Follow Us on Google
By Sola Ojo, Abuja
Prominent Kaduna-based Islamic scholar, Sheikh Ahmed Gumi, has reiterated his call for a comprehensive and non-military approach to tackling Nigeria’s worsening insecurity, warning that decades of force-based strategies have failed to deliver lasting peace. In this wide-ranging interview, he argued that banditry and insurgency were driven by deep-rooted issues such as poverty, poor education, unemployment, and ideological influences, stressing that only a holistic response combining dialogue, rehabilitation, economic inclusion, and community engagement could break the cycle of violence. He also cautioned against external exploitation of internal conflicts, urging government at all levels to prioritise human development and national cohesion, just as he laughed at those usually calling for his arrest.
After a few months of celebrated calmness in some parts of the country especially Kaduna, the security situation is now seriously escalating, how do you assess the overall security situation?
Well, I believe the solution to insecurity must be holistic, not fragmented or “patch-patch.” What we are seeing now is that when security efforts succeed in one area say along the Kaduna-Abuja, Kaduna-Kano, or Kaduna-Gusau corridors, the situation improves temporarily. However, the problem simply shifts to other locations. There are still areas where the perpetrators of violence remain unknown. In some cases, peace agreements may be reached in one region, but the same actors relocate to places where no such agreements exist. This explains the recurring cycle of violence. More importantly, if the root causes the “organic reasons” are not addressed, the problem will persist. It’s like treating malaria: if you don’t use the right medication, you may relieve symptoms temporarily, but the illness remains. Likewise, without addressing underlying issues, insecurity cannot be permanently resolved.
What do you mean by underlying issues?
By that I meant to say that a truly holistic approach must involve engaging all parties involved, including the bandits. I recall an encounter we had while trying to persuade one group to lay down their arms. At the time, there had been a kidnapping of a bus in Niger State. Their first question to us was: “Are you coming to make peace with us across the whole of Nigeria, or just in this area?” Honestly, I couldn’t give them an answer. This highlights the challenge. If peace efforts are not nationwide, these groups can simply move from one region to another. But if the approach is comprehensive, it becomes harder for them to relocate and continue their activities elsewhere.
Nigerians must begin to look at this issue beyond sentiments. The time for emotional or political bias is over. Since 2009, when Mohammed Yusuf was killed, the kinetic (military) approach has been consistently applied. There has never been a pause in that strategy. However, we have also seen that non-kinetic approaches can yield results. For example, in Maiduguri, hundreds of militants have been rehabilitated recently, about 740 individuals. When you are dealing with such large numbers, it raises important questions. Are they simply criminals, or are they part of a broader agitation? If it were just one or two individuals, we could easily label them as armed robbers. But the scale suggests something more complex that requires deeper understanding. Now back to the underlying factors driving insecurity. Issues such as poor education, unemployment, and social dislocation all contribute significantly. Beyond that, ideology also plays a critical role. If we are serious about addressing insecurity, we must confront and transform these ideological influences.
Yes, very quickly, let us discuss a bit about this issue of rehabilitation. Many Nigerians are not happy that these repentant criminals are being taken care of while survivors of their illicit acts groan. What do you say?
The rehabilitation programme, in my view, is making progress. It has the potential to encourage more individuals to lay down their arms and reintegrate into society. Through such programmes, participants are equipped with skills that enable them to sustain themselves and become productive members of their communities. Another important aspect of the programme is accountability. Each individual is properly documented. Their identities and biometric data are captured. This helps security agencies know who they are dealing with and where they are returning to. It reduces uncertainty and improves monitoring. Over time, experts, particularly sociologists, can study their backgrounds and lifestyles to better understand what draws people into these groups. That knowledge is essential for prevention.
So as it stands, where do we go from here?
Other News
Engagement remains the most viable path forward. However, there are persistent calls for a purely force-based approach “kill them, kill them.” But as that rhetoric continues, those on the other side respond in kind: “kill us, kill us.” This creates an endless cycle of violence. The question is: when does it stop? If you look globally, even countries with deep conflicts eventually come to the negotiating table. Dialogue and engagement are necessary to resolve differences and achieve lasting peace. History has shown that excessive reliance on violence can worsen the situation. For instance, when insurgent movements lose their leaders through military action, they often become more radicalised. In some cases, each new leader emerges more extreme than the last. This pattern has been observed in various conflicts. Even recent developments show that insurgent groups are evolving. The fact that high-ranking military officers are now among the casualties indicates that these groups are becoming more sophisticated and entrenched. We must also recognise how insecurity spreads. There is a Hausa proverb that says: “When a wall is broken, that is when lizards enter the house. When the wall is intact, they remain outside.”
In the same way, when insurgency, banditry, and militancy are allowed to persist, they create openings for other destabilising forces including external interests to infiltrate and exploit the situation, sometimes by supporting one group against another. Instead of direct confrontation, they may provide arms and logistics, allowing internal actors to weaken themselves. Nigeria must be careful not to allow such vulnerabilities. If insurgency and banditry are left unchecked, they can be manipulated by external interests to further destabilise the country. That is why it is critical to prevent the situation from deteriorating. No matter how difficult or hostile a situation may seem even with those considered adversaries there must be efforts to transform relationships. You cannot endlessly fight your neighbour and expect stability. When internal divisions deepen, external actors can take advantage of those fractures. This is a lesson seen in global conflicts. Major powers often act decisively when they perceive threats near their borders or within their sphere of influence. These situations underline the importance of managing internal and regional relationships carefully to avoid escalation.
