In this thought-provoking piece, DUMAH RANDONG argues that Nigeria’s worsening insecurity can no longer be tackled with routine condemnations and temporary reactions. He contends that after years of bloodshed across the North East, North West and Middle Belt, the country now needs a bold paradigm shift anchored on justice, deterrence, institutional reform and political will if lasting peace is to be achieved
Insecurity in Nigeria has reached a dangerous crescendo. From the North East to the North West and across the Middle Belt, attacks by Boko Haram, well-armed Fulani herders, bandits and kidnappers have left a trail of death, land-grabbing and displacement. Citizens are worried. Many now believe the country is at a breaking point.
This conflict has outlived every deadline set for it. Nigerians who thought the Federal Government would have ended it years ago are still waiting. Instead, what citizens receive after each attack is a familiar script: condemnation, assurances that government is “on top of the situation,” relief materials, then silence.
Condemnation is not a strategy. After two decades of guerrilla-style attacks, Nigerians are tired of sympathy without justice. The hard question remains simple: why has the state failed to prosecute perpetrators in a way that deters others?
Since the violence began, there are few public examples of masterminds being arrested, tried and sentenced. That absence of deterrence has emboldened armed groups. The urgent task is to move from rhetoric to justice. Identify, arrest and prosecute those behind the attacks. Without that, impunity thrives.
The Federal Government cannot keep doing the same thing and expect different results. The people carrying out these attacks are not from the moon. They live among us. In many cases, they are known to the authorities.
Dialogue without strength
That fact becomes clearer during so-called peace dialogues. In one widely reported case in Katsina State, men identified as armed herders arrived at a government-brokered meeting with AK-47 rifles slung over their shoulders. No disarmament occurred. No arrests followed. The group set conditions for peace and reserved the right to walk away. Sad.
When non-state actors dictate terms while armed, what leverage does the state have? Dialogue without disarmament signals weakness and weakness invites more attacks.
The unequal application of law deepens the crisis. Videos circulate daily of non-state actors moving with assault rifles in broad daylight, unchallenged. Yet when communities in Plateau, Benue and Southern Kaduna are invaded, locals say they cannot defend themselves because the law forbids them from owning such weapons.
If armed groups bear sophisticated arms openly while law-abiding citizens are punished for self-defence, how is the state maintaining its monopoly of force?
Even the armed forces, trained in weapon handling and tactical withdrawal, have suffered heavy casualties in ambushes. That shows the scale of the threat and the cost of impunity.
Internal weaknesses in the security system
Defeating terrorism is not about firepower alone. Three internal fractures weaken the response.
First, the security architecture is strained by religious and regional polarisation. In earlier decades, faith and state of origin did not define recruitment. Unfortunately, today, those markers matter from enlistment. The result is suspicion across units and divided loyalty in joint operations.
Second, welfare for frontline personnel is poor. Delayed allowances, inadequate equipment and weak insurance undermine morale. When the state does not prioritise those it sends to the frontline, it creates room for unprofessional conduct.
Allegations of diverted security votes persist. Until they are addressed transparently, public trust will remain low.
Third, internal sabotage. This comes from compromised actors at command level and informants within the ranks. When intelligence leaks or operations are undermined from within, no amount of troops will end the conflict.
These breaches are often tied to ideological sympathy, where loyalty to religion or ethnicity overrides loyalty to the Constitution.
The Nigerian armed forces were once defined by discipline. But prolonged internal operations have opened the door for vested interests to exploit the situation, raising doubts about patriotism and integrity.
Four urgent steps forward
Nigeria does not lack the capacity to end this conflict. What is missing is political will expressed through consistent action.
A paradigm shift requires four steps:
- Prosecution as deterrence. Establish special courts for terrorism and banditry. Try suspects publicly and publish convictions. Justice must be seen to be done. Plateau residents are watching closely to see what comes of the recent arrests following the Angwan Rukuba attack. The prosecution of those suspects will test the Federal Government’s commitment to ending the bloodbath across the country. Without consequences, impunity thrives.
- One law for all arms. Enforce the Firearms Act without exception. Disarmament must precede dialogue. No non-state group or individual should wield military-grade weapons with impunity.
- Depoliticise the forces. Return to merit and cohesion in recruitment, promotion and posting. Improve welfare, equipment and insurance.
- Cut the economy of violence. Track and prosecute financiers of ransom, illegal mining and cattle rustling. Without cash flow, the guns go quiet.
Furthermore, Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution states that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. That duty is not discharged by press statements. It is discharged when a farmer in Riyom, a trader in Birnin Gwaribor a student in Mubi can live without fear.
Until then, condemnation will remain what it is now: a narrative that comforts no one.