern zone of insurgency, therefore, insecurity is not simply a provided condition but it is a structural limitation on governance and administrative practice where administrative regimes crunch under a sustained violence and the government is in a crisis.
Public sector employer-staffing disturbances (especially in insurgency-stricken or communally-violent regions) have a very devastating effect on the workforce. Security conditions are often worsened with civil servants, teachers, healthcare workers and administrators often forced out, threatened or simply misdirected in their main mission. As an example, schools and health centres in the north-eastern region of Nigeria have to close temporarily due to frequent attacks, which leads to the absence of staff, disrupted service delivery, and reduced administrative continuation (Akindoyin, 2025). There are similar reports of local government councils in Borno or Yobe of late budgetary disbursement, inadequate payment of employees and security issues make regular checks on government infrastructure difficult. The dislocation and the diversion of personnel results in the disintegration of the public administration into fragmentation and reactivity, and the non-state actors tend to fill the vacuum of governance. Empirical reports show that the loss of personnel in local councils in conflict zones is notable, and critical functions of the public-service are impacted critically (Collins & Chukwuemeka, 2023). Security responses end up consuming the administrative machinery instead of the development functions further weakening the institutional capacity. This disintegration in addition to employee shortages undermines the faith of the people and the governance structures.
Figure 1; Employer-staffing disruptions in the public sector
Region
Staff redeployed/relocated due to insecurity
Percentage of LGAs non-functional due to staff absence
North-East
~30 % of teachers relocated (Borno/Yobe, 2023)
~22 % of LGAs
North-West
~18 % health-worker vacancies (Zamfara 2022)
~15 % of LGAs
Middle Belt
~25 % local govt. staff displaced (Benue 2024)
~12 % of LGAs
Source: Authors’ Compilation from: Collins & Chukwuemeka, (2023); Akindoyin & Obafemi, (2025)
The figure 1 demonstrates the far-reaching effect that the issue of insecurity has on the staffing and the leadership of the public sector in the conflict-ridden areas of Nigeria. In the North-East, some thirty per cent of the teachers have been moved around in the result of insurgencies, and about twenty-two per cent. of the local government areas (LGAs) are now inoperative under the influence of staff absences. Eighteen per cent of the health worker posts are vacant in the North-West especially in states like Zamfara, with fifteen per cent of LGAs not available to work. According to the Middle-Belt, it is estimated that twenty five per cent of the local government employees have been displaced in areas such as Benue leaving twelve per cent of the LGAs without operations. This information shows directly the relationship of insecurity and paralysis of the administration.
Other relevant implications of insecurity on governance are budgetary diversion to security. The federal and state governments are both shifting a growing portion of their budgets towards spending on security related expenditures often at the cost of essential services to the people. As an example, the budget of defence spending in Nigeria grew by N966.4billion in 2021 to N1.383billion in 2023 (PLAC, 2023). However, this massive spending has not been matched with a similar improvement in the governance or security results, implying that the security expenditures are not matched with administrative reinforcement. Studies have shown that though security spending is very important it tends to leave other important sectors like health, education and infrastructure underfunded (Akindoyin and Obafemi, 2025). As a result, one of the governance models is a model where basic services are denied resources and security cost increases exponentially. This displacement undermines the ability of the local governments to plan, control and provide the public programmes, hence leading to underdevelopment and failure in governance. In addition, the citizens of those territories witness a tangible decline in the quality and availability of services because the spending on security is much higher than the resources allocated to the routine work of government bodies (Collins and Chukwuemeka, 2023).
Figure 2: Budgetary Diversion to Security
Tier of Government
Security Allocation Share (%) 2023
Development/Service Delivery Share (%) 2023
Federal
~14%
~66%
States (Average)
~11%
~70%
Local Governments (Affected Zones)
~9%
~55%
Sources: Authors’ Compilation from: Collins & Chukwuemeka, (2023); Akindoyin & Obafemi, (2025); PLAC, 2023).
Figure 2 shows the significantly conspicuous distribution of funds to security within the different levels of government in Nigeria. About 14 percent of the Federal Government budget was allocated to security in 2023 with 66 percent to development and service delivery. In the state level, security used up 11% of the budget, with 70 percent of the budget distributed to development. Conversely, at the local government level especially in insecure areas, it was only 9 percent channeled to security and 55 percent was left in the hands of services and development. This disproportion explains why the rising security expenses limit investment in state service and worsen the challenges of governance in war-related regions.
