Purpose: This paper examines how one group of frontline health workers (nurses) amid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic perceive the Government of Ghana (GOG)'s decision to ease the lockdown restrictions when cases were increasing. This paper contributes to the literature on Igor Grossman's concept of wise reasoning and its applicability to COVID-19 management decision-making by political leaders.Design/methodology/approach: The paper employed an exploratory qualitative design. The decision to adopt qualitative method is linked to the paucity of research on wise reasoning, political leadership and COVID-19. The paper draws on qualitative online survey with 42 nurses located in Accra Metropolis, Ghana.Findings: The paper demonstrates that a confluence of research participants perceived the government's act of easing the lockdown restrictions to be in bad faith on account of (1) nonrecognition of different perspectives and viewpoints from stakeholders and interest groups; (2) rising number of cases which naturally make the decision to lift the restriction unwise; (3) concerns about the prioritization of peripheral issues over citizens' health and (4) concerns about limited and robust health facilities and their implications.Research limitations/implications: The key claims must be assessed against the limitations of the study. First, the study is an exploratory study and, therefore, not intended for a generalization purpose. Second, the research participants are highly educated, and the responses in this study are skewed toward them.Originality/value: The paper is novel in seeking to explore wise reasoning and political leadership during a global pandemic such as COVID-19. This exploratory study demonstrates that COVID-19, though devastating and causing havoc, presents an opportunity to test Igor Grossmann's wise reasoning framework about decision-making by political leaders. This extends the literature on wise reasoning beyond the discipline of psychology (the fact that all the authors are geographers) and Global North to Global South since the data for this study are gathered in Ghana.

This study investigates the gendered nexus between climate change, food insecurity, and conflict in Plateau State, Nigeria. This region in north-central Nigeria is marked by recurring farmer–herder clashes and climate-induced environmental degradation. Drawing on qualitative methods, including interviews, gender-disaggregated focus groups, and key informant discussions, the research explores how climate variability and violent conflict interact to exacerbate household food insecurity. The methodology allows the capture of nuanced perspectives and lived experiences, particularly emphasizing the differentiated impacts on women and men. The findings reveal that irregular rainfall patterns, declining agricultural yields, and escalating violence have disrupted traditional farming systems and undermined rural livelihoods. The study also shows that women, though they are responsible for household food management, face disproportionate burdens due to restricted mobility, limited access to resources, and a heightened exposure to gender-based violence. Grounded in Conflict Theory, Frustration–Aggression Theory, and Feminist Political Ecology, the analysis shows how intersecting vulnerabilities, such as gender, age, and socioeconomic status, shape experiences of food insecurity and adaptation strategies. Women often find creative and local ways to cope with challenges, including seed preservation, rationing, and informal trade. However, systemic barriers continue to hinder sustainable progress. This study emphasized the need for integrating gender-sensitive interventions into policy frameworks, such as land tenure reforms, targeted agricultural support for women, and improved security measures, to effectively mitigate food insecurity and promote sustainable livelihoods, especially in conflict-affected regions.