SEPTEMBER 11 CHANGED THE WORLD: HAVE WE FOUND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN SECURITY AND FREEDOM?

Some historical events alter not only the lives of those directly affected but also the policies, fears and political priorities of countries thousands of kilometres away. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, did precisely that. The attacks killed nearly 3,000 people in the United States and reshaped international security policy, military strategy, airport screening, intelligence cooperation and debates about civil liberties. On that morning, members of the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger aircraft. Two planes struck the World Trade Center towers in New York City, another struck the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers and crew resisted the hijackers, the attacks shocked the world and exposed vulnerabilities in the systems responsible for protecting civilians. The United States responded by launching a campaign against al-Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which had provided the group with a sanctuary. The attacks also contributed to a broader international campaign against terrorism, including expanded intelligence cooperation, new security legislation and changes to international travel procedures. In the years that followed, governments invested heavily in counterterrorism capabilities. Airports introduced more extensive screening procedures, intelligence agencies expanded cooperation, and authorities developed new methods for monitoring suspected threats, these measures reflected a genuine responsibility: governments must protect people from violence and prevent attacks wherever possible. However, the post-September 11 period also generated serious debates about civil liberties, surveillance, detention and the use of military force. The wars associated with the wider counterterrorism campaign caused enormous human suffering. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, for example, was justified by the United States government through claims about security threats and weapons of mass destruction. The central claims about Iraq’s possession of stockpiles of such weapons were not substantiated by the subsequent inspections and investigations, the conflict produced long-lasting instability and demonstrated the dangers of making major security decisions on the basis of flawed intelligence and contested assumptions. The wider period also exposed abuses involving detention and interrogation, including the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and the use of torture and other coercive practices in counterterrorism operations, these developments raised a fundamental question: can governments protect national security without undermining the freedoms and legal principles they claim to defend? The answer must begin with the recognition that security and liberty are not necessarily opposing goals. Effective institutions can protect citizens while respecting due process, human rights and the rule of law. Surveillance powers should be subject to appropriate oversight. Suspected offenders should be investigated using reliable evidence, and detention should comply with legal safeguards. Security policies must also be assessed for their effectiveness rather than defended indefinitely because they were introduced during a crisis. Nigeria’s experience with terrorism and insurgency makes these questions particularly relevant. The country has faced grave security challenges, including attacks by Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province, as well as other forms of organised violence, the state has a duty to protect civilians, investigate attacks and bring perpetrators to justice. But security operations must also protect innocent people and avoid abuses that can deepen resentment, weaken trust and complicate long-term peacebuilding. Counterterrorism is most effective when it combines intelligence, community cooperation, lawful enforcement, prevention and attention to the conditions that allow violent groups to recruit, citizens must also reject the idea that entire religious, ethnic or national communities should be blamed for the actions of extremist organisations. Collective suspicion undermines social cohesion and can create additional grievances. The anniversary of September 11 should therefore be an opportunity to remember the victims, recognise the suffering caused by terrorism and examine the consequences of the policies adopted in response. Security is essential, but fear must not become a permanent justification for unlimited power. A government that protects people from violence while disregarding their fundamental rights risks weakening the very principles it is meant to defend, september 11 demonstrated the devastating cost of terrorism. The decades that followed also demonstrated that the response to terrorism matters. The goal must be a world that is safer not only because attacks are prevented, but also because justice, freedom and human dignity remain protected.