For Nigeria, the priority should be to address all forms of insurgency whether in the North or the South through dialogue and engagement. Agitations should not be allowed to linger unresolved. Instead, there should be deliberate efforts to understand grievances and negotiate solutions. When groups demand greater autonomy or recognition, these issues should be discussed openly. Over time, such engagement can help parties better understand the broader benefits of unity especially economic and social advantages that come with a larger, integrated nation. Fragmentation, on the other hand, can create unintended consequences. People who currently live and do business freely across different parts of the country may face discrimination or displacement if divisions harden. Nigeria’s strength lies in its diversity and interconnectedness, which support commerce, mobility, and shared growth. In today’s 21st-century world, isolation or secessionist thinking is increasingly out of step with global realities. The world is becoming more interconnected, driven by technology and the flow of information. Barriers are breaking down, and societies must adapt to this new environment. Even in fields like journalism, the monopoly of information has disappeared due to the internet. The same principle applies to politics, economics, and social relations adaptation is essential. Those who fail to adjust to these changing dynamics risk being left behind. In some places, such as parts of Katsina State, local communities themselves have taken the initiative to engage directly. Rather than relying solely on government action, they have said: “We know each other; we can sit down and resolve this.” That kind of community-driven engagement has shown some level of success. Communities in Kaduna State can also explore similar approaches, while working with government support.
Do you see this escalating insecurity affecting the 2027 round of election?
If it continues this way, it could have serious implications for the future including elections. In areas where violence continues, it may become difficult, or even impossible, to conduct credible elections. In extreme cases, some regions could be cut off from the electoral process entirely.
So, what can be done better?
First, there must be a clear understanding of the root causes of insecurity. Without identifying the genesis of the problem, it is impossible to solve it effectively. It is also important to understand the perspective of those involved in the conflict their motivations, grievances, and influences. We must also consider the role of ideology and external influences. Groups like Boko Haram have roots in local dynamics, but their ideology is zzshaped by deeper religious misinterpretations and external narratives. Addressing this requires engagement with knowledgeable scholars who can challenge and correct such beliefs through dialogue. Beyond security measures, there is a pressing need for a comprehensive national investment in education something akin to a “Marshall Plan” for human development. If you examine the background of many individuals involved in banditry and militancy, you will find that a significant number have very low levels of formal education. This highlights a critical gap. Government must prioritise education that is practical and productive. Education that equips people with skills and opportunities to contribute meaningfully to society. Young people should be encouraged to see value in professions that serve humanity whether as doctors, engineers, technicians, or skilled workers. Neglecting large segments of the population, particularly in the North, is dangerous. Millions of out-of-school children represent a ticking time bomb. Without education or opportunities, they are vulnerable to recruitment into criminal or militant activities, especially when such paths appear to offer financial gain.
Job creation is equally essential. Opportunities should not be limited to white-collar employment; there must be strong support for vocational and blue-collar jobs. Skills development programmes, access to tools and machinery, and genuine economic empowerment initiatives are crucial. This requires more than policies on paper or budgetary allocations, it demands serious, practical implementation. The goal should be to ensure that every individual is meaningfully engaged and has a stake in society. We can also learn from global examples. Take China, for instance. Within a few decades, it has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. The question is: how did they transform largely peasant populations into a productive society? I once advised a governor to take his economic team to China and simply ask that question: How did you achieve this transformation? Nigeria’s leadership can benefit from such learning. Understanding how to turn widespread poverty into productivity through deliberate planning and execution.
On a lighter note, you often face criticism on social media whenever you make public statements. How do you react?
I laugh. I simply laugh. Many critics misunderstand the context of my engagements. When I meet with bandits, it is not because I support them, but because I am trying to persuade them to stop the violence and embrace peace. Engagement requires sitting down, talking, and listening. When you approach them not as enemies, but as people to be understood, they open up. They express their grievances, their motivations, and their frustrations. From those conversations, it becomes clear that many of the issues are not beyond resolution if there is genuine political will and if we set aside ethnic, religious, or tribal prejudices. However, some people reject dialogue outright. They insist on force alone, saying, “just eliminate them.” With that mindset, it becomes difficult to understand or support engagement efforts. I have also said that many of these individuals are part of our society. They are our neighbours we cannot simply wish them away. For instance, the Fulani are present across virtually every part of Nigeria. They are widely dispersed, and their livelihoods are deeply tied to livestock. One key issue is that their wellbeing is closely linked to the wellbeing of their animals. When their livestock are threatened through theft, loss of grazing routes, or restrictions on movement it often leads to tension and conflict. For many, protecting their herds is a matter of survival. This is why structured engagement is important. Government should work closely with such communities to address these concerns. I acknowledge the establishment of a livestock ministry as a positive step, but it needs to be properly empowered to make meaningful impact. So, addressing insecurity requires understanding, dialogue, economic inclusion, and strong political will. Without these, lasting peace will remain elusive.
