By Dr. Idris Keana

Public policy deserves rigorous scrutiny. Every manifesto should be interrogated, tested, and debated on its merits. However, such criticism should be based on sound analysis rather than a narrow reading that overlooks established principles of governance and economic development.
The recent article titled “2027: Senator Wadada And His HEARTS Agenda Of Lies And Deceit” attempts to portray the HEARTS Agenda as incoherent because it connects security with investment promotion. Ironically, this criticism reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern governments approach security.
Across the world, security is no longer viewed solely through the lens of guns, military deployments, and law enforcement. Today, security is increasingly understood as a product of economic opportunity, inclusive growth, and social stability. Communities with thriving businesses, gainfully employed youths, and sustained investments are generally more secure than communities plagued by unemployment, poverty, and economic stagnation.
The statement in the HEARTS Agenda about strengthening NASIDA’s investor aftercare system and improving the ease of doing business is therefore not a departure from the subject of security. Rather, it reflects a well-established development philosophy: investment creates jobs, jobs reduce desperation, and reduced desperation contributes to safer communities.
This is neither speculative nor political rhetoric. It is a principle consistently affirmed by development institutions, economists, and security experts worldwide. Where investors have confidence to establish industries, commerce expands, tax revenues increase, governments acquire greater capacity to fund security agencies, and thousands of young people who might otherwise be vulnerable to criminal recruitment gain legitimate livelihoods.
Nasarawa State itself offers practical examples. Communities that attract agro-processing facilities, mining investments, manufacturing, and commercial enterprises experience increased economic activities that discourage youth involvement in criminality. Markets flourish, infrastructure improves, and community policing becomes more effective because citizens develop stronger economic stakes in maintaining peace.
Conversely, areas suffering from chronic unemployment and weak private-sector activity often become fertile grounds for kidnapping, banditry, communal violence, and other security threats. Poverty does not automatically create crime, but persistent economic exclusion undeniably increases vulnerability to insecurity.
This explains why governments around the world integrate economic development into their security architecture. The relationship between investment and security is therefore neither accidental nor contradictory—it is strategic.
Critics who insist that every security policy must discuss only police recruitment or security equipment ignore the multidimensional nature of modern security governance. Sustainable peace requires more than armed personnel. It demands functioning institutions, productive economies, quality education, infrastructure, youth empowerment, and investment-friendly environments.
The HEARTS Agenda appears to recognize this broader reality by linking economic reforms with social stability. That connection should be debated on implementation strategies, projected outcomes, and measurable targets—not dismissed because it does not fit an outdated understanding of security.
If there is room for criticism, it should focus on strengthening implementation frameworks, funding mechanisms, timelines, and accountability measures. Those are legitimate policy debates. Declaring that investment has “absolutely nothing to do with security” ignores decades of evidence from successful economies and conflict recovery programmes across Africa and beyond.
Politics should not reduce serious policy discussions to selective quotations or isolated paragraphs. The people of Nasarawa deserve an informed debate centred on ideas, evidence, and practical solutions rather than rhetorical dismissals.
Ultimately, the strongest security architecture is one that prevents crime before it occurs. Prevention begins with opportunity. Opportunity attracts investment. Investment creates employment. Employment restores hope. Hope strengthens communities. And secure communities become even more attractive to investors.
That virtuous cycle is precisely why investment translates into security. It is not a contradiction; it is one of the oldest and most effective principles of sustainable development and responsible governance.
As the 2027 political conversation gathers momentum, the electorate should demand evidence-based debates from all political actors. Manifestoes should be challenged, but they should first be understood. Criticism that overlooks the proven nexus between economic prosperity and public security risks misleading the public rather than enriching democratic discourse.
The real question is therefore not whether investment belongs in a security strategy. It is whether any serious security strategy can succeed without investment-driven economic development.