Daniel UGWO

Nigeria stands at a critical juncture in its fight against insecurity, as the nation contends with an alarming rise in terrorism, banditry, and violence. For over 15 years, the specter of insecurity has loomed large, and Nigerians are increasingly aware that this crisis cannot be attributed solely to actions from random groups. The evidence suggests that there are complicity and complexity within the government, security architectures and among powerful elites who may be shielding these terrorists for their own gain. As citizens reflect on the state of insecurity in Nigeria, several pressing questions arise:

(1) How can a nation of over 200 million people be so powerless against a relatively small group of terrorists? (2) Where are these terrorists operating from, and how do they remain undetected? (3) Who is providing them with sustenance and resources? (4) What are the sources of their funding, and who are the local and international sponsors? (5) Why has the government ever since been following same methods that is known to fail before implementation? (6) Why are the terrorists so relaxed to the point of collection of taxes from citizens within communities and farm areas? (7) Why are many politicians and clerics claiming that they know where they are yet hard to neutralize them? (8) Why are they allocating money yearly for this purpose yet Nigerian can’t see its effect? (9) Why do they usually shut down schools as signs of weakness instead of fighting the battle? (10) Why are there many from the North whose body language is indifferent yet killings consistently happen in that region? (11) Why are the foreign countries who claimed possession of list of sponsors of terrorists in Nigeria yet to release them to the public? (12) Why do we still have news of girls in captivity in a sane country for over 15 years ago?

These questions highlight a disturbing reality: the Nigerian government’s apparent lack of political will to eradicate terrorism suggests that there may be vested interests at play. If the government were genuinely committed to ending this menace, it could mobilize its resources and capabilities to neutralize these threats swiftly without any need for external supports; and I bet, terrorism in Nigeria will crumble within a week. The notion that politicians might be complicit in the perpetuation of terrorism is not baseless. During election periods, there is a disturbing trend where political parties rely on thuggery and intimidation tactics to secure victories.

It has become evident that the party with the most significant investment in violence often emerges victorious whereas, they can go to any extent to employ the most vicious thugs, without exempting terrorists. This raises the question: Are our leaders, who should be safeguarding our lives and properties, instead using these terrorists as tools to maintain power? The recent declaration by the Canadian government labelling the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the People's Democratic Party (PDP) as terrorist organizations is an unambiguous reminder of how deeply entrenched these issues are. While this classification may seem limited to two parties, it reflects a broader reality: many political actors across various parties engage in activities that undermine national security.

Even when political figures switch parties, they often carry their violent tactics with them, seeking refuge in new alliances to evade accountability for their actions. This cycle perpetuates a culture of impunity and violence that stifles Nigeria's progress. It is not as if Nigeria lacks the resources to combat insecurity; rather, there is a systemic failure in resource allocation and management, added to their deliberate tactics of siphoning the wealth of the nation through allocation-by-pretence. Each year, substantial funds are earmarked for security purposes, yet corruption siphons off these resources without deliberate effort on tangible impact. The theft of allocated funds and complicit of command lines has technically left our security forces ill-equipped and demoralized, further exacerbating the crisis.

Moreover, the narrative surrounding negotiations with terrorists raises serious concerns. Why should we negotiate with those who seek to destabilize our nation? There is clear difference between request from agitators and that of terrorists; the mode of handling them must differ. Countries that have taken a firm stance against negotiating with terrorists have seen greater success in curbing insecurity than those that have chosen dialogue.

For instance, nations like United States, Israel, India and several others have adopted stringent measures against terrorist organizations, resulting in more effective counter-terrorism strategies. The small Burkina-Faso under our nose is gradually seeing the light of peace. Conversely, countries that engage in negotiations often find themselves trapped in a cycle of violence, where concessions lead only to further demands and instability.

In Nigeria, conversations about security should not revolve around the number of captives released but rather focus on how many terrorists have been neutralized or apprehended. The conversation surrounding insecurity must also address the troubling reality of genocide—particularly against Christian communities in Nigeria. While some may dismiss concerns about religious persecution, it is essential to recognize that countless lives are lost daily due to targeted violence. This is not merely a matter of rhetoric; it is a pressing humanitarian crisis that demands urgent attention. The focus should not be solely on statements from international figures but on the undeniable evidence of systematic violence against various ethnic and religious groups within Nigeria.

The government's response must shift from scripted reactive measures to deliberate proactive strategies aimed at protecting all citizens. The continued advocacy by figures like Sheikh Ahmad Gumi for negotiating with terrorists raises serious ethical questions. Why has he not faced scrutiny for his stance? Many government officials have publicly acknowledged their knowledge of terrorists’ hideouts yet have failed to take decisive action. This highlights a troubling disconnect between what is known and what is acted upon.

Nigerians must demand accountability from their leaders and an end to the complicity that allows terrorism to flourish. It is time for citizens to unite in calling for transparency in governance and an unwavering commitment to national security. We must challenge our leaders to prioritize the safety of all Nigerians over political expediency.

In conclusion, the fight against insecurity in Nigeria requires more than just rhetoric; it demands decisive action against those who perpetuate violence for their gain. It is time to reclaim our nation from the grips of terror and restore hope for a peaceful future. The path forward lies in integrity, accountability, and an unwavering commitment to justice for all citizens.

God Bless Nigeria!