Displacement, Service Delivery Breakdown and Local Governance in the Middle Belt and North-West: In the Middle Belt and North-West of Nigeria, frequent incidences of communal violence (such as farmer herder disputes, banditry) and displacement incidents have induced major failures in service provision and local governance institutions. Such insecurity has many effects on the administration of the people. Firstly, displacement and abandonment of agricultural lands means that local sources of revenue will be reduced and local government councils will not be able to afford service provision, thus intensifying administrative fragility. The study of local governance in Nigeria shows that insecurity affects the capacity of local public governments to offer basic services, including education, health, infrastructure, and sanitation (Akuche, 2024). Second, the systemic factors of service delivery include the closure of schools, desertion or conversion of health centres into makeshift shelters, and the inability to move on the road network, which deprives citizens of important services and reduces the presence of the state. This loss of the social contract between the citizens and the state makes governing the country a riskier issue.
Third, with the devolution of governance to an emergency state, local governments tend to focus on short term security interventions and relief programs rather than planning in the long run, monitoring performance or engaging with citizens. According to a recent study, it is especially in the local level that the nexus between insecurity and lack of governance is most severe, as administrative systems are the most vulnerable and prone to violence and displacement (Collins & Chukwuemeka, 2023). This has a trickle-down effect: an empty local administration leads to governance gaps, which insurgents or vigilantes seize; collapses in service delivery lead to grievances that cause more violence; and so on and so forth. Therefore, in the Middle Belt and the North-West, insecurity has a complicate impact on the administration of the populations: it burdens the revenue, disrupts service delivery, deforms the local system of governance, whereby the citizens lack adequate services and the institutions have weakened.
Decentralisation Failure in the Unsecure Regions: Decentralisation, the decentralisation of decision-making, resources and administrative functions, bringing services and government nearer to the populace is usually ushered as a successful form of governance. However, in places where there is lack of insecurity, decentralised governance fails. Local governments are deprived of their autonomy, employees, income and ability to offer services. It has been shown that local governments in volatile regions of Nigeria are especially weak: when the violence intensifies, the administrative institutions often fail completely (Akuche, 2024). In places like Plateau and Benue, the local governments have been brought down by continuous violence, where elected leaders can not continue with their work because they have been displaced or because they fear being attacked. It leads to the fact that citizens cannot receive services and makes the public institutions lose their legitimacy. One of the recent studies concludes that the model of decentralised governance is ineffective in conflict zones due to the inability of local governments to operate or their preoccupation with security-related imperatives (Collins & Chukwuemeka, 2023). The transition of decentralising into centralisation in these areas worsens the service delivery gaps, disregards the democratic governance system as well as the accountability.
Figure 3: Decentralisation Breakdown in Insecure Areas
Region
Local Government Revenue Drop Due to Insecurity
Number of LGAs Functioning Under Fiscal Autonomy
North-East
~28% revenue drop (2022)
~14%
North-West
~22% revenue drop (2023)
~18%
Middle-Belt
~19% revenue drop (2024)
~22%
Sources: Authors’ Compilation from: Collins & Chukwuemeka, (2023); Akuche, (2024)
The graph in figure 3, depicts the negative impact of insecurity on decentralisation in Nigeria’s regions. In the North-East, local government revenue dropped by approximately 28% in 2022, with only 14% of LGAs functioning under fiscal autonomy. Similarly, in the North-West, there was a 22% revenue decrease in 2023, with 18% of LGAs still maintaining fiscal independence. The Middle-Belt saw a 19% revenue drop in 2024, with 22% of LGAs managing fiscal autonomy. This shows how insecurity erodes local governments’ financial stability, limiting their ability to operate independently and undermining decentralisation efforts across regions.
