On 9 November 2025, the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) updated its travel advice for Nigeria, citing a sharp rise in insecurity across the country. The UK government now advises against all travel to six states—Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, Gombe, Katsina and Zamfara—and against all but essential travel to 18 others, including Bauchi, Kaduna, Kano, Kebbi, Jigawa, Sokoto, Niger, Kogi, Plateau and Taraba. Even some outer suburbs of the capital, Abuja, are now listed as unsafe.
The advisory, published on the UK government’s website, warns that kidnapping, violent crime and intercommunal clashes occur throughout all regions of Nigeria. It highlights terrorism from groups such as Boko Haram and Islamic State–West Africa Province (ISWAP) in the northeast, and notes that insurgent and criminal groups are extending their operations across the northwest. It also points to increasing violent crime in major urban centres like Lagos and Abuja.
This update is a stark signal of how the UK perceives Nigeria’s security environment. Advisories of this level are rare and reserved for situations where threats are considered severe and widespread. The decision to include six states under the “no travel” category indicates that the risks of terrorism, kidnapping and violent crime have reached a level where the UK believes even essential travel is too dangerous.
For Nigerians, the advisory has multiple implications. It underlines the scale of insecurity affecting daily life and business operations, particularly in the north. Beyond the physical danger, it also affects the country’s international image and economic outlook. Travel warnings tend to have immediate consequences for foreign investment, tourism, and development cooperation. When a country is perceived as unsafe, investors hesitate, insurance premiums rise, and multinational corporations may relocate staff or scale back projects.
For humanitarian and development organisations, the impact is equally significant. The UK advisory specifically warns that humanitarian personnel, vehicles and facilities may be targeted by armed groups. That means international agencies and NGOs will have to reassess the viability of their operations, potentially suspending projects or pulling out of high-risk areas. Such moves would directly affect millions of Nigerians who depend on aid for healthcare, food assistance and education, particularly in conflict-affected states like Borno and Zamfara.
Diplomatically, the advisory could strain relations between Nigeria and the UK. Abuja has often criticised Western countries for issuing travel warnings it views as alarmist or economically harmful. In a recent interview with *Newsweek*, Nigeria’s Foreign Minister argued that repeated travel alerts by Western governments “create panic” and hurt local economies, adding that they often fail to recognise security improvements made by the Nigerian authorities. The UK, however, frames such advisories as a matter of duty to its citizens rather than a political statement.
The underlying reasons for the UK’s position are clear. The north and northeast remain theatres of insurgency and terrorism, where Boko Haram and ISWAP continue to mount attacks on civilians, security forces and humanitarian convoys. In the northwest, banditry and mass kidnappings have become endemic, with heavily armed gangs abducting schoolchildren, farmers and travellers for ransom. The security forces, stretched thin and often under-resourced, struggle to control vast rural areas.
At the same time, violent crime in cities has increased, driven by economic hardship, unemployment and the proliferation of firearms. In Abuja and Lagos, reports of armed robbery and carjacking are frequent. In the oil-rich Niger Delta, long-standing grievances over resource control and environmental damage have resurfaced, fuelling militant activity and criminal violence. The FCDO also warned of kidnapping risks in coastal and riverine regions, where criminal networks operate both on land and at sea.
The advisory also acknowledges political volatility and the potential for unrest. Demonstrations in Abuja and other major cities are cited as possible flashpoints that could turn violent. The caution to avoid protests reflects fears that political or social tensions may spiral into broader violence.
For travellers, the implications are immediate. Those already in the affected regions are urged to leave if it is safe to do so, and to remain vigilant in areas not yet under restriction. For potential visitors, businesspeople or members of the Nigerian diaspora planning trips home, the advisory serves as a deterrent. It may also complicate consular assistance: insurance providers often exclude coverage for areas under “no travel” warnings, meaning anyone who travels against advice may not be insured against loss, injury or evacuation.
For Nigeria’s government, the updated warning is a reminder of how urgently it needs to strengthen security and governance. While President Bola Tinubu’s administration has pledged to restore order through security sector reform, intelligence coordination and economic revival, progress has been uneven. The spread of insecurity from the northeast into the northwest and central regions shows that the challenge is structural, rooted in poverty, corruption, and weak institutions.
Still, not all consequences of the advisory are inevitable. It could serve as a catalyst for renewed international cooperation on security and development. The UK remains one of Nigeria’s closest allies, with strong defence, trade and educational ties. London’s heightened concern might translate into more support for counter-terrorism, policing reform and humanitarian relief—if handled through diplomatic engagement rather than confrontation.
There is also a domestic communication challenge. Nigerians may interpret the advisory as an external judgment or condemnation. Yet, it also mirrors what many citizens already experience—fear of abduction on highways, rising costs of security in private life, and distrust of local authorities’ ability to maintain safety. The key will be how the government translates such criticism into action rather than defensiveness.
The advisory’s economic dimension cannot be ignored. Investors often rely on Western travel warnings as risk indicators. A widespread “avoid travel” advisory can freeze planned projects or divert them to neighbouring countries. The perception of instability affects not only foreign corporations but also Nigerian entrepreneurs who depend on global partnerships, tourism and export markets.
At the same time, critics warn that travel advisories tend to generalise, painting large areas of Nigeria with a single brush. Some regions within “no travel” states may actually be calm, while certain major cities retain functioning infrastructure and security presence. Blanket warnings, therefore, can discourage beneficial engagement and contribute to economic isolation.
Balancing safety concerns with accurate risk communication is delicate. For the UK, the priority is to protect its nationals; for Nigeria, the priority is to avoid reputational and economic damage. Effective dialogue between both governments will be essential to ensure that travel guidance remains evidence-based and responsive to changing realities.
For ordinary Nigerians, the FCDO’s message underscores the importance of collective and government-led action to restore stability. Without a credible response to insecurity—through job creation, justice reform and community policing—the perception of danger will persist regardless of future advisories.
Ultimately, the UK’s decision reflects the gravity of Nigeria’s current challenges. Insecurity has ceased to be a regional issue; it is now a national crisis with far-reaching social and economic consequences. For travellers, it means greater caution. For Nigerians, it is a call for reform and resilience. For policymakers in both London and Abuja, it is a moment to confront uncomfortable realities and collaborate toward restoring confidence in Africa’s largest democracy.
Discussion about this post