There is something deeply troubling about a society in which elected officials can no longer visit certain communities without being booed, chased away or having objects thrown at their convoys. When a government delegation arrives to console grieving citizens and is met with hostility, or a lawmaker visits constituents and faces accusations of neglect, the incidents deserve more than condemnation of the angry crowds.
They demand a difficult question: What have political office holders done, or failed to do, to make the people they represent so angry?
Two reported incidents in northern Nigeria have brought this question into sharp focus. In Zamfara State, the deputy governor, Mani Malam Mummuni, reportedly encountered angry residents of Gwashi community in Bukkuyum Local Government Area during a condolence visit following a deadly bandit attack. In Kano State, the convoy of Muhammad Chiroma Nalabawa, a member of the House of Representatives representing Gezawa/Gabasawa Federal Constituency, was reportedly pelted with objects by youths in Garuruwa, Gabasawa Local Government Area, during a campaign-related visit.
Although the circumstances differ, the incidents point towards a common problem: the growing frustration of citizens who believe their leaders have not done enough to address their most pressing needs. The message from these communities is uncomfortable, but politicians may choose to ignore it at their peril.
In Gwashi, residents reportedly expressed anger over persistent insecurity and what they perceived as years of neglect. One resident told journalists that the last visit by a state government delegation had been during the 2023 election campaign. The community has endured repeated attacks that have threatened lives, livelihoods and freedom of movement.
Imagine living in constant fear of bandits, worrying about whether you can safely reach your farm or market, and wondering whether your family will survive another attack. Then, after people have been killed, a government delegation arrives to offer condolences.
The visit may be sincere. The deputy governor may genuinely sympathise with the victims. But to residents who feel abandoned, condolences without visible progress on security may sound like empty words.
The same frustration appears to have driven the protest in Kano. Reports on the Garuruwa incident indicate that youths confronted Nalabawa’s convoy over what they described as inadequate development and a lack of basic amenities. Nevertheless, the public perception behind such protests deserves attention. When constituents believe their representative has not made a meaningful difference to their lives, a visit can become an opportunity to express grievances that may have been accumulating for years. In both cases, the central issue is the distance between what citizens expect from public office and what they believe they are receiving.
You may also like;
- France Protests Escalate: 550,000 Demonstrators, Burning City Hall and Macron Under Pressure
- When the Pepper Reaches the Pepper Seller’s Eye: The Lessons Nigeria Keeps Refusing to Learn
- When the Mob Becomes Judge, Jury and Executioner
- Nigeria 2027 Election: Major Candidates, Political Battles and Issues to Watch
One of the greatest weaknesses of Nigerian politics is the tendency to treat public engagement as an event rather than a responsibility.
Nigerian politicians, in their character, visit communities during campaigns, distribute gifts, make promises, address rallies and ask for votes. After elections, however, some become difficult to reach. Constituents struggle to obtain responses to their complaints, while projects and promises appear to disappear into the familiar fog of political excuses.
When the next time residents see their representatives is during another campaign or after a tragedy, this pattern creates resentment. People begin to wonder why politicians can find their way to remote settlements when they need votes but struggle to maintain regular contact once elected. A condolence visit should not be a community’s first meaningful encounter with its government. Nor should an elected representative need an election campaign to remember where constituents live.
Public office is a responsibility, funded and sustained by public resources, with obligations to the people. Citizens are not supposed to be eternally grateful for the occasional borehole, road project or bag of rice. They are entitled to demand accountability for the resources and authority entrusted to their representatives.
Upon winning an election, it is essential that political office holders maintain regular contact with their constituents. Governors, lawmakers, councillors and local government chairmen should establish routine community visits, constituency meetings and accessible channels for complaints. Engagement must continue between elections, not merely when votes are being sought.
Second, they should deliver on promises and communicate honestly. Politicians cannot solve every problem immediately, but they can explain their priorities, publish project updates and account for delays. Where a promise cannot be fulfilled, constituents deserve a credible explanation rather than silence or another campaign speech.
Third, they should treat security as a responsibility, not a public relations opportunity. In communities affected by banditry, condolence visits should accompany practical efforts to protect lives, support victims and restore livelihoods. State governments must coordinate with federal security agencies, strengthen local intelligence systems and communicate progress without compromising operations.
Also is is essential for the people to understand the limits of each office. A federal lawmaker cannot personally perform every function of a state governor or local government chairman. Representatives should explain their constitutional responsibilities and use their legislative powers to pursue constituency needs. But they must not use jurisdictional boundaries as an excuse for doing nothing. They can raise issues in the National Assembly, engage relevant ministries, scrutinise budgets and report their interventions to constituents.
Politicians should also listen without becoming defensive. Public officials must be prepared to hear criticism, including criticism expressed in uncomfortable terms. Community meetings should allow residents to identify their priorities and question officials directly. Where tensions are high, respected community leaders can help facilitate peaceful dialogue.
Finally, accountability must be visible. Constituents should be able to assess what their representatives have done through accessible reports on projects, expenditure, legislative interventions and outstanding commitments. Voters should judge performance by evidence, not merely party affiliation, personal loyalty or campaign promises.
Understanding public frustration does not mean endorsing the stoning of convoys. Violence can injure innocent people, escalate tensions and undermine legitimate demands for accountability. Public officials have a right to personal safety, just as citizens have a right to peaceful protest and to demand explanations from their leaders.
Authorities should investigate violent incidents fairly, while also addressing the grievances that may have contributed to them. Responding only with arrests, intimidation or accusations of political sabotage risks leaving the underlying problems unresolved.
Political leaders, meanwhile, should resist the temptation to dismiss every protest as the work of opposition politicians. Political manipulation is possible, but that possibility does not automatically invalidate genuine complaints about insecurity, infrastructure or neglect. The proper response is to establish the facts, listen to the people and demonstrate through action that their concerns matter.
The incidents in Zamfara and Kano are reminders that the relationship between elected officials and their constituents cannot survive on political slogans alone. A convoy may carry a powerful politician, but it cannot carry away public frustration. Security escorts may protect an official from an angry crowd, but they cannot manufacture public trust. Only sustained performance, honest communication and accountability can do that.
Communities must reject violence as a means of expressing grievances. But politicians must also recognise that anger does not emerge in a vacuum. Where residents repeatedly feel unheard, unprotected or forgotten, their frustration becomes a warning that the political relationship needs urgent repair.
Ultimately, the most important question is not whether a politician can safely visit a community. It is whether that community can point to meaningful improvements in its people’s lives.
Nigerian politicians must learn to visit not only when they need votes or when tragedy strikes, but also when there is no camera, no campaign and no immediate political reward. The best way to avoid being pelted with stones is to give the people fewer reasons to feel abandoned.