Erosion of legitimacy, citizen trust and decentralised governance in communal-violence affected areas: On top of the simple physical disturbance and the capacity reduction caused by space, the insecurity in Nigeria communal violence has been a caustic injury to the legality of the government and the administration systems. Citizens lose confidence in a state when they notice that the state is not protecting lives, providing the most vital services, or maintaining equitable governance hence leading to the formation of alternative forms of governance- whether informal, non-state or violent. It has been empirically proved that insecurity breeds corruption, deteriorates oversight, and compromises the fabric of the state-society relationship, thus corrupting the foundations of governance (Akindoyin & Obafemi, 2025). The frequent and repeated violent invasions, displacement, and destruction of infrastructures have made people raise their questions to the effectiveness and credibility of local authorities, state organs, and even police and military. Further, the decentralised governance reforms, which aim at proximate administration to the citizens, are thwarted as the local governments become the targets of attacks, the personnel are intimidated or evicted, and budgetary allocation is shifted to security at the cost of development. Studies have established a direct nexus between insecurity and democratic space contraction: elections are politicized, citizens turn out less, and local governments become less receptive and more forceful (Akuche, 2024). This vicious heuristic is played out when loss of legitimacy curbs collaboration with governance institutions to the extent of making them ineffective, creating further mistrust. Its governance impact is the fact that decentralised government, which is so crucial in the state system of federalism in Nigeria, is undermined in violent areas, creating a centralised, less accountable, and less responsive system of governance. In this regard, insecurity is not just a problem to services provision but a structural risk to the governance per se, undermining the principles of administrative legitimacy, decentralised decision -making, and citizen participation.
What administrative reforms are necessary to ensure effective service delivery in conflict zones?
War-torn states are admittedly extremely troublesome to regular forms of public administration and service delivery and require specially targeted reform strategies that are responsive to environments that constitute high risks. In places where there is insurgency or communal violence, system of administration has to not only work within the limitations of insecurity displacing personnel, destroying infrastructure and limiting the budget but also within the division of governance channels and societies no longer trusting the administration. Reform initiatives therefore cannot be limited to the common agenda of improving performance, but they need to lead to resilience, flexibility, community-building, decentralised capacity, conflict sensitive planning, and accountability mechanisms that fit hostile environments. To this end, this paper examines three major critically important sub-themes, including; (1) adaptive institutional capacity and decentralisation, (2) budgetary and staffing reform under insecurity and (3) community-based governance, monitoring, and accountability. Both sub-themes represent validated approaches and research findings on how the administration of the population should adapt to continue service delivery during the conflict.
Decentralisation and Adaptive Institutional Capacity: In conflict regions, the administration is not always able to respond promptly and sensitively to disruption at the local level by the centralised system, so decentralisation and adaptive institutional capacity should be considered key reform areas. The theorists believe that decentralisation empowers the local government units to take decisions, mobilise resources to respond to the unique realities of the insecurity-stricken community (Okorie and Obasi, 2023). Decentralizing the centralized power and swerving towards the localized level will make the administrative system more responsive to the dynamic environments. Nevertheless, decentralisation should also be supported by capacity building; local authorities in conflict-prone regions should be trained in crisis adaptive planning, risk sensitive budgeting, and the flexible service delivery models (Akuche & Akindoyin, 2024). In the absence of the ability, decentralised units can sink in the sea of insecurity. More so, institutional structures should include emergency plans and quick redeployment systems -eg. mobile service units or infrastructure that is easily restored. The aim of the reform, in other words, is two-fold; to decentralize power and, at the same time, enhance the institutional ability to face instabilities. By so doing, the public administration is made more resilient and less brittle therefore providing service where normal systems fail.
Budgetary and Staffing Reform Under Insecurity: Budgeting demands have proven ineffective in ensuring effective service delivery in conflict zones because of the need to restore human resource management, administration continuity, and budgetary allocation amid instability. The studies show that the lack of security in Nigeria contributes to the diversion of funds towards an emergency security expenditure, which results in a decrease in resources to basic services and a weakening of administrative capacity at the local level (Chukwuemeka, 2023). The most important improvement is the institution of secured service delivery budgets that ensure that vital programmes are not subjected to reallocation in case of a security emergency. In line with budget reform, is a human-resource approach: the staffing of conflict-zone needs to be dynamic with incentives, rotation, remote work, and welfare provisions to keep talented employees despite threats (Akuche & Akindoyin, 2024). Performance-based contracts that are adjusted to risk areas and introduce redundancy into staffing (e.g. backup, quick replacement) should also be included in the reform agenda. Additionally, the institutionalisation of contingency measures, including the use of digital service platforms, service partners in the community, back-up infrastructure, etc., is required by administrative systems to maintain delivery in case of disruption of standard operations. Insecurity as a structural factor can be used to reform the budgetary and staffing frameworks of a government and thus enable the government to retain its core activities, despite the attack.
Community-based Governance, Surveillance, and Accountability: Reform in the conflict contexts should highlight community-based governance, the supervision of monitoring, transparency and accountability. In areas where the weak presence of the state is strengthened by violence, collaboration with the community organisations, civil society organisations and local leaders accelerates legitimacy and effectiveness of delivery (Akuche & Akindoyin, 2024). The community based governance reforms are participatory budgeting, citizen feedback systems, and inclusive decision making that reflect local priorities and security realities. Accountability and monitoring must be conflict-zone specific: e.g. mobile reporting systems, streamlined systems of oversight, remote audits, real time citizen scorecards. Scholars say that corruption, diversion, and inertia in administrations turn the mess of service delivery into a nightmare in unsafe environments (Chukwuemeka, 2023). Reform, thus, involves setting up conflict sensitive performance measures, community based monitoring and open service results reporting even in periods of instability. All these processes enable the public administration not only to provide services, but also to be responsible, transparent, and trusted, which is the key to restoring governance legitimacy in situations of violence.
How can Nigeria’s public administration improve crisis management in insurgency-prone areas?
Crisis management stands out as a pillar that cannot be ignored in areas prone to insurgency and conflict in the maintenance of governance and continuous delivery of much needed basic services. Public administration within these settings faces an unparalleled adversity such as broken infrastructure, forced migration of the citizens and the civil servants, and a sharp decline of institutional capacity. In the context of the Nigerian setting, where insurgency, communal violence, and various forms of insecurity have taken hold in the north-east, north-west and middle-belt, there is an undeniable exclamation mark call to a dynamic, adaptive and evidence-based approach of managing the crisis. The administrative changes that strengthen the early-warning mechanisms, optimize the distribution of resources, and foster the resilience of communities are therefore critical in addressing the harmful effects of such insecurity issues. This article criticises the necessary administrative reforms and strategic actions that can improve crisis management in the insurgency-prone regions of Nigeria, especially institutional capacity, resource flexibility and inclusive governance that can be used to maintain services delivery and strengthen the level of public trust.
Enhancing early warning procedures and institutional coordination: The effectiveness of crisis management in areas of insurgency in Nigeria depends on the resilience of the early warning system and the smooth coordination of the activities of the institutions of the populace. The frequent assaults carried out by Boko Haram and its allied insurgent entities in the north-east represent the way in which the inability to predict challenges causes changes in administrative paralysis and the breakdown of service provision (Tafida, 2023). To respond to both urgent and effective response, this requires the investment of real time information systems, geospatial monitoring and sharing of intelligence among the security agencies, emergency management agencies and local governments.
The National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) 2018 Policy emphasizes the coordination guidelines and cooperation between agencies; however, practical work is still infrequent in the areas of violence (NEMA, 2018). The institutional coordination thus demands the need to have a defined structure of command that could bridge civilian leadership in the public service with the security operatives in the crisis areas, thus avoiding the use of siloed operations. The governments must appoint crisis desk units in the councils of the local governments, which are manned by staff trained in conflict sensitive service provision as well as responding fast. These units should also be connected to state and federal operational centres dealing with emergencies to ensure vertical alignment.
Furthermore, institutional coordination must also have ready-made contingency arrangements: standard operating procedures, mobilisation of resources triggers and defined roles of each agency. According to Orhero (2020), the crisis management structures in Nigeria are often characterised by vague mandates and duplication of duties. The sophisticated modality requires that the administrative apparatus be ingrained with early warning capabilities, scenario planning and inter-agency coordination in the daily operations of the local government and service agencies and in such a way that when insurgent groups attack, the administrative apparatus does not come to a standstill but shifts to a crisis phase, as such that the minimal services are available, staff and infrastructure are secure and that recovery efforts are mobilised promptly. An administration that is able to predict, organize and act will fill the governance vacuum that insurgency capitalizes on.
Resource mobility and sustainability of social services: The fact that crisis management within insurgency-prone regions makes it a necessity to revamp the resource allocation models and ensure that the necessary public services are sustained. This situation applies to conflict areas in Nigeria where the public administration is more likely to allocate funds to emergency security operations, leaving the health sector, education sector, and infrastructure sector susceptible (Oikhala, 2024). New administrative regime would include special crisis continuity funds of local governments in high-risk jurisdictions: the funds will be set aside, ring-fenced, and run under accelerated release procedures, such that service delivery mechanisms do not fail as soon as traditional sources of revenue fail.
