Nigeria: In the Throes of Insecurity
Despite the unrelenting battle against banditry and terrorism by Nigeria’s security agencies, armed bandits have continued to visit mayhem, sorrow, tears and blood on hapless citizens in many parts of Nigeria, leaving a trail of deaths. Has the Nigerian security architecture failed? Are Nigerian security agencies overwhelmed or incapacitated? Have successive Nigerian governments been complicit by not treating the escalating insecurity with the seriousness it demands, because they are playing politics or trying to be politically correct? Presently, the Middle-Belt region of the country is mostly in a state of anomy, as citizens of the region whose livelihood depends solely on agricultural activities have been driven out by these dangerous criminals, and are regularly being rendered homeless and deprived of their means of livelihood, consequent upon the merciless attacks on them. Professor Sebastine Hon, SAN; Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN; Adesegun Talabi and Major Ben Aburime (Rtd) discuss the complexities of Nigeria’s war against terrorism, and why the battle requires a more ingenious approach, proffering various solutions to solving the problem of insecurity
Nigeria as a Centre of Unending Genocide?
Professor Sebastine T. Hon, SAN
Introduction
Nigeria is on the precipice. It is not the first time we have been on this imaginary cliff: this has been our unfortunate trajectory since Independence. The events of today, however, portend the gravest danger to our co-existence. The Federal Government and all State Governments must act now, to prevent a total breakdown of law and order, which is the will and wish of many religious, clannish and political actors. All Nigerians of good will, must also back this up.
What started a few decades ago, has assumed frightening dimensions and proportions. The most topical news now is the murder, ostensibly in cold blood, of 16 Hunters of Northern Nigerian extraction in Edo State. Open boasts of reprisals are thundered from both ‘conventional’ and ‘unconventional’ camps. Sahara Reporters on April 2, 2025 reported even a serving Police Officer, Hadaina Hussaini Dan-Taki ‘swearing’ such a reprisal within one week! Serving Police Officer? Yes! This is one of the ‘unconventional’ camps, vomiting such deadly threats! Who knows the number of many such unreported ‘unconventional’ camps?
Unjustified, genocidal and heinously criminal as those murders of the unfortunate 16 are, most commentators have forgotten the ceaseless murder of sedentary Farmers and other Nigerians by herdsmen over a period of more than two decades. Both mindless actions and activities (the latter fitting into what the herdsmen have been doing, almost unrestrained) are most reprehensible, to say the least. The unfortunate incident in Edo, is just a signal or foreboding, I daresay, of the venting of anger and frustration of ‘the other Nigerians’ over the longstanding activities of Fulani herdsmen. Both, unjustifiable as they are, amount to genocide.
Genocide
The word “genocide” stems from both Greek and Latin lexicons. “Geno” is a Greek prefix, which means “race” or “tribe,” while “cide” is the Latin suffix, which means “killing.” These two words were first conjoined by Polish Lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, in his book, Axis Rule. Lemkin was using his pen to attack the Nazi extermination of the Jewish race. The word “genocide,” consequently, has now been commonly used to describe the systemic and systematic wiping out, by whatever means, of races or tribes by governments or non-State actors.
Resolution 96(1) of the UN General Assembly, adopted on December 11, 1946, stated amongst other things thus:
“Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law and to the spirits and aims of the United Nations. Many instances of such crimes of genocide have occurred when racial, religious, political and other groups have been destroyed, entirely or in part.”
Two years after, the UN General Assembly adopted the Genocide Convention by a unanimous vote of the 56 participants at its 179th plenary meeting. This was on December 9, 1948; and it was done via UNGA Resolution No. 260 A (III) of 1948. Article II of this Convention provides, inter alia, the following description of genocide:
“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part….”.
The above definitions fit, whole and square, into what the Fulani herdsmen and other armed groups are doing to sedentary and agrarian tribes in Nigeria. Let it, therefore, be said loud and clear that, what these groups are doing amounts to genocide under public international law.
The Nigerian Federal Government and the various State Governments, have a duty to prevent genocide in the country or any part thereof. Anything short of this, as has been seen for decades now, amounts to complicity in this high crime. Article I of the Genocide Convention specifically contemplates this governmental duty; and jurisprudential interpretations of this preventive (call it preemptive) statutory mandate is known in international legal circles as the “erga omnes partes” obligation of Member States to the Convention. In summary, Member States to the Convention are held bound to prevent genocide within or outside their territorial boundaries, as the case may be. Nigeria became a signatory to this Convention on December 9, 2009; hence, is strictly bound by its provisions.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has always used this principle to make “provisional measures” orders – as can be seen in the following cases:
(a) The Gambia v Myanmar, cited as “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v Myanmar) Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p.3”.
(b) Canada and Netherlands v Syrian Arab Republic, cited as “Application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment (Canada and Netherlands v Syrian Arab Republic), Provisional Measures, Order 16 of 16 November 2023, I.C.J. Reports 2023 p. 587”.
(c) Ukraine v Russian Federation, cited as “Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022, page 211”.
(d) South Africa v Israel, cited as “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel), Provisional Measures, Order of 26 January, 2024, I.C.J. Reports 2024, p. 3”.
The above analysis is made just to establish that, national governments (in this case, Nigeria, which is a signatory to the Genocide Convention), are under strict obligations to stop or prevent genocide. Failure in this regard, amounts to a breach of the Convention.
The next to be examined, is the question whether the right to life is guaranteed under the Constitution of any given country – since genocide mainly affects this right. In Nigeria, Section 33 of the Constitution has guaranteed right to life for “every person,” save:
(a) In the execution of a sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which the deceased has been found guilty in Nigeria;
(b) If death occurs upon use of reasonable force deployed in defence of any person from unlawful violence, or for the defence of property;
(c) If death occurs as a result of efforts to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; or
(d) If death occurs whilst suppression of a riot, an insurrection or a mutinous activity.
In the light of an acute dearth of court decisions on the obligation of the Nigerian State to prevent genocide or the unlawful taking of human life, resort would be made to the rich European jurisprudence. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1998, is similarly worded to Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution. In the case of Kilic v Turkey (2000) ECHR 22492/93, para. 62, the European Court of Human Rights held emphatically, while interpreting the provisions of Article 2, thus:
“This involves a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions. It also extends in appropriate circumstances, to a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual”.
See also, the equally forceful opinion in the case of Osman v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 245, para. 115.
The obligation of Government to prevent genocide and the unlawful taking by a person of another person’s life as guaranteed under Section 33 of the Constitution, is further ably backed by Section 14(2)(b) of the same Constitution. This paragraph provides that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”. Primary purpose? Yes, it is! The Court of Appeal affirmed this position, on the duties imposed by the Constitution on State Governments, in the case of Bariga-Amange v Adumen (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1530) 349 at 385 CA, thus:
“Typically, as argued by the Respondent’s learned Counsel in the light of Section 14… states that the security and welfare of the peoples shall be the primary purpose of Government….”.
The word “primary” was defined by the Supreme Court in Uzoukwu v Idika (2022) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1818) 403 at 455 SC as “first,” “main” or “most important.” Why then, have our governments, both at the Federal and the State levels, been lethargic in performing this “most important” duty? Political correctness or survival tactics are the most likely reasons, in my humble opinion.
The Federal Government (past and present), and some concerned State Governments have failed Nigerians, with respect to the fast-growing insecurity in the country. Both have ditched their “primary” constitutional obligation to protect and preserve life and property. This is not acceptable. Strikingly unacceptable, is the double-faced posturing of some State Governors, who, on the one hand, claim to be the Chief Security Officers of their States, but shrink to mere onlookers when foreign aggressors commit genocide against their subjects. This amounts to criminal complicity in the ensuing high malfeasances and reprehensible abdication of duty, to say the least.
Nigerians should not resort to murdering innocent travellers or other Nigerians, in supposed reprisal or revenge attacks. Rather, they should utilise the constitutional and statutory authorisations that permit self-defence, when the aggressors come with murderous intentions and actions. Section 33(1)(a) of the Constitution is an exception to the right to life (of an aggressor), if the person attacked kills the aggressor for the defence of his person, and/or in defence of property. This means that such a right of defence can be lawfully exercised, when there is threat to his life or property.
Superior courts of record in Nigeria have, in a countless number of cases, consecrated and upheld this right of self defence when the force used by the defender is proportionate to the force used by the attacker. In other words, when the attacker launches an attack with a gun, it is lawful for the defender to also repel him with a gun; and when death of the attacker occurs, the defender will not be guilty of any offence. The decisions on this right are too many to be cited here; but see: Abimbola v State (2021) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1806) 399 at 447 SC; Muhammad v State (2017) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1583) 386 at 439 SC; Oko v State (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1600) 216 at 238-239 SC; Ochani v State (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1596) 1 at 35-36 SC, etc. The defence is available to a person who is defending either himself or any other person, vide: Fulani v State (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1653) 237 at 259 SC.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the buck stops on the table of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to save Nigeria from armed groups who are killing innocent Nigerians without provocation and without human feelings. On the other hand, the buck stops on the table of respective State Governors who appropriate and pocket huge sums of money as security votes, if they willingly or passively allow genocidal attacks on their people. In the face of seeming governmental failure to perform its primary responsibility, Nigerians, I must say, have the right to defend their lives and property. This, however, does not include cold-blooded murder and reprisals.
Nigeria cannot, and should not, be a centre for unrestrained genocide! That is the law, to the best of my knowledge as a Law Professor and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria!
Professor Sebastine T. Hon, SAN, FCIArb, DSSRS, Abuja
Nigeria’s Insecurity, Government’s Inability and Condonation
Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
Section 33(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended) provides that ‘every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria’. Exodus 20:13 prohibits unlawful killing in the commandments of God that ‘thou shall not kill’. Deliberately therefore, God and man have made the right to life the most basic of all human rights; it is made so fundamental amongst all other rights, because you need it to enforce and enjoy them. It is the principal right and all other rights are ancillary thereto.
On March 28 and April 2, 2025 respectively, gunmen, in targeted attacks, invaded Ruwi, Mangor, Daffo, Manguna, Hurti and Tadai communities in Plateau State, leaving behind a trail of death and destruction. Although security agencies are yet to release official casualty figures, residents claimed that at least 52 people were killed, with many others injured or still missing. Here is the account of one of the survivors, as monitored in the media.
“We were living in peace, with no provocation. Then gunmen on motorcycles arrived, shooting indiscriminately. We ran for our lives, children alongside us. We had no nowhere to hide. Many were killed. Our homes were burnt. We call on the Government to help us.”
As has been the usual pattern of the Government’s responses, the Presidency has issued a lame statement condemning the gruesome attacks, with a supposed pledge to bring the perpetrators to justice. On Friday March 28, 2025, hunters returning from their hunting expedition were ambushed by vigilantes in Uromi, Edo State and they were brutally murdered by a mob in a reckless display of intolerance. In these and other reprehensible attacks, humanity is desecrated. No decent society should condone mob justice or jungle justice, by whatever name it is called. It is commendable that security agencies have been able to track down the Uromi demons, but, it should not stop there. The inability or unwillingness of the Government to tackle headlong the festering conflicts between herders and farmers, is the root cause of the increasing sense of desperation and frustration across the land.
From Benue to Ondo, Kaduna, Delta, Plateau, Niger, Nasarawa, Borno, Zamfara and Edo State, Nigeria has become an open field of mass murder. A uniform response from the Government and security agencies to these barbaric tendencies, will give the people some sense of relief. The Federal and State Governments should ensure that Nigerians are treated equally, irrespective of their ethnic, tribal, and religious inclinations. In a fragile country, the overt deployment of double standards is destructive, and leads to unintended outcomes.
The tragedy in Uromi unfolded, when a mob set upon 16 Fulani hunters travelling through the community. Accused of being complicit in the serial security breaches that have rendered local farmers vulnerable, the hunters were dragged from their vehicles, lynched, and their bodies mutilated. It is horrific, despicable, offensive and remains intolerable now and for all times. But, it goes beyond condemnations and isolated responses, because these ignominious attacks cut across the length and breadth of Nigeria, and the Government must not be perceived as employing double standards in its responses and actions.
Earlier on in February, 2025, Edo State witnessed the death of 27 farmers, and no action was taken by the Government. On March 19, 2025 in Ondo State, 5 farmers were shot dead by suspected herdsmen in Aba Oyinbo in Akure North Local Government Area of the State. Before then, about 14 persons were murdered by gunmen in Ademekun, Aba Sunday, Aba Pastor and Alajido in the same local government area. No specific action has been taken by the Government, to hunt down the attackers to bring them to justice. Several communities in Zamfara and Borno States are reportedly paying tribute to bandits and criminals, in order to live in their own homelands. Fulani herdsmen, with a sense of gross entitlement, encroach on farmlands and kill farmers for resisting the violation of their livelihoods. Human life is sacrosanct, and it is with the same outrage that the Government has responded to the Uromi killings that it should attend to the Plateau, Zamfara, Benue and Ondo attacks, as an expression of its commitment to end violence and mass murders in the country. In 2014, the Global Terrorism Index listed Fulani herdsmen among the four most dangerous terrorist groups in the world, because of their killing sprees in Nigeria. It is time for the Government to take decisive action in addressing this menace, as it is hypocritical to have selective responses to the same criminal conduct.
The Government should leverage on relevant provisions of the Constitution, to avert the looming disaster staring the nation in the face. Section 41(1) grants to every person the right ‘to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria’. For the herdsmen, the freedom of movement should necessarily be extended to controlled grazing and thus, it cannot be tenable to propose that any citizen of Nigeria should be expelled or prevented from taking residency in any part of the country on account of ethnicity, religion or vocation.
However, Section 41(2) allows the Government to make any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society to derogate from the freedom of movement granted by the same Constitution in certain cases. In essence, a law against open and uncoordinated grazing will fall within the category of laws that are reasonably justifiable to secure peace, law and order. Additionally, Section 41 (2) permits the imposition of ‘restrictions on the residence or movement of any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected to have committed a criminal offence’. In order to avoid negative profiling of any group of persons, the law against open grazing should only impose reasonable restrictions upon anyone found to have violated it, after due and proper trial. Now, Section 43 grants to every citizen the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria. Even though the Constitution places emphasis on ‘immovable property’, which in this case is land, this can, and should be extended to moveable property, in this case cattle. In law, ownership of immovable property can be through customary inheritance in the case of farmers, while acquisition of immovable property can be through valid assignment, in the case of herders. In essence, where a herdsman desires to graze upon the immovable property of another, he should go through Section 43 to acquire land from the owners to advance his vocation. This cannot be done through open grazing, because Section 44 (1) prohibits compulsory acquisition or forceful possession of land in stating that ‘no interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily, and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria, except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by law’. Open grazing amounts to a flagrant violation of Section 44(1), for a citizen to invade the customary inheritance of another citizen to destroy the farmlands, harvest crops thereat unlawfully and forcefully chase away the owners, rape them at will or kill them, if they venture any form of resistance.
Suggestions
It is gratifying that the Government has set up a separate Ministry of Livestock, in order to take care of the constant clashes between herdsmen and farmers. The solution to this matter is for herdsmen to embrace ranching, and for land owners to display brotherhood to lease or assign land, and allow mutual co-existence as was the case in times past. Well over a year after this laudable initiative however, nothing tangible has been accomplished in this regard, as it would seem to be another political gimmick of the Government to curry favour and secure unmerited patronage. There is thus, a roadmap provided by the Constitution for the resolution of this hydra-headed monster. The unwillingness or seeming incapacity of the Government to confront the real issue, is the underlying fuel that is propelling the killings, especially the ones by the herdsmen. The issue of selective justice also raises troubling questions about the value placed on the life of the citizens, as if one life matters more than the other. The criminals who killed the Fulani men in Uromi must be brought to justice, just as those responsible for previous attacks on farmers and civilians must also face the law. Until Nigeria embraces the rule of law and discards partiality in the dispensation of justice, the cycle of violence will persist. And, although one is outraged with the killings in Uromi, we get more diminished when killings take place in other locations, and the Government is pretending to be helpless or condoning them.
Government should encourage and work with herders to adopt the ranching option, instead of trampling roughshod on farming communities. This is the practice in other jurisdictions like Brazil, Egypt and Netherlands, where the livestock business exceeds that of Nigeria. Government should not lose sight of the unfortunate impression already created in the minds of citizens that they cannot be protected by the system, hence, the resort to self-help and vigilante options. We should however, not descend to the state of violence for violence, as that will lead us nowhere.
A further solution lies in a comprehensive security overhaul, as the Nigeria Police Force is understaffed and ill-equipped to handle the country’s security challenges. The Federal Government should rise above ethnic biases, and ensure that every Nigerian life is valued equally and granted adequate protection. Any government that claims to be incapable of, or shows itself to be unwilling to tackle insecurity headlong, has no business retaining power.
Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, Human Rights Lawyer, Lagos
Nigeria’s Insecurity Crisis: Between Guns, Greed, and Geopolitics
Adesegun Talabi
Introduction
Nigeria has been stuck in a seemingly endless war against insecurity for more than a decade, caught in a cycle of violence that has cost lives, displaced millions, and stretched the country’s social and economic foundations to the limit. The headlines have become so common, that we have lost sensation: bomb explosions in Borno, kidnappings in Kaduna, clashes in Benue, and massacres in Zamfara. If it is not Boko Haram, it is ISWAP. If not them, then bandits or unknown gunmen. Throw in armed herdsmen into the mix, and you have a warped concoction that makes even the most hardened optimist nervous. But, what is behind this deep-seated insecurity? And, more importantly, how do we get ourselves out of this hole?
Unravelling Nigeria’s Insecurity
To unravel Nigeria’s insecurity is to peel off layers of historic grievances, economic disenfranchisement, ethnic tensions, porous borders, and geopolitical neglect. The issue is not one-off. It is hydra-headed, complicated, and frustratingly immune to simplistic explanations.
Let us begin with Boko Haram. Boko Haram was born in economic misery and religious extremism in the Northeast, and managed to find a fertile recruitment ground among unemployed youth and disenfranchised communities. It was ideologically fed by a mix of local grievances and international jihadist propaganda. The group fractured, mutated, and aligned with international terror franchises such as ISIS over the years, and evolved into what we now have as ISWAP (Islamic State’s West Africa Province).
Running parallel are the so-called “bandits” – a euphemism for highly armed criminal gangs who carry out mass kidnappings, cattle rustling, and extortion – in the Northwest. The gangs operate with impunity, better armed than the local security forces and well-funded by ransoms. In the South and the Middle Belt, the herdsmen-farmer clashes have graduated from localised confrontations, to what some have referred to as an outright war. Disputes over grazing rights, have degenerated into horrific attacks that are perceived by many as ethnically and religiously motivated.
Beneath this insecurity lies a deadly mix of poverty, poor governance, corruption, and an under-equipped, under-trained, and compromised security apparatus. Nigeria’s youth unemployment rate has climbed beyond crisis point, and millions of young people, especially in the North, are disillusioned and despairing. The State has failed to deliver education, jobs, or a simple sense of belonging. Into this void steps the warlord, the terrorist, the recruiter, and the bandit.
Ethnic and religious politics, also take a front seat. Fractured Federalism in Nigeria has turned identity into a currency. Politicians frequently stir the embers of division, to secure votes. In this kind of environment, violence is both a symptom and a tool.
But, there is also this uncomfortable reality: insecurity is big business. With bloated security budgets, covert military purchases, and a security contractors’ complex, there are more than enough people who gain from the status quo. Peace, for these people, is bad business.
International Reactions
Now, let us focus the searchlight on international forces. The international community’s response to Nigeria’s insecurity has been mixed. On one hand, nations such as the United States, United Kingdom, and France have offered technical assistance, military training, and exchange of intelligence. Drone deployments, strategic cooperation, and arms sales have taken place. Multinational Joint Task Forces, have also been a regional initiative at fighting cross-border terrorism.
But, we all know global politics is never altruistic. Arms deals have strings attached. Intelligence is shared selectively. And, where geopolitics are concerned, silence is golden. The same global community that denounces terrorism, is not always keen to discuss how Africa is awash with western manufactured arms. The same powers that train local armies, can also support governments that stifle dissent in the name of combating terror.
And, there is the hardly spoken problem of foreign mercenaries. In Boko Haram’s heyday, Nigeria toyed with the use of South African and East European military contractors. Those shadowy, highly paid, and unaccountable soldiers might have won some battles, but at what price in terms of sovereignty and the rule of law?
Moreover, the wider global system – from the IMF to the World Bank – has enabled the emptying out of public services through decades of structural adjustment programmes and austerity dictates. When healthcare, education, and infrastructure were immolated at the altar of macroeconomic stability, social cohesion was bound to unravel.
Solutions
So, what to do? Here’s where most articles toss around a laundry list of solutions. But, let’s avoid the temptation of cliches and get real.
First, the Nigerian State needs to regain legitimacy. That begins with governance that works. Fix the roads. Pay the teachers. Equip the Police. Make justice available. And, for heaven’s sake, hold free and fair elections. If citizens see the State working for them, they won’t turn to warlords.
Second, economic inclusion is the most important. Job creation isn’t GDP numbers, or white elephant projects. It’s focused investment in vocational training, SME lending, and rural development. You can’t bomb people into loyalty. But, you can give them a stake in peace. Third, we must re-engineer our security architecture. Throwing more troops at the problem, will not do. Community policing, local intelligence networks, and de-radicalisation programmes must be in the mix. And, yes, we must pay and train our security forces like professionals, not beggars in uniform.
Fourth, international partners need to do more. Stop selling arms to governments that promote instability. Address illicit financial flows that enable corrupt leaders to hide loot overseas. Invest in civil society, not just security forces. And, when the Nigerian government gets it wrong, speak out. Clearly.
Insecurity in Nigeria, is not just a problem. It’s a trial of the nation’s soul. Will we step up to create a nation where life precedes land, dialogue precedes division, and justice precedes jungle justice? Or will we stay on this course where death is normalised, and outrage is limited to hashtags?
The decision is in our hands. And, although we cannot dictate all the variables – climate change, the arms trade across the globe, regional instability – we can dictate how we are governed, whom we elect, and what we represent.
Nigeria has never been a country of contrasts: staggering wealth and blistering poverty; beauty so breathtaking and violence so unimaginable. But, perhaps, in our darkest hour we will find the strength to become what we have always intended to be.
For if we do not do this, someone else will. And, history indicates that when others solve your problems, they do so with plans in which you do not figure.
It’s time to take our future – and our safety – personally
Adesegun Talabi, Legal Practitioner, Lagos
Armed Herdsmen’s Escalating Attacks Across Nigeria’s Landscape: Causes, Implications and Possible Solutions
Major Ben Aburime (Rtd)
Introduction
Nigeria is a nation blessed with over 250,000 distinct ethnic groups and about 500 languages, with each ethnic group having its peculiar cultural identities and ways. Notwithstanding this vast diversity, only the three groups of Hausas, Yorubas and the Igbos are arguably recognised as the major ethnic groups. Two distinct facts should be evident in this introduction so far. The first is the deliberate attempt to avoid using the term ‘Tribes”, because this writer finds it derogatory in the form the European communities used the term to describe those unrelated to them, just as the average American will find it insulting to be called a ‘Honky’. The second observation lies in not lumping the Hausa with the Fulanis, because they are two separate groups with unrelated origin and ways, though over the years, the Fulanis have tended to employ that misnomer to their advantage, in concealing their marginalisation of a major indigenous ethnic group, the Hausas.
The three major ethnic groups occupy visible geographical spaces otherwise called regions in the pre-military intervention era, with the Hausas located in the area known interchangeably as Northern Region or Northern Nigeria alongside other not-so-large ethnic groups like the Fulanis, the Jukuns, the Tivs, the Idomas, the Ebirras, the Bokkos, the Ewe, the Gwaris, the Nupes, the Kanuris, the Bachamas, and a host of others. The Igbos dominate in Eastern Nigeria, where they also have other ethnic groups like the Ijaws, the Ogonis, the Kalabaris, the Ibibios, the Annangs, the Efiks, the Ogojas, the Obudus, the Ugeps or Yankoyos, the Obubras, the Nembes, the Ikwerres, the Etches, and a host of others. Western Nigeria was inhabited by the Yorubas, the Eguns, the Aworis, the Binis (Benins), the Ilajes, the Itsekiris, the Esans, the Kukurukus now Auchi, Agenebodes, Okpelas, the Oras, the Agbedes, the Urhobos, the Isokos, and a host of others. Even among the Yorubas, you still have the Ijebus, the Egbas, the Ondos groups.
Whether they occupied Northern Nigeria, Eastern Nigeria or Western Nigeria, a common thread ran amongst all the groups: they were predominantly farmers and hunters, they had their indigenous religions, traditions and cultures, and they loved music, singing and dancing. They were essentially peaceful people, relating fine with their neighbouring communities, even often times migrating and inter-marrying. It was upon this peaceful co-existence that the Television series such as the ‘Village Headmaster’ with its setting in the traditional Oja Trading Community, and the ‘New Masquerade’, were premised. While there were few inter-community skirmishes, they were mainly triggered by claims over boundary lands and fishing outposts, and these were easily resolved largely through mediation and/or boundary adjustments.
Just as Nigeria is rich in ethnic diversity and culture, so also is it about the country most endowed by nature, in human resources, petroleum or oil resources, solid mineral resources, and one other often ignored resource, being the resilience and entrepreneurship nature of the Igbos (the political jobbers excluded). All these great attributes are being systematically eroded by the Fulani onslaught, being one of the most potent and devastating militancy and terrorist activities worldwide.
The nature of conflicts or armed attacks as orchestrated by the Fulani Herders, is what this piece speaks to.
Origin and Nature of the Herdsmen Attacks
One cannot meaningfully discuss the place and circumstances of the Fulani Herdsmen attacks, without first knowing and understanding their nature and history. Some authorities and works believe that the Fulanis are cousins to the Berbers of North Africa, and that they were driven away from some Arab countries on account of their perceived nature, they first settled around the Futa Region in the Sene-Gambia area, from where some migrated to the Gobir area now called Sokoto, where they leveraged on religion to overthrow and massacre their host kings, and declared a holy war that was to use their Hausa hosts to enslave the region. Rather than being a religious affair, it seemed to have been a clever design to conquer territories for political reasons and gains. Stopped by the British in their march southwards, many still wrongly believe that they can continue in their violent quest to conquer the rest of the country. It is against this background that arrogant and misguided statements by some of their leaders, pose a cause for concern.
