Nigeria must put its displaced citizens first

Nigeria has long projected itself as Africa’s big brother, a nation willing to shoulder regional responsibilities, provide humanitarian assistance and offer refuge to people fleeing conflict in neighbouring nations. That tradition has earned it diplomatic goodwill over the decades. However, humanitarian leadership begins with responsibility to one’s own citizens. A government that cannot adequately protect and care for millions of its internally displaced people (IDPs) must first address that obligation before expanding its humanitarian commitments elsewhere.

The recent massacre of scores of resettled residents in Darul Jamal, Borno State, is a painful reminder that our nation’s internal displacement crisis is far from over. Many of the victims had survived years in overcrowded camps only to lose their lives after returning to communities that remained vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Their deaths raise difficult questions about the timing of resettlement programmes and the capacity of security agencies to safeguard returning populations.

Governor Babagana Zulum has repeatedly acknowledged that the military is overstretched in parts of the North-East. If security cannot yet be guaranteed in some resettled communities, then returning displaced families prematurely exposes them to renewed danger. Resettlement should follow sustainable peace, not precede it.

Nigeria’s humanitarian challenge is immense. According to the International Organisation for Migration, more than 3.7 million Nigerians are internally displaced, with children accounting for a substantial proportion of that population. Many live in camps characterised by inadequate shelter, poor sanitation, limited healthcare, food shortages and interrupted education. Numerous reports by humanitarian organisations have documented these conditions over several years.

Against this backdrop, the federal government has continued to reaffirm its commitment to protecting refugees and asylum seekers in line with international conventions. There is nothing inherently wrong with honouring international humanitarian obligations. Nigeria is a signatory to several refugee protection treaties, and compassion towards people fleeing conflict reflects important African values.

“Government resources should first focus on ending the insecurity that continues to generate new waves of displacement. Military operations must be complemented by intelligence gathering, community policing, economic recovery, education and reconstruction of affected communities.”

The problem is not that Nigeria hosts refugees. The problem is that millions of displaced Nigerians continue to endure conditions that fall far below acceptable humanitarian standards.

This is where public policy must distinguish between international responsibility and domestic priority. Every sovereign nation has a primary obligation to its own citizens. That principle neither violates international law nor undermines African solidarity. Rather, it reflects the basic social contract between a government and its people.

Nations with robust welfare systems generally build those systems around their own citizens before extending assistance beyond their borders. They honour humanitarian commitments while ensuring that domestic needs receive adequate attention. Nigeria should strive for the same balance.

The discussion should therefore move beyond an “Africa First” versus “Nigeria First” debate. The real issue is whether Nigeria has achieved sufficient internal stability to carry additional humanitarian burdens without neglecting its own displaced population. Current realities suggest otherwise.

Millions of Nigerians have been displaced by terrorism, banditry, communal violence and natural disasters. Many have remained in camps for years with uncertain prospects of returning home. Children have lost access to education. Families have lost livelihoods. Communities have been destroyed, and these are not temporary inconveniences but long-term developmental setbacks that will shape the nation’s future if left unresolved.

The answer lies not in reducing compassion for refugees but in significantly increasing commitment to Nigerian citizens caught in conflict.

Government resources should first focus on ending the insecurity that continues to generate new waves of displacement. Military operations must be complemented by intelligence gathering, community policing, economic recovery, education and reconstruction of affected communities. Returning displaced persons should only occur when independent assessments confirm that communities are genuinely safe.

Equally important is transparency in managing humanitarian funds. Assistance meant for IDPs must reach intended beneficiaries without diversion or administrative leakage. Accurate data on camp populations, independent monitoring and stronger accountability mechanisms are essential if public confidence is to be restored.

Beyond humanitarian relief lies the more fundamental objective of durable solutions. Nigerians do not want to spend years in camps dependent on aid. They want to return safely to their homes, farms and businesses. Restoring security, rebuilding infrastructure and creating economic opportunities should therefore receive greater attention than simply managing displacement.

Charity indeed begins at home, not because others matter less, but because a nation that fails its own people cannot sustainably shoulder the burdens of others.