By Rayyanu Bala

The piece written by Daniel Francis Azgagb’le on Senator Ahmed Aliyu Wadada’s HEARTS Agenda raises concerns that appear to stem more from a misunderstanding of development policy than from an objective assessment of the document.
The writer argues that discussing investor aftercare and ease of doing business under the heading of security is evidence of confusion and a lack of coherence. That conclusion is surprising because the relationship between security and economic development is both obvious and well established.
Security is not achieved only through deploying more security personnel or purchasing security equipment. Sustainable security is built by addressing the root causes of crime and insecurity. One of those root causes is unemployment, especially among young people. When thousands of able-bodied youths are without jobs or meaningful economic opportunities, criminality becomes more attractive to some, making communities less secure.
This is precisely where investment promotion becomes relevant. Attracting investors to Nasarawa State leads to the establishment of businesses, industries, and enterprises that create employment opportunities. As more people secure decent jobs and livelihoods, the incentives for engaging in criminal activities are reduced. In other words, economic prosperity and security go hand in hand.
It is therefore difficult to understand how anyone could fail to see the connection between encouraging investment and strengthening security. The inclusion of investor aftercare and ease of doing business within a broader security strategy reflects an understanding that economic growth contributes to social stability. To dismiss this connection suggests either a limited appreciation of modern governance or a deliberate attempt to ignore the obvious.
Around the world, governments increasingly recognize that security and economic development are mutually reinforcing. Investors prefer secure environments, while investment itself helps create the jobs, opportunities, and hope that reduce the drivers of insecurity. It is a cycle in which each strengthens the other.
Constructive criticism is always welcome in a democracy. However, criticism should be grounded in a fair reading of policy documents and an appreciation of how governance works. Labeling an agenda as one of “lies and deceit” simply because it acknowledges the link between investment and security does not make the argument stronger; it only exposes a misunderstanding of an important principle of public policy.
Nasarawa deserves a debate based on facts, ideas, and substance not conclusions reached from a failure to appreciate the interconnected nature of security, investment, and economic development.