• While there have been a few violent classes between the Herdsmen and Farmers on their farms in their ancestral lands along the grazing routes, there has never been anything near the gory level, proportion and dimension these attacks have assumed of late. All over the six geo-political zones from Nasarawa to Katsina, Taraba through Adamawa, Borno, Zamfara, Plateau, Benue, Enugu, to far away places as Ondo, Edo, Delta, Oyo State, to even the Federal Capital Territory, sad stories of massacres, group raping, kidnapping for ransom, pure armed robberies, burning down of whole villages and/or communities, deliberate destruction of farmlands and creating an army of internally displaced persons, has become the norm, with the central government issuing their usual empty threats of bringing the perpetrators to justice. The factors creating this malaise is what this space seeks to speak to. While a great deal of literature has been written by different analysts on this topic, these factors can be summarised into:
– Environmental and climatic conditions whereby desertification and receding vegetation has driven the Herders from the once grazing sites to more agriculturally conducive fertile lands where the Farmers have their crops.
– Closely allied to the above, is the fact of the land and soil being degraded, and not producing as much crops as usual.
– Deliberate Government policies of opening Nigeria’s border routes for all Fulanis all over the world to not only migrate to, but set their eyes and sight on Nigeria’s vast territorial landscape as their eventual home, whereby the indigenous people are being systematically desecrated, driven from their homes, and the sacked communities renamed as Fulani communities. The greatest evidence of this lies in the Benue, Plateau and Kaduna State, where the central government dubiously describe the ethnic cleansing as Farmers-Herders clashes, even as a dysfunctional United Nations and the International Press downplay this crime against humanity,
-The Trump Administration recently uncovered the scandal that the USAID funds meant for developing Third World Countries, were actually employed to fund terrorism in countries like Nigeria.
– The attempts even by the Government, to seize people’s ancestral homes through doubtful policies like Ruga Settlements. Redefining concepts of Federal Routes to the detriment of the Land Use Act, funding militia groups to acquire land nationwide, etc.
– The inglorious role of the Press in sensationalising crimes like kidnapping, whereby they over-hype senseless criminals like ‘Evans the Billionaire Kidnapper’, etc, thereby inadvertently educating youths and even some of our law enforcement agents of the immense gains of such violent crimes. All these factors and much more, like leadership failure, have contributed to the sore thumb called this menace.
Effects of the Onslaught
For constraints of space and given the general or widespread knowledge of this onslaught, little will be done to elaborate on the effects, which include:
a. Reduced farming activities with imminent food shortage, thereby posing food insecurity which is a national calamity;
b. De-populating the various indigenous communities;
c. Creating an army of internally displaced persons;
d. Reduction in the available work-force and employable youths;
e. Creating resistant counter-militia groups to combat a common aggression; and,
f. Potential instability and uprising nationwide, where the Government fails to act transparently, thereby creating local warlords to replace the central and/or organised government.
Solutions
Most of the highlighted problems or factors have their solutions embedded in them, which is to reverse the adverse situation. However, there is a fundamental fact that cannot be allowed to be subsumed or left to individual interpretation, and that is the Guns or Firearms Policy of Government. To make violent crimes unprofitable and unsafe for the harbingers of violence, the FGN must reverse its firearms policy, and allow for massive, but properly registered individual firearms. When victims’ capacity to resist attacks is enhanced, then violent crimes will abate, when the practitioners realise that violence is no longer a monopoly of any one person, people, group or community. It is doable; bold leadership and the political will to serve and lead, is a prerequisite. The alternative is to be a bully-government, presiding over a failed State. It is a choice foisted by nature and circumstances.
Major Ben Aburime (Rtd), Legal Practitioner, FICMC, FCMC, MCMC; Security Analyst; Mediator; Programmer and AI & Robotics Software Designer; Member of Amnesty International
