By Bolarinwa Ayoola
Nigerians woke up on Christmas Day to reports of the bombing of terrorist enclaves in the North West geopolitical zone, specifically in Sokoto State. Reactions have continued to trail the reported United States–Nigeria collaboration aimed at dislodging terror elements and protecting lives and property. While a large segment of Nigerians from the South and North Central regions welcomed the development, significant opposition emerged from parts of Northern Nigeria. Some northern groups claimed the airstrikes were not directed at terrorists but at innocent civilians who allegedly became casualties. Others framed their objections around issues of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and the true intent behind United States involvement in Nigeria’s security affairs. For many Nigerians, the lingering question is whether the intervention is altruistic or a calculated move to influence Nigeria’s political structure and decision-making in line with American foreign policy interests.
Regardless of the lens through which the intervention is viewed, one fact remains indisputable: insecurity has become a defining feature of Nigerian life. What was once localized has now assumed a pandemic scale, spreading into regions previously resistant to terrorism, particularly the South West. Over recent years, terror elements have expanded operations into Oyo, Ondo, Ekiti, and Ogun states, opening a dangerous new chapter in Nigeria’s security crisis and creating fresh challenges for both government and citizens.
The current terrorism narrative can be traced to Nigeria’s return to democratic rule in 1999, when violent conflicts surfaced under the guise of farmers–herders clashes in the North Central zone. A major turning point occurred in 2009 with the emergence of Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal Jihad, popularly known as Boko Haram. Between 2011 and 2014, the group carried out devastating attacks, bombing public places, police barracks, military formations, and symbolic targets including the United Nations building in Abuja. At its peak, Boko Haram seized territories, declared a caliphate, hoisted flags, and imposed levies on local populations.
Efforts by President Goodluck Jonathan toward the end of his administration focused on degrading Boko Haram, a task continued by his successor, the late President Muhammadu Buhari. While Boko Haram was weakened, new terror formations emerged under Buhari’s watch, notably Fulani killer herdsmen and bandit groups that unleashed violence across the North Central zone, South West, and parts of the South East. Rather than universal condemnation, several northern leaders openly sympathized with these groups, urging Nigerians to “understand” terrorism and learn to live with it.
In 2011, the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Sa’ad Abubakar, cautioned the Jonathan administration against killing Boko Haram members, framing attacks on the group as attacks on Islam and the northern people. He described Boko Haram as Islