(1) The claim that government supports banditry is often based on the assumption that shared religious identity between leaders and perpetrators implies complicity. Those who argue this way also insist that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, controls the military and security agencies, yet ignore the independence and complexity of institutions like the armed forces and the police. These agencies still provide the bulk of protection across the country; as seen during the #EndSARS protests, any total withdrawal of security forces would quickly lead to widespread disorder.
(2) The idea that terrorism belongs to a particular political party is misleading. Zamfara, once a stronghold of banditry, was previously governed by the PDP. Benue experienced attacks under Governor Ortom, also of the PDP, while Plateau has seen violence under different administrations. Those who seek political gain from tragedy should remember that without a stable country, governance itself becomes impossible.
(3) The notion that bandits are Fulani or Muslim is both convenient and dangerous. While some perpetrators may belong to these groups, it is unjust to generalize. No ethnic or religious community should be collectively blamed for the crimes of a few. Such thinking has never helped resolve conflict.
(4) Labeling bandits as “jihadists” is another troubling assertion. Although some groups adopt such labels, much like Boko Haram, their actions contradict any coherent religious ideology. They engage in ransom-taking, indiscriminate killings, and substance abuse, all of which violate Islamic teachings. Moreover, they frequently kill Muslims in states like Borno, Katsina, Kebbi, Niger, and Sokoto. Their behavior exposes them as criminals rather than ideological actors.
(5) The belief that either Christians or Muslims are the sole targets of terrorism is only partially accurate. While certain attacks may appear targeted, neither religious group collectively supports or benefits from such violence. In many cases, both communities suffer. Religious identity may only become a factor when perpetrators seek to provoke wider conflict and instability.
(6) The perception that Muslims are sympathetic to banditry is often reinforced by selective voices, such as Sheikh Ahmed Gumi, whose statements can be interpreted as expressing empathy. However, broader societal behavior reveals a more complex reality. People often react more strongly to violence outside their immediate environment while normalizing atrocities closer to home. This reflects human bias rather than deliberate support. Similarly, outrage over violence in one region is sometimes contrasted with silence or minimization of unrest elsewhere, such as in the South-East.
(7) The argument that state governments should rely solely on local security outfits, rather than the military, raises concerns about bias and accountability. When conflicts are framed as disputes between “locals” and “settlers,” local forces may struggle to remain neutral. This can deepen divisions and undermine trust in the fairness of law enforcement.
(8) Blaming President Bola Ahmed Tinubu alone for insecurity oversimplifies a long-standing problem. The crisis predates his administration and has persisted through multiple governments. Similar narratives were previously directed at former President Buhari, often tied to ethnic or religious identity. Such patterns reveal a tendency toward groupthink rather than objective analysis.
(9) The claim that bandits and terrorists were “imported” around 2015 to destabilize a particular government is one of the more unfounded narratives. In a diverse and highly interconnected country like Nigeria, such a large-scale conspiracy would be difficult to conceal. This line of thinking resembles other widely debunked claims and serves only to inflame division.
(10) The argument that prolonged insecurity automatically implies state complicity, sometimes attributed to statements by former military ruler like Sani Abacha tends to gnore the evolving nature of modern conflict. Insurgency today involves guerrilla tactics, ambushes, and asymmetric warfare, which differ significantly from past security challenges. While government failures are real and frustrating, they do not necessarily equate to deliberate complicity. Framing them as such risks deepening mistrust, encouraging reprisals, and escalating tensions, especially during politically sensitive periods.
Overall, these narratives, though widespread, often oversimplify complex realities and contribute to division. A more balanced, evidence-based approach is essential to addressing insecurity without inflaming religious or ethnic tensions.
Bagudu can be reached via bagudumohammed15197@gmail.com or 07034943575.
