Connect with us

Nigeria

Sheik Ahmad Gumi’s pro-bandit advocacy

Published

5 years ago

on

It seems that Sheik Ahmad Gumi’s self-appointed mediator role between terrorists, misnamed bandits, in the North and Northern states’ governors came under official scrutiny when his effort finally attracted the attention of the Directorate of State Security, who invited him for a meeting.

Although, the DSS spokesperson had told the news media it is routine practice for the DSS to extend invitation to persons of interest to it, which would lend credence to the fact that the cleric had indeed been with the DSS, Sheik Gumi himself denied any such meeting. Whatever the truth is, it does appear that Gumi’s handshake has in the reckoning of state authorities, particularly the Army, now gone beyond the elbow. This followed his latest remarks accusing the military (or is it the Army?) of harbouring elements who collude with the terror bandits to launch attacks on innocent Nigerians.

Before now Sheik Gumi, who rose to the rank of a captain as a doctor in the medical corps of the Nigerian Army, had accused Christians in the military’s counter-insurgency/banditry campaign of being responsible for the killing of bandits. It was a remark with the potential, if not the clear aim, to set off a sectarian war in the military. For quite a while, indeed, Sheik Gumi had come under sharp criticisms from Nigerians who view his mediatory role of appeasement as overtly conciliatory and accommodating of the outlaw activities of the terrorists. At every turn, Gumi has taken the opportunity to put in a word for the terrorists, heaping the blame for their criminal ways on everyone but the terrorists.

In the terrorists’ attacks on schools, Gumi has all but held the students culpable for the crime committed against them by the army of outlaws that have overtaken the North. He offers a rather romantic and generally sympathetic account and justification of the activities of the criminals. One could mistake these beastly terrorists who have murdered hundreds of Nigerians in cold blood and received ransoms running into hundreds of millions of naira from both the state and traumatised relations of kidnap victims- one would be excused to take these terrorists’ activities for mere circus shows by listening to Gumi. For him, the deadly criminalities of the terrorists are like childish pranks that could simply be excused away as some form of youthful delinquency.

When Gumi started his rapprochement with the murderous forest militias in February, his intervention seemed acceptable. He appeared to mean well, and may well do. Except that his utterances now undermine his goals and endanger the collective security of Nigerians, upending the security set-up in ways that should be repugnant to all supporters of order and justice. The first time he took what looked like an extremely dangerous journey to the forest to meet the terrorists, his justification was that the entire process needed an impartial arbiter, not the state that had serially violated previous agreements with the terrorists. You may wonder what kind of agreements were this, but should not be surprised to know that these were generous offers of appeasement money that were directed at getting the terrorists to drop their arms. If nothing else, it was both a cheap surrender and admission of state failure.

Anyhow, these efforts and its solution formula fell flat across the North. Many of the terrorists rehabilitated under these arrangements returned to the forests before or as soon as they had exhausted their monetary largesse. What started like peaceful approach had suddenly become big time money-making business for the terrorists and some of those employed to check them in the security units as Sheik Gumi has observed. The terrorists would not be appeased and they persisted in their crimes while, Gumi, amid all of this, continued to make a case for them. He joined a group that visited former President Olusegun Obasanjo in April to seek his input in efforts to find a solution to the ‘banditry’ problem in the North.

As part of his rhetoric of appeasement, he compared the terrorists, who he claims lack a voice, to coup plotters and demanded the state pardons them as it did coup plotters during the military era. He described the devastating onslaught of the terrorists on farming communities and the attendant conflict as ethnic wars. Pray, what is the ethnicity of the Zamfara, Niger or Kaduna states farmers whose farms and homesteads have been destroyed by the terrorists? How does this incursion into farmlands or farming communities in the central or southern parts of the country amount to an ethnic conflict? At another time and still playing the appeasement game, Gumi made the outstanding claim that the northern terrorists learned their art from Niger-Delta militants. Just as he demanded that an amnesty programme in the manner of the one President Umar Yar’Adua emplaced for Niger-Delta militias should be instituted for the terror-bandits of the north.

Sheikh Gumi's relationship with bandits queried by Nigerians

What would Gumi not ask on behalf of his so-called voiceless bandits? He has demanded like some other northern advocates that they be recruited into the military or assigned the task of guarding the forests against terrorists like themselves! Aba, Sheik, must everything be grist for the appeasement of your beloved bandits?! Where would this saccharine love of criminals, a Lot’s wife malaise, end? Sheik Ahmed Gumi would rather have his ‘downtrodden’ bandits’ systematic engagement in hostage-taking in return for generous ransoms than the regular raids that result in indiscriminate destruction of lives and property. It was in this spirit he urged parents of the abducted Greenfield University students to pay about N200 million in addition to procuring motor bikes for the bandits that abducted them in exchange for the return of the remainder of the students that escaped summary execution.

Has Gumi pondered the implication of his actions, some of which have their origin in a culture of entitlement that see Northerners compare incomparable situations and thus demand unfair advantage over others? Can any right-thinking person compare the motivations of the Northern terrorists to those of Niger-Delta militants? Is this not the same mentality at work when Abubakar Malami compared open grazing to sales of spare parts? So, if Dr. Goodluck Jonathan employed members of the Oodua Peoples Congress, OPC, as petrol pipeline guards, Ahmad Gumi, without openly saying so, can demand the employment of terrorists as forest guards?

Just as President Muhammadu Buhari deemed it fit to compare his overt nepotism and favouritism in appointments to the constitutional demand that a minister is appointed from each state of the federation without him or others in the North perceiving the blind spot, or indeed, the ‘dot’ in the circle of his integrity claims? The likes of Gumi work in vain except they accept that appeasement or culture of entitlement will not bring an end to terrorism in the North.

Culled from the Vanguard News Nigeria

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Books

The Color of Memory: A Rescue Mission in Print

Published

3 weeks ago

on

April 7, 2026

By

  • Book Title: Abiriba Calendar of Events: Past and Present.
  • Author: Dr. Nwojo Kalu Ugah and Prof. Igwe Ebe Udeh, PhD.
  • Publishers:  MIDIUN GROUP INC.
  • Reviewer: Emeaba Onuma Emeaba.
  • Pages: 129.

History is often a silent, monochromatic affair—a collection of graying facts relegated to the dusty corners of the academy. But every so often, a work arrives that refuses to let the past remain quiet. In their latest volume, Abiriba Calendar of Events: Past and Present, Dr. Nwojo Kalu Ugah and Prof. Igwe Ebe Udeh, PhD, do more than document a region; they stage a sensory intervention. Through a marriage of historical rigor and lively visual storytelling, the authors transform what might have been a static archive into a pulsing, audible record of the Abiriba people.

The importance of this intervention cannot be overstated. As a long-standing observer of the region’s social fabric, I find that this work stands as a thoughtful and valuable contribution to the documentation of Abiriba’s history, institutions, and cultural philosophy. It will serve both scholars and future generations as an important record of the distinctive republican heritage of the Abiriba people. It is a sentiment echoed throughout the three pages of glowing commendations that preface the text, where community titans and political leaders unite to praise a volume that has clearly become a communal milestone.

Dr. Ugah and Dr. Udeh’s most striking achievement is the “physicality” of the narrative. The book is heavily illustrated with archival photographs, many of which have been meticulously restored and brought into vivid color. By injecting color into the black-and-white silhouettes of the past, the authors collapse the distance between the contemporary reader and the historical subject. These images are literal and evidentiary; they do not merely “decorate” the text but are woven directly into the paragraphs. As the eye moves from a description of a festival to a photograph of dancers in mid-motion, the prose begins to hum.

However, the book’s unwavering devotion to preservation occasionally veers into the hagiographic. By focusing so intently on the “lively” and the “republican,” the authors sometimes sidestep the more uncomfortable frictions between these ancient rites and the complexities of the twenty-first century. One wishes for a more rigorous interrogation of how these traditions—some rooted in rigid social hierarchies or exclusionary practices—survive the scrutiny of a modern, globalized generation. At times, the narrative feels like a rescue mission so concerned with saving the artifacts that it forgets to ask whether the culture itself can sustain the weight of its own history without significant evolution. This idealistic lens, while beautiful, can occasionally obscure the very real internal conflicts that define a living, breathing community.

Despite this leaning toward the ideal, the book’s “sound” remains undeniable. The authors’ meticulous approach to sensory details suggests a profound sensitivity to the mechanics of cultural memory. By documenting the “snoring and bellowing” of the village drums—the ufĩẽ and the ikoro—with such granular detail, they transcend mere description. We see maidens of Am̃anta village daintily dressed for the Obina dance and Ukpo youths clothed in green ẹkọrọ weeds, and in doing so, we hear the pulse of the marketplace and the rhythm of the festival.

The volume’s sensory immersion is matched by its structural precision. Dr. Ugah and Dr. Udeh have included a comprehensive glossary of Abiriba terms, complete with English translations, ensuring that the “sound” of the culture is decoded for the uninitiated. This appendix is more than a utilitarian tool; it is a vital act of cultural rescue. By documenting the specific vocabulary of the month of Iri Am̃a or the legal principles of Onye Parị Ọba, the authors provide a permanent bridge between oral traditions and the written record.

In an era where history is often flattened by the passage of time, Dr. Ugah and Dr. Udeh have added depth and dimension back to the record. By the final page, the reader is left with the sense that they haven’t just read a history; they have witnessed a revival. They have ensured that, for the Abiriba people, the past will no longer be seen in shades of gray and will certainly no longer be silent.

_________

♦ Dr. Emeaba, the author of “A Dictionary of Literature,” writes dime novels in the style of the Onitsha Market Literature sub-genre.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Africa

U.S. Signals More Strikes in Nigeria as Abuja Confirms Joint Military Campaign

Published

4 months ago

on

December 27, 2025

By

The United States has warned that further airstrikes against Islamic State targets in north-western Nigeria are imminent, as Nigerian officials confirmed that recent attacks were part of coordinated operations between both countries.

The warning came hours after U.S. forces struck militant camps in Sokoto State, an operation President Donald Trump publicly framed as a response to what he described as the killing of Christians in Nigeria. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the strikes were only the beginning.

“The president was clear last month: the killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria (and elsewhere) must end,” Hegseth wrote on X. “The Pentagon is always ready, so ISIS found out tonight—on Christmas. More to come. Grateful for Nigerian government support & cooperation.”

Nigeria’s foreign minister, Yusuf Tuggar, confirmed on Friday that the strikes were carried out as part of “joint ongoing operations,” pushing back against earlier tensions sparked by Trump’s public criticism of Nigeria’s handling of insecurity.

The airstrikes followed a brief diplomatic rift after Trump accused Nigeria’s government of failing to protect Christians from militant violence. Nigerian officials responded by reiterating that extremist groups in the country target both Christians and Muslims, and that the conflict is driven by insurgency and criminality rather than religious persecution.

Speaking to Channels Television, Tuggar said Nigeria provided intelligence support for the strikes in Sokoto and described close coordination with Washington. He said he spoke with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio for nearly 20 minutes before briefing President Bola Tinubu and receiving approval to proceed, followed by another call with Rubio to finalize arrangements.

“We have been working closely with the Americans,” Tuggar said. “This is what we’ve always been hoping for—to work together to combat terrorism and stop the deaths of innocent Nigerians. It’s a collaborative effort.”

U.S. Africa Command later confirmed that the strikes were conducted in coordination with Nigerian authorities. An earlier statement, later removed, had suggested the operation was carried out at Nigeria’s request.

Trump, speaking in an interview with Politico, said the operation had originally been scheduled for Wednesday but was delayed at his instruction. “They were going to do it earlier,” he said. “And I said, ‘Nope, let’s give a Christmas present.’ They didn’t think that was coming, but we hit them hard. Every camp got decimated.”

Neither the U.S. nor Nigerian authorities have disclosed casualty figures or confirmed whether militants were killed. Tuggar, when asked whether additional strikes were planned, said only: “You can call it a new phase of an old conflict. For us, this is ongoing.”

Nigeria is officially a secular state, with a population split roughly between Muslims and Christians. While violence against Christian communities has drawn increasing attention from religious conservatives in the United States, Nigeria’s government maintains that extremist groups operate without regard to faith, attacking civilians across religious lines.

Trump’s public rhetoric contrasts with his 2024 campaign messaging, in which he cast himself as a “candidate of peace” who would pull the United States out of what he called endless foreign wars. Yet his second term has already seen expanded U.S. military action abroad, including strikes in Yemen, Iran, and Syria, as well as a significant military buildup in the Caribbean directed at Venezuela.

On the ground in Sokoto State, residents of Jabo village—near one of the strike sites—reported panic and confusion as missiles hit nearby areas. Local residents said no casualties had been recorded, but security forces quickly sealed off the area.

“As it approached our area, the heat became intense,” Abubakar Sani told the Associated Press. “The government should take appropriate measures to protect us. We have never experienced anything like this before.”

Another resident, farmer Sanusi Madabo, said the night sky glowed red for hours. “It was almost like daytime,” he said. “We only learned later that it was a U.S. airstrike.”

For now, both Washington and Abuja are projecting unity. Whether the strikes mark a sustained shift in strategy—or another brief escalation in a long war—remains unclear.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Africa

Nigeria–Burkina Faso Rift: Military Power, Mistrust, and a Region Out of Balance

Published

4 months ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

The brief detention of a Nigerian Air Force C-130 Hercules aircraft and its crew in Burkina Faso may have ended quietly, but it exposed a deeper rift shaped by mistrust, insecurity, and uneven military power in West Africa. What was officially a technical emergency landing quickly became a diplomatic and security flashpoint, reflecting not hostility between equals, but anxiety between unequally matched states navigating very different political realities.

On December 8, 2025, the Nigerian Air Force transport aircraft made an unscheduled landing in Bobo-Dioulasso while en route to Portugal. Nigerian authorities described the stop as a precautionary response to a technical fault—standard procedure under international aviation and military safety protocols. Burkina Faso acknowledged the emergency landing but emphasized that the aircraft had violated its airspace, prompting the temporary detention of 11 Nigerian personnel while investigations and repairs were conducted. Within days, the crew and aircraft were released, underscoring a professional, if tense, resolution.

Yet the symbolism mattered. In a Sahel region gripped by coups, insurgencies, and fragile legitimacy, airspace is not merely technical—it is political. Burkina Faso’s reaction reflected a state on edge, hyper-vigilant about sovereignty amid persistent internal threats. Nigeria’s response, measured and restrained, reflected confidence rooted in capacity.

The military imbalance between the two countries is stark. Nigeria fields one of Africa’s most formidable armed forces, with a tri-service structure that includes a large, well-equipped air force, a dominant regional navy, and a sizable army capable of sustained operations. The Nigerian Air Force operates fighter jets such as the JF-17 and F-7Ni, as well as A-29 Super Tucanos for counterinsurgency operations, heavy transport aircraft like the C-130, and an extensive helicopter fleet. This force is designed not only for internal security but for regional power projection and multinational operations.

Burkina Faso’s military, by contrast, is compact and narrowly focused. Its air arm relies on a limited number of light attack aircraft, including Super Tucanos, and a small helicopter fleet primarily dedicated to internal counterinsurgency. There is no navy, no strategic airlift capacity comparable to Nigeria’s, and limited logistical depth. The Burkinabè military is stretched thin, fighting multiple insurgent groups while also managing the political consequences of repeated military takeovers.

This imbalance shapes behavior. Nigeria’s military posture is institutional, outward-looking, and anchored in regional frameworks such as ECOWAS. Burkina Faso’s posture is defensive, reactive, and inward-facing. Where Nigeria seeks stability through deterrence and cooperation, Burkina Faso seeks survival amid constant internal pressure. That difference explains why a technical landing could be perceived as a “serious security breach” rather than a routine aviation incident.

The incident also illuminates why Burkina Faso continues to struggle to regain political balance. Repeated coups have eroded civilian institutions, fractured command structures, and blurred the line between governance and militarization. The armed forces are not just security actors; they are political stakeholders. This creates a cycle where insecurity justifies military rule, and military rule deepens insecurity by weakening democratic legitimacy and regional trust.

Nigeria, despite its own security challenges, has managed to avoid this spiral. Civilian control of the military remains intact, democratic transitions—however imperfect—continue, and its armed forces operate within a clearer constitutional framework. This stability enhances Nigeria’s regional credibility and amplifies its military superiority beyond hardware alone.

The C-130 episode did not escalate into confrontation precisely because of this asymmetry. Burkina Faso could assert sovereignty, but not sustain defiance. Nigeria could have asserted its capability, but chose restraint. In the end, professionalism prevailed.

Still, the rift lingers. It is not about one aircraft or one landing, but about two countries moving in different strategic directions. Nigeria stands as a regional anchor with superior military power and institutional depth. Burkina Faso remains a state searching for equilibrium—politically fragile, militarily constrained, and acutely sensitive to every perceived threat from the skies above.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending