By Amos Aar
A fresh surge of outrage has greeted President Bola Ahmed Tinubu following his failure to meet victims of the recent Jos killings, an action analysts say reinforces a troubling pattern of detachment from national tragedies.
On Arise News’ flagship breakfast programme, commentators including Rufai Oseni and Reuben Abati delivered a scathing critique of a “presidency in a hurry,” one that appears increasingly unwilling to confront the human cost of insecurity.
The discussion, now gaining traction online, centred on the President’s visit to Plateau State, where he reportedly departed without directly engaging survivors of the Jos massacre. For the Arise anchors, the symbolism was damning.
Oseni questioned the moral weight of leadership that distances itself from grief, arguing that governance goes beyond statements to embodied empathy.
He asked pointedly why the President did not visit affected communities, warning that leadership without physical presence risks sounding hollow to grieving citizens.
He drew parallels with the 2025 Yelwata massacre in Benue State, where the President similarly did not directly engage victims despite widespread outrage.
Abati reinforced the critique, framing the President’s conduct as part of a recurring governance style, one that privileges optics over substance. According to the analysts, the pattern is becoming too consistent to ignore.
The debate took a more critical turn when the anchors examined the Federal Government’s proposed installation of CCTV cameras in parts of Jos prone to attacks. While acknowledging the potential value of surveillance technology, the analysts questioned the timing and priority of such a response.
Oseni argued that deploying CCTV in the aftermath of mass killings risks appearing technocratic and detached, especially when victims themselves have not been physically acknowledged by the nation’s leader.
Abati, in his intervention, suggested that while surveillance may aid intelligence gathering, it cannot substitute for visible, empathetic leadership in moments of grief.
For the anchors, the concern was not the technology itself, but what it represents: a policy-first response in a moment that demands human connection. Their position reflects a wider critique that Nigeria’s leadership increasingly defaults to institutional fixes while neglecting the emotional and symbolic responsibilities of governance.
The CCTV proposal has also triggered reactions on social media, with critics questioning whether surveillance infrastructure addresses the root causes of insecurity.
Human rights activist Omoyele Sowore is among voices that have consistently argued that government responses to insecurity often lean toward optics rather than structural reform.
“A government that responds to mass killings by installing surveillance cameras has clearly run out of ideas. CCTV cannot stop the slaughter of vulnerable citizens”, Sowore agued in a post on his Facebook handle.
Across digital platforms, many users echoed similar concerns, arguing that without accountability, policing reform, and decisive action against perpetrators, CCTV deployment risks becoming another symbolic intervention without meaningful impact.
Their critique taps into a deeper public frustration: the perception that Nigeria’s leadership responds to mass killings with routine press releases and policy announcements rather than decisive, human-centered engagement.
In a country grappling with persistent violence, from Plateau to Benue, the absence of presidential empathy is increasingly viewed as a political liability.
The anchors insisted that beyond policy responses, symbolic gestures matter. Visiting victims and taking decisive actions, they argued, is not ceremonial but a reaffirmation of the social contract between the state and its citizens.
At a time when public trust in institutions is fragile, moments of crisis demand visible leadership. Analysts warn that repeated absences from such moments risk reinforcing narratives of aloofness and eroding confidence in the presidency.
Supporters of the administration may argue that governance requires prioritization, citing security or logistical constraints to explain the President’s movements. However, the analysts insist such justifications fall short in the face of repeated patterns. For them, the issue is no longer about a single incident, but about leadership culture.
As Nigeria confronts recurring cycles of violence, the debate raised by Arise TV ignited a fundamental question: can a presidency that appears distant in moments of grief still command the emotional trust of its people?
For now, that question remains unanswered, but increasingly unavoidable.