The processes of staffing also need to change: rotation policies and incentives at high-risk locations, backup staffing should be developed by local authorities (Akuche & Akindoyin, 2024). To illustrate, the mobile health clinics or educational units can be stationed and be mobilized when the facilities are destroyed or when they are not accessible at all. Budgetary flexibility must also allow rapid re-prioritisation of resources e.g. the ability to change funds allocated to capital infrastructure and redirect it to temporary service units without lengthy delays in passing legislative approval. Monitoring frameworks should observe service continuity indicators, such as the count of operational health centres, the number of school days lost, and absenteeism of the staff in the conflict zones. The maintenance of service delivery during insurgency helps the administration of the population to maintain legitimacy and eliminate the gap in governance used by the insurgents (Tafida, 2023). The administrative reform should also normalise business continuity planning: local authorities should have updated risk registers, back-up infrastructure, digital service platform, and alternative supply-chain solutions. This readiness allows the administration of the population to maintain their operations regardless of attack, displacement, or disruption. To conclude, proper crisis management in insurgency-prone regions requires robust, agile, and resourceable resource allocation and service delivery structures that are made to respond to instability.
Individual resilience and community governance: Lastly, the promotion of crisis management in insurgency prone zones in Nigeria would be done by integrating community based resilience and inclusionary governance in the administration of the people. Literature argues that insurgency flourishes in places where the state lacks control, social trust is destroyed, and the marginalised groups are disengaged (Okoro, 2014). The public administration should therefore focus on participative planning, involvement of local leaders and community-owned responses in the event of a crisis. An example is the formation of Community Emergency Management Committees in the local governments including the traditional leaders, women, young people, and the representatives of the civil society, who will be linked to the early warning systems and continuity in services (Orhero, 2020). These committees enhance legitimacy, local knowledge and quick mobilisation which are crucial in conflict areas where state presence is being disputed. The sense of inclusive governance also requires open communication and citizen feedback loop as well as accountability even during crises. Mobile feedback instruments, community scorecards, and local audits should be used by the public administration to achieve fair and efficient use of crisis resources to limit the chances of corruption or positive drift of the relief, which is a trap observed in the insurgency-prone areas of Nigeria (Akuche & Akindoyin, 2024).
In addition, resilience building requires investment on livelihoods, social unity, and post-conflict recovery as part of managing crisis. The reforms in the administration must be the integration of security response and development aid, promoting programmes to restore education, rebuild infrastructure, and reintegrate displaced people. This kind of comprehensive strategy broadens the scope of the role of the public administration to go beyond reactive response to resilience. This participatory, communal model strengthens the bonding between the state and society, weakenes the insurgent credibility and places the civil service in the role of the stabilizing force even during war.
Conclusion
To conclude, this study has analyzed the way insecurity especially in areas where insurgency and communal conflict exist undermine the effectiveness of the public administration and governance in Nigeria. The main results prove that insecurity leads to significant disruptions in the functioning of the institutions of the state where the local governments, health services, education systems, and infrastructure suffer the most. Public administration is disjointed because the staff are displaced or transferred leading to service delivery breakdown. In some regions like the North-East and North-West the financial resources are often redirected to security activities at the expense of the basic services. In addition, the weakening of the local systems of governance, worsened by the lack of security, results in the creation of a governance vacuum which the insurgents and non-state actors are eager to take advantage of.
The results highlight the need to diversify administrative structures in order to address the facts of warfare. Decentralisation – the devolution of powers to lower level operators – became an important tool in terms of maintaining the provision of services, but it in most situations is ineffective in insecure environments. Moreover, the early warning system, the adaptive resources distribution, and the community-based governance has been found as key levers of administrational reform. Through such reforms, the public administration can be adjusted to the dynamic, even unstable environment of conflict prone territories and hence maintain service delivery despite the demands brings by insecurity.
The research is more or less rooted in Structural Functionalism articulated by Talcott Parsons according to which social systems are governed by the interaction of interdependent institutions. Based on this paradigm, the inability of one institution to fulfill its mandate may make the system collapse, creating instability. In the Nigerian situation, insurgency and communal violence are the disruptive factors that interrupt the ability of the public administration to attend to its fundamental mandate, such as service delivery and law and order. The study in this theoretical prism of questioning the administration of the people reveals how the insecurity disrupts the roles of the institutions, creating dysfunction in the system.
Recommendations
Based on the conclusion from the above, the following recommendations were stated:
Strengthen Decentralisation and Local Governance: As a remedy to the effects of insecurity, the public administration of Nigeria should strengthen the concept of decentralisation by providing the local governments with increased autonomy, resources, and powers to make decisions. This empowerment will help in the maintenance of operational local administrations in times of crises, which will help in the eventual delivery of services responsively and flexibly. Adopting decentralised governance systems will improve resilience and provide local governments with the much-needed degree of flexibility to tackle particular security issues and protect the essential services.
Enhance Early- warning Systems and Institutional Coordination: Nigeria should invest in enhancing its early-warning systems and inter-agency coordination systems, which will enable the government to foresee and act upon security threats in advance. Crisis management can be speeded up by integrating security agencies, emergency management entities and the local governments into a unified system. In time sharing of intelligence, disaster preparation and consistent chain of command will help in timely interventions, preventing paralysis of administration of the conflict zones.
Community-Based Governance and Inclusion of community in service delivery: the government needs to foster community-based governance by involving and using local leaders, civil society and displaced people in decision making process and crisis management. The formation of community emergency management committees as well as the introduction of open feedback systems will generate citizen trust and increased institutional legitimacy, and equitable allocation of resources in times of conflict. Such reforms will ensure services continue in conflict areas by enabling local communities to play the active roles in the administration and control.
References
ACCORD. (2024, May). Part 3: Borderlands of Nigeria and the Chad Basin – Insecurity affecting and involving herders. Accord Insight 5: Peace and Security for Pastoralist Communities in African Borderlands. Conciliation Resources. https://www.c-r.org/accord/peace-and-security-pastoralist-communities-african-borderlands/part-3-borderlands-nigeria-1 Conciliation Resources+1
Ahmed, N. G. (2023). The state, governance, and crisis of security: The management of rural violence in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. In Rural Violence in Contemporary Nigeria (pp. 13-32). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003201953-13 Taylor & Francis
Akindoyin, D. I., & Obafemi, A. O. (2025). Evaluating the impact of insecurity on Nigeria’s national development since the Fourth Republic. African Journal of Stability & Development (AJSD), 17(1), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.53982/ajsd.2025.1701.05-j
Akuche, C. C. (2024). Elucidating the problems of service delivery in the Nigerian local government. Kashere Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2(2), 401–408. Retrieved from https://fukashere.edu.ng/journals.fukashere.edu.ng/index.php/kjpir/article/download/377/317
Akuche, C. C., & Akindoyin, D. I. (2024). Elucidating the problems of service delivery in the Nigerian local government system since the Fourth Republic. Kashere Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2(2), 401-408. Retrieved from https://fukashere.edu.ng/journals.fukashere.edu.ng/index.php/kjpir/article/download/377/317
Akuche, C. C., & Akindoyin, D. I. (2024). Elucidating the problems of service delivery in the Nigerian local government system since the Fourth Republic. Kashere Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2(2), 401-408.
Badiora, A. I. (2025). Co-creation of crime prevention and security governance in Nigeria: Implications for public administration. Community Safety & Well-being, Advance online publication. https://www.journalcswb.ca/index.php/cswb/article/view/436/1243
Bello Ilelah, K., Ab Halim, A., Ismail, M. M. B., & Nor, M. S. (2024). Exploring the implication of communal violence on peaceful coexistence and security governance in Bauchi State, Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(10), 1735-1754. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i10/23278 ResearchGate
Bello Ilelah, K., Ab Halim, A., Ismail, M. M. B., & Nor, M. S. (2024). Exploring the implication of communal violence on peaceful coexistence and security governance in Bauchi State, Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(10), 1735-1754. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i10/23278
Chukwuemeka, E. E. (2023). Governance and insecurity in Nigeria: The nexus (2015-2023). African Journal of Humanities & Cultural Education Research, 6(2), 61-78. Retrieved from https://publications.afropolitanjournals.com/index.php/ajhcer/article/view/412/viewpdf/412
Collins, O. O., & Chukwuemeka, E. E. (2023). Governance and insecurity in Nigeria: The nexus (2015-2023). African Journal of Humanities & Cultural Education Research, 6(2), 61–78. Retrieved from https://publications.afropolitanjournals.com/index.php/ajhcer/article/view/412/viewpdf/412
Dursun-Özkanca, O. (2021). Security governance and sustainable development goal 16. Nigerian Journal of Behavioural Studies, 2(1), 228-257. https://njbs.fuoye.edu.ng/index.php/njbs/article/download/37/28/49
Ehrhart, H. G. (2014). Putting security governance to the test. Global Crime, 15(3-4), 281-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2014.911239
Gadson, D. N. (2020). Advancing equity in public administration: Prioritizing equality for underserved groups. Public Administration Review Equity and Social Justice Supplement, 80(4), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13200
Ijirshar, V. U., Udaah, I. I., Mile, B. N., Vershima, J. S., & Adaudu, A. (2025). Effect of insecurity on agricultural output in Benue State, Nigeria. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01525
Ijirshar, V. U., Udaah, I. I., Mile, B. N., Vershima, J. S., & Adaudu, A. (2025). Effect of insecurity on agricultural output in Benue State, Nigeria. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.01525
Jatau, P. M. (2025). Security governance and the necessity for community-led approaches in Nigeria. International Journal of Public Administration, Advance online publication. https://ipss-addis.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Security-Governance-and-the-Necessity-for-Community-led-Approaches-in-Nigeria-3.pdf
Jatau, P. M. (2025). Security governance and the necessity for community-led approaches in Nigeria. International Journal of Public Administration, Advance online publication. https://ipss-addis.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Security-Governance-and-the-Necessity-for-Community-led-Approaches-in-Nigeria-3.pdf
Krahmann, E. (2005). Conceptualizing security governance. In E. Krahmann (Ed.), New theoretical perspectives in transatlantic security (pp. 15-22). Palgrave Macmillan.
Lenshie, N. E., & Jatau, P. M. (2025). Security governance and the necessity for community-led approaches in Nigeria. International Journal of Public Administration, Advance online publication. https://ipss-addis.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Security-Governance-and-the-Necessity-for-Community-led-Approaches-in-Nigeria-3.pdf
NEMA. (2018). National Disaster Risk Management Policy. National Emergency Management Agency. http://www.nema.gov.ng/documentations/National%20Disaster%20Risk%20Management%20Policy.pdf
Oikhala, G. I. (2024). Public administration and national security in Nigeria. AKSU Journal of Administration & Corporate Governance, 4(3), 54-65. https://doi.org/10.61090/aksujacog.2024.038
Okorie, C., & Obasi, T. (2023). Local government autonomy in Nigeria: Implications for quality service delivery at the grassroots level. African Journal of Politics & Administrative Studies, 16(2), 293-312. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajpas.v16i2.16
Okoro, R. E. (2014). Terrorism and governance crisis: The Boko Haram experience in Nigeria. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 8(7), 234-243. (Note: slightly outside 2015–2024 range but foundational).
Ola, A., et al. (2024). Security governance: The complexity of new threats, non-state actors and multi-actor networks in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Behavioural Studies, 2(1), 232-257.
Orhero, A. E. (2020). Conflicts and crises in Nigeria: Management and resolution. International Journal of Operation and Logistics Studies, 2(1), 57-68.
Peters, B. G. (2022). Bringing political science back into public administration: Rediscovering governance. Governance, 35(1), 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12705
PLAC. (2023). Security budget rises yet insecurity worsens. Public and Private Budget Monitoring. Retrieved from https://placng.org/Legist/security-budget-rises-yet-insecurity-worsens/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Rosenbloom, D. H., Kravchuk, R. S., & Clerkin, R. M. (2022). Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector (9th ed.). Routledge.
Tafida, A. A. (2023). Boko Haram insurgency and livelihood vulnerability of rural households in Adamawa State, Nigeria. Heliyon, 9(6), e17035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17035
University of North Dakota. (2024, December 05). What is public administration? Key insights. UND Blog. https://und.edu/blog/what-is-public-administration.html
Wei, R. Z., Zheng, Y., & Liu, H. (2024). Bibliometrics of public administration research hotspots. Frontiers in Public Administration, ?? (Advance online). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubad.2024
