Connect with us

Nigeria

 Boko Haram, Bandits, IPOB, Kanu: CAN, regional groups take Kaduna’s Gov el-Rufai to task

Published

on

Hard knocks, weekend, greeted comments by Kaduna State governor, Nasir Ahmad el-Rufai, that the Federal Government could not decisively tackle Boko Haram insurgents, bandits and kidnappers the way it handled Mazi Nnamdi Kanu because they are different from the case of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, leader.

Following the arrest of Kanu in Kenya and re-arraignment in Nigeria, some critics of the Federal Government alleged that the Buhari Administration is pampering bandits and Boko Haram insurgents and tasked the government on prompt action on these issues.

In an interview with BBC Pidgin, El-Rufai had said it is wrong to compare bandits with Kanu.

“Nnamdi Kanu is the leader of IPOB, a proscribed organisation. He is identifiable, in constant communication and everyone knows where he is. Let’s take Boko Haram for instance. Shekau was in hiding and for the past 10 years the military had been waging a war to get him.

“It is not like Shekau was in Saudi Arabia, sitting in one place, tweeting about the break up of Nigeria or asking Boko Haram to go and kill Helen and Nasir el-Rufai. Nnamdi Kanu is in one place while Shekau is waging guerrilla warfare. The insurgency is still going on and the Federal Government is not giving up.

“Regarding bandits, they are not centralised under one leadership. Who is the head of the bandits? Who is the equivalent of Nnandi Kanu with banditry? Bandits are just collections of independent criminals. It is a business for them. It is not a case of Nigeria must break up. I want to challenge anyone to tell me the central leader of bandits in the same position as Kanu,” the governor had said.

El-Rufai’s view, however, elicited sharp criticisms from Afenifere, Ohanaeze, Middle-Belt Forum, Pan-Niger Delta Forum, PANDEF, Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN, and Elder Statesman, Chief Mbazulike Amechi, who said the insurgents and bandits constituted more dangers to the country than Kanu and IPOB.

However, the Arewa Consultative Forum, ACF, said the matter should be left for the courts to determine.

El-Rufai turning logic upside down– Afenifere

The Pan-Yoruba socio-political organization, Afenifere,  faulted Governor el-Rufai for allegedly trying to turn logic upside down.

Afenifere’s National Publicity Secretary, Mr. Jare Ajayi, said: “It is quite regrettable that a person of Governor el-Rufai’s status, having been a minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and now a governor, could reason the way he has reasoned.

“He said, for instance, that militants or agitators like Nnamdi Kanu, including, of course, by implication, Sunday Igboho, are not in the same category with Shekau and other bandits in the North.

“Yes, to us, they are different. Nnamdi Kanu, Sunday Igboho and the likes are drawing attention to the rights of their people that are being denied and for that reason, they said that if the Nigerian nation can no longer guarantee the rights of their people, they should be allowed to go.

“That is the summary of the agitations of the Nnamdi Kanus, Sunday Igbohos. One may or may not like their style but that is the summary of their objective.

“On the other hand, the position of Shekau and Boko Haram is that they want to gain territory in the Federal Republic of Nigeria by force. They are kidnapping, raping and killing. They are quite different from the approach of Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Igboho.

“So, for a governor, who is supposed to be a leader, to now compare the two and even try to exonerate and justify the position of Shekau and Boko Haram, is a pity and regrettable.

“It is also a reason we may not be able to quickly get out of this mess because those who are supposed to know better and advise the Federal Government in a better way are turning logic upside down and it is regrettable. Afenifere disagrees with his position because it is not the correct position.”

El-Rufai’s comparison’s wrong – Ohanaeze

On its part, the apex Igbo Socio-Cultural Organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, according to its spokesman, Chief Alex Ogbonnia, said: “Agitation is expression of illicit deprivation.

“Agitation means they have taken things which you are supposed to have, things that belong to you which they have not given to you.

“It is an expression of relative deprivation, the extreme of agitation is what they call secession.

“What is required in agitation and secession is a bargain, dialogue, diplomatic talks, what you may call negotiation or diplomatic form of relationship. In this situation, you hear out the other side which is very clear.

“On the other hand, you talk about banditry, kidnapping and so on which is crime and criminality. When you talk about killing, kidnapping and so on, it is the highest form of terrorism. While this one is talking about criminality, kidnapping terrorism; the other one is talking about agitation because of illicit deprivation.

“They are two set of things and not related at all. So whatever El-Rufai may have said, he is entitled to his opinion but I will like him to judge the two things, the difference between them. They are not related at all.

“To think about secession and agitation and equating it to banditry is to say the least. It is unexpected of a governor to say.”

El-Rufai may be right—ADF

In its reaction, Alaigbo Development Foundation, ADF, in a statement by its spokesman, Abia Onyike, said: “Governor El-Rufai may be right, even if for a different reason.

“We see the IPOB as one of the groups agitating for the restoration and self-determination of the Biafran people. They want Biafra to become an independent republic within the African Union.

“Boko Haram is fighting for the enthronement of an Islamic state all over Nigeria. They want to Islamize Nigeria. These are two different political tendencies. Bandits are plain criminals, who are involved in kidnapping and plundering.

“We are witnessing the politics of warlordism in Nigeria because the Nigerian state is on the verge of failure and collapse, hence Boko Haram and the Islamic state of West Africa have sprung up to seize power.

“Those fighting for self-determination are forced to do so because of the extremist and isolationist policies of the Nigerian state, which has failed to recognize and respect the fundamental rights of the federating units in the federation.

“And strangely enough, even the murderous campaign of herdsmen was not checkmated by the federal government’s security agencies.”

On the issue of where Nnamdi Kanu was arrested, ADF said that “if Kenya says that Kanu was not arrested in their country, let the Nigerian government tell us where he was arrested.”

Allow the court to decide— ACF

Reacting, Mr. Emmanuel Yawe, spokesman of ACF, said: “That is left for the courts to decide. What El- Rufai said is his personal opinion. On issues such as this, only the courts are mandated to determine what is an offence.”

El-Eufai’s making mockery of his intelligence— PANDEF

To the Pan-Niger Delta Forum, PANDEF, Governor El-Rufai’s position is ridiculous and made mockery of his intelligence.

Publicity Secretary of PANDEF, Ken Robinson, said IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, and leader of the Yoruba secessionists group,  Sunday Igboho, were not killers but freedom fighters as against the killer herdsmen and others in the North.

Robinson noted that Kanu and Igboho do not go about killing people but are committed to the fight of saving their people and holding government accountable.

He said: “It is ridiculous that El-Rufai with all the intelligence attributed to him and his knowledge of state affairs will make such absurd statement.

“All Sunday Igboho is doing is to defend the lives and property of his people and call for self-determination that Yoruba should decide their destiny. He has not been going about killing and kidnapping people, destroying livelihoods and making life unbearable for people.

“All IPOB is doing is calling for Biafra State. All these are manifestations of the disaffection in the country, the lopsided nature of the affairs of government in terms of appointments, projects and programmes and resource distribution.

“People are angry, the young people are angry. Citizens are not happy and the reaction of government is to cause more provocation, raiding the homes of some citizens in the night, killing people and destroying property.

“Just because people are asking that they decide how they live their lives, killer herdsmen in their forest should leave and let their people live in peace,  the response by the government is to look for these people to kill and persecute them.

Then, on the other hand you have people; violent, criminal bandits marauding and killing people, kidnapping school children at will.  No forest, no home, no community in the North has not been invaded in terms of the insecurity that is perpetuated across the country.

“In the Middle-Belt, communities are being decimated, livelihoods are completely devastated and people are finding it difficult to live. Nobody has been arrested, but government has the boldness to abduct somebody and forcible repatriate him to the country.

“It all boils down to the selectivity and nepotism that this administration has continued to perpetrate to the annoyance of Southern Nigerians.

“The government is too biased and discriminatory and it is the greatest danger to the unity and cooperate existence of Nigeria. Unfortunately, they have continued to carry on as bemused spectators in a theatre not minding that the country is collapsing.”

Yes, IPOB, Kanu ‘re different from Boko Haram, bandits but… – MBF

On its part, the Middle Belt Forum, MBF, agreed with Governor El-Rufai that IPOB is different from Boko Haram, killer herdsmen and bandits’ operation in the North, saying while the former is fighting to liberate its people, the latter is after the lives and well being of Nigerians.

National President of MBF, Dr. Bitrus Pogu, who spoke to Vanguard in Makurdi, said: “I agree that they are not the same. Nnamdi Kanu and his likes are freedom fighters. They are fighting for the liberation of their people.

“While the Boko Haram, bandits, killer herdsmen militia and their likes are not fighting for the liberation of anybody, they are just bunch of criminals killing and tormenting Nigerians. In that regard, I will say they are different.

“Therefore, concerning Governor El-Rufai’s statement, I agree that they are different. But you cannot justify the action of Boko Haram, killer herdsmen or bandits and because of that, you cannot arrest them.

“So in that regard I disagree with him because these people are more dangerous. They are operating as killer gangs who are just after the lives and well-being of Nigerians.

CAN knocks El-rufai over comment on Nnamdi Kanu’s rearrest

Slamming el-Rufai, the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN’, Vice Chairman (Northern region), Reverend John Hayab, said the senseless killings and attacks going on in the country will end when the government stops categorising enemies of the state and treating some of them with kid gloves.

His words: “What I know is that every criminal is a criminal and every murderer a murderer.

“When elected leaders start calling some criminals and murderers that they know as angels while they say the murderers they do not know are the devil, then we will need to know from which dictionary they get their selfish definition.

“Nigeria will only overcome evil and stop the senseless killings going on in our land when we stop categorizing enemies of the country by treating some with kid gloves, and others with bullets. Every enemy that has taken the life of even just one citizen of this country should be treated the same way.”

El-Rufai’s wrong – Mbazulike Amechi

Also speaking, Elder statesman  and First Republic Aviation Minister, Chief Mbazulike Amechi, lashed  out at Governor El-Rufai.

Chief Amechi, who ironically noted that El Rufai might be right to say that IPOB and Boko Haram are not the same, said sarcastically: “El-Rufai is not wrong in saying that Boko Haram and IPOB cannot be compared because Boko Haram is devilish.

“Boko Haram kills people, burns villages and does all sorts of atrocities to human beings, while IPOB is not devilish, does not kill or burn anybody’s house, but only speaks, carry flags and demonstrates in the day without harming any Nigerian.

“Boko Haram, throws bomb at people not minding who will be victims, they are blood suckers backed by people like him. Therefore, you cannot compare them with IPOB members that only carry flags and march on the streets without harming or molesting any Nigerian.

“Law-abiding Hausas and Fulanis are in Igbo land, can any one of them come out to say that he or she was attacked by IPOB? So you cannot compare Boko Haram with IPOB, because Boko Haram is evil and devilish, while IPOB is not, and does not shed blood.

“So El-Rufai, ironically is right to say that IPOB cannot be compared with Boko Haram.”

Culled from the Vanguard News Nigeria

 

Texas Guardian News
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Column

From Noise to Votes: Nigerian Youth Must Turn Online Fire into Electoral Power

Published

on

Young Nigerians have shown a remarkable ability to create waves in the digital space. With a single click, they can expose a politician’s corruption, rally tens of thousands of supporters behind a single hashtag, and keep every political actor on edge from dawn until dusk. However, as the 2027 general elections draw closer, it is time to face an uncomfortable truth: loud online noise isn’t the same as real power in the political sphere. If Nigerian youth wish to get the best possible leadership from their nation’s leaders, they need to take their online activity offline (i.e., to places where actual democracy occurs) and start showing up to cast votes.

There is simply too much evidence to ignore that this needs to occur. Nigeria is a young country demographically. Together, Gen Z and Millennials comprise approximately half of the total population—50.1 percent—according to IntelPoint. Gen Z makes up 25.8 percent and Millennials account for 24.3 percent. When we consider Gen Alpha, the percentage rises to 85.7% of the population under 44. According to ActionAid Nigeria, more than 60% of Nigeria’s population is under 30. According to Afrobarometer, Nigeria has a median age of 18.1 years, and 58% of its population is aged 0-29. Therefore, Nigeria isn’t merely a young country; it is a country dominated by young people.

Based on this information, this dominant demographic should wield considerable political influence. Unfortunately, there often appears to be little correlation between these statistics and political influence. The contrast is striking. While a majority of Nigeria’s population is young, there remains a significant gap between how influential young people are politically and how influential they could be. This lack of influence is not due to a lack of ability among young people; rather, it stems from many young people stopping short of completing what is often called the “civic journey,” which involves moving from awareness to action. They consume politics, engage in political debate on social media, participate in meme politics, and express frustration with politics through social media rants; however, many young people still fail to register to vote (PVCs) or participate in elections in sufficient numbers to affect the outcome.

This disparity is important because youth dissatisfaction is far from abstract. More than 23% of Nigerian youth report being unemployed or seeking employment, according to Afrobarometer. Additionally, more than two-thirds of youth aged 18 to 35 report having some form of postsecondary or secondary-level education. Despite Nigeria ranking among the lowest in providing employment and opportunities for youth, and despite identifying high costs of living, unemployment, crime and security concerns, poverty, poor economic management practices, and insufficient access to electricity as the top five issues requiring immediate attention from government officials, youth dissatisfaction cannot be considered indifferent. Rather, youth dissatisfaction reflects citizens’ grievances and legitimate reasons to be deeply interested in who governs their country.

However, mere interest alone will not suffice. Democracy does not reward passion without participation. A young person can identify every weakness inherent in a political system; however, unless that person participates by casting a vote, they will remain a spectator to their own future. If you are mature enough to understand concepts such as inflation, insecurity, broken campaign promises, unemployment rates, and poorly managed governance systems, you are mature enough to accept responsibility for your role in creating solutions to those problems. That responsibility begins with voting.

In addition to continuing to use social media to raise awareness of voter registration, election knowledge, fact-checking mechanisms used during elections, and peaceful participation methods, social media can also serve as a vehicle for facilitating the transition from social media activism to actual civic engagement. Young Nigerians should leverage their social media presence to encourage voter registration, promote election literacy programs, provide fact-checking services to counter election misinformation, and advocate for nonviolent participation throughout the electoral cycle. They should convert their social media timelines into civic classrooms. Where can I find the information I need about voter registration processes? Where is my assigned polling station located? Where do I receive my Permanent Voter Card? How do I protect myself from spreading misinformation? How do I properly monitor election results? These are not dull topics; they represent essential tools required for surviving democracy.

Youth organizations, creators, and social media entities can also help facilitate offline civic engagement. Use your WhatsApp groups to alert others as registration deadlines approach. Use X Spaces and Instagram Live to focus on discussing relevant issues rather than hurling insults. Use TikTok to simplify the voting process. Use Facebook to motivate family members and first-time voters to participate in elections. Use whatever platforms are available to make civic obligation contagious. Nigeria’s youth have shown they can create viral content. Now they must begin to generate participation on a viral scale.

One of the most damaging myths in Nigerian politics is that “your vote doesn’t matter.” It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that only serves the interests of cynics, crooks, and machines whose success depends solely on low turnout. Yes, Nigeria’s electoral process has flaws. Yes, there have been numerous disappointments. However, the response to a flawed democracy is not abandonment; it is increased participation. By staying home on Election Day, youth essentially give their votes — and therefore control — directly to the very same groups they loathe.

Another mythological excuse for the youth’s failure to vote in Nigeria is the claim that “all politicians are alike.” No — they’re not all the same. While some politicians are inept, others are corrupt, and others exhibit both characteristics, democracy is not about seeking holy men or women; it is about making selections and enforcing accountability. An individual who refuses to make a selection for office because none of the options appear acceptable is ultimately selecting the candidate most likely to emerge victorious by default.

Nigeria’s youth already constitute the country’s largest demographic group. It is time for them to become its strongest democratic force as well. However, that will not be achieved by trending hashtags alone. Instead, it will be achieved when online energy is harnessed and directed toward political organization, civic education, voter registration, increasing voter turnout, and holding elected representatives accountable after elections.

The 2023 election saw remarkable youth participation but lacked follow-up. Therefore, the 2027 election should not produce another generation of disillusioned observers; instead, it should yield a new generation of participatory citizens. Let online flames ignite electoral power. Let debates become ballots. Let criticism evolve into participation. If Nigerian youth can dominate social media, they can also dominate democracy. The future will not be handed to them in a retweet. They must elect it into existence.

_________

♦ Chris Ulasi is on the Editorial Board of The West African Pilot News. He contributes stories about culture and tradition, elite politics, ethnicity and national integration, civil society, and social movement. He is a university professor, community builder, poet, film producer, recording the emergent Nollywood cultural history through film.

Texas Guardian News
Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Between Silence and Sabotage: Jonathan’s Return to Political Manipulation

Published

on

“Jonathan’s calculated and weaponized ambiguity breeds deception and weakens emerging political alliances.” —Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo

Former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan has once again found himself at the center of presidential speculation, floating silently above the country’s political waters while supporters aggressively market him as a possible candidate ahead of another critical election cycle. And once again, Jonathan is doing what he has mastered throughout his political career: saying nothing clearly while allowing political confusion to grow around him.

This pattern is not new. It is the same indecisive political behavior that defined some of the most consequential moments of his rise and fall. Jonathan became president in 2010 following the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. At the time, many northern political stakeholders within the then-ruling PDP believed there was an informal understanding that Jonathan would complete Yar’Adua’s term but not seek another full term in 2011, thereby preserving the party’s zoning arrangement between North and South. Instead of taking a clear and immediate position, Jonathan spent months dribbling the nation politically. He neither fully denied nor openly confirmed his intentions until the political tension had already escalated nationwide.

By the time he eventually declared his candidacy, the damage had been done. Many northern allies who initially supported him felt betrayed, politically cornered, or deceived. The PDP fractured internally, regional distrust deepened, and Jonathan’s relationship with major northern power blocs deteriorated permanently. Though he won the 2011 election, the cracks created by that indecision followed him into 2015, contributing significantly to the coalition that eventually removed him from power.

Yet Jonathan learned little from that experience. Since losing reelection in 2015, his name has repeatedly surfaced during every major electoral cycle as a potential presidential contender. Each time, his supporters strategically floated his candidacy across media platforms and political circles. Each time, Jonathan refused to decisively shut the door. Silence became his political instrument, whereas ambiguity became his strategy.

Now the country is witnessing the same playbook again. As coalition politics intensify and opposition forces attempt to consolidate around alternative political movements, Jonathan’s name has resurfaced aggressively. Reports and speculations about his presidential ambition continue to dominate political discussions, especially within camps seeking to disrupt the growing momentum surrounding Peter Obi and emerging opposition realignments.

The troubling part is not merely that Jonathan’s supporters are campaigning. The troubling part is that Jonathan fully understands the implications of his silence. He knows that his political stature carries enough weight to destabilize fragile coalition negotiations. He knows his name alone can divide campaign structures, weaken consensus-building, and inject uncertainty into opposition calculations. Yet he refuses to publicly and definitively state where he stands.

That is not statesmanship. That is calculated political ambiguity. Jonathan’s political history is filled with similarly contradictory choices. After losing power in 2015, he received widespread praise for conceding defeat peacefully. He initially framed that decision as a sacrifice made to preserve Nigerian lives and prevent violence. Later, however, different narratives emerged suggesting international pressure, particularly from the United States under President Obama. The shifting explanations weakened what could have remained one of his strongest democratic legacies.

Then came another contradiction. Despite emerging politically from the PDP, Jonathan gradually aligned himself closely with the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, serving in diplomatic and goodwill capacities that many PDP loyalists considered politically inappropriate. This unusual closeness fueled longstanding allegations that elements within the APC establishment viewed Jonathan as a useful political instrument capable of destabilizing opposition coalitions from within. Whether those allegations are true or not, Jonathan’s conduct has consistently created room for suspicion.

His political base remains uncertain. His campaign structure is invisible.

Today, his undeclared ambition is already generating confusion among supporters, coalition organizers, and opposition strategists. His political base remains uncertain. His campaign structure is invisible. His intentions are unclear. Yet his loyalists continue mobilizing aggressively in his name while he watches silently from the shadows.

Nigeria is too politically fragile for this kind of elite gamesmanship. At critical national moments, leadership demands clarity, courage, and accountability. Jonathan cannot continue operating as a permanent “maybe” in Nigeria’s political future, thoughtlessly hovering around every election season like an unanswered question designed to manipulate negotiations and weaken emerging alliances.

At this time, Jonathan should sit in or sit out! If he wants to run, he should declare openly, defend his record, and face the democratic process directly. If he does not intend to run, he should immediately and publicly withdraw his name from the political marketplace. Anything short of that increasingly looks less like political strategy and more like calculated deception. Nigeria deserves leaders who make difficult choices openly—not politicians who weaponize silence while others gamble with national uncertainty in their name.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Continue Reading

Nigeria

The Devastation of Insurgency: Nigeria Cannot Kill Its Way Out of Insecurity

Published

on

“Insecurity persists not only because armed groups are present but also because the state is often absent” —Dr. Declan Onwudiwe

Nigeria cannot kill its way out of insecurity. While military victories may win battles, only legitimacy, governance, and economic opportunity can secure lasting peace. Across the country, persistent violence, characterized by impunity and a tragic disregard for human life, has exposed the limits of a force-only approach. The time has come for a more sweeping and planned security response.

What is most troubling is the continuing victimization of innocent citizens, especially women and children. Reports of attacks on farmers, worshippers in churches and mosques, and travelers have become disturbingly routine. Kidnappings, sexual violence, and the killing of schoolchildren have weakened public confidence in the state’s ability to protect its people. These are not individual events but symptoms of a deeper structural crisis. Yet, Nigeria is not without options. A strategic and sustained plan can alter this trajectory.

Cooperation between Nigeria’s security forces and international partners is praiseworthy and necessary. However, a recurring weakness undermines these gains: areas cleared by the military are often left insufficiently secured, allowing insurgents and bandits to return. A viable strategy must go beyond clearing territory to consolidating control. Insurgent groups adapt rapidly; after defeat, they disperse, regroup, and re-emerge in areas where governance is weak. Every community reclaimed by force but left without sustained state presence risks becoming tomorrow’s battleground.

Experience from other regions underscores this point. Countries such as Colombia and Iraq that have made substantial progress against insurgency have done so by maintaining a firm and continuous government presence in liberated areas. Where state authority is visible through security, justice, and basic services, insurgents find it much harder to re-establish control. Where it is absent, violence returns. Nigeria must learn from this reality and prioritize holding territory as much as reclaiming it.

At the heart of the problem is a governance deficit. Insecurity persists not only because armed groups are present but also because the state is often absent. Recovered areas commonly lack functioning institutions, effective policing, and access to justice. Without these, citizens remain vulnerable, and security gains become temporary. A credible strategy must ensure that communities reclaimed by security forces are immediately supported with police presence, local administration, and basic services, including healthcare, education, and dispute resolution.

Equally important is the recognition that the population, not the battlefield, is the true center of gravity in counterinsurgency. Intelligence from local communities is indispensable, but it depends on trust. Where citizens feel protected and respected, they are more willing to share information. Where they feel neglected or abused, they withdraw. Strengthening this relationship between citizens and the state is essential.

Intelligence-led security operations are far more effective than broad, reactive force. Targeted precision, based on reliable information, disrupts insurgent leadership, logistics, and financing networks. But this requires the population’s cooperation. When criminals operate with impunity, and accountability is weak, citizens lose confidence and hesitate to engage. Restoring trust, therefore, requires both professionalism within the security forces and a justice system that swiftly and fairly punishes wrongdoing.

Beyond security operations, Nigeria must address the economic drivers of instability. Youth unemployment and underemployment remain major concerns. Many young people struggle to find meaningful livelihoods, keeping them vulnerable to exploitation by criminal and extremist networks. Security cannot be sustained without opportunity. Investments in agriculture, education, infrastructure, electricity, and small-scale industry are not just economic policies; they are security measures. A population rich in hope and opportunity is less susceptible to recruitment and radicalization by violent groups.

The question of self-defense has also entered public debate. While communities have a natural right to protect themselves and arm themselves, widespread and unregulated access to weapons carries serious risks. Criminological literature shows that the proliferation of arms without accountability can fuel cycles of violence and create new security challenges. The solution is not to transform communities into rival armed camps but to build structured partnerships between citizens and the state.

Community-based security initiatives can play a valuable role when properly organized, regulated, and integrated into the wider security framework. Groups such as local defense volunteers should operate under unambiguous legal authority, receive appropriate training, and remain accountable to state institutions. When managed effectively, such partnerships can enhance intelligence gathering, strengthen local resilience, and complement formal security forces.

Nigeria now remains at a crossroads. It can continue to approach insecurity primarily as a military problem and remain trapped in a cycle of temporary victories followed by renewed violence. Or it can adopt a more extensive, more strategic approach, one that acknowledges that sustainable security depends on governance, legitimacy, and opportunity as much as on force.

The way forward is clear. Nigeria must hold every liberated area through sustained security and governance. It must prioritize intelligence by building trust with local communities. It must deliver a visible and tangible state presence through schools, healthcare, and justice systems. It must formalize and regulate community-based security initiatives. And it must expand economic opportunities to reduce the appeal of violence and criminality.

Countries that have turned the tide against insurgency did so not through force alone, but by rebuilding the bond between the state and its people. Nigeria must do the same. Until that bond is strengthened, insecurity will remain not just a threat at the margins, but a challenge rooted at the core of the nation’s stability.

Only through a coordinated, long-term strategy can Nigeria move from managing insecurity to truly controlling it.

____

■ Ihekwoaba Declan Onwudiwe, Ph.D., of the School of Public Affairs, Texas Southern University, is a Professor and Director, Africa Institute for Strategic Security Studies (AISSS). He is also on the EDITORIAL BOARD of  the WAP

Texas Guardian News
Continue Reading

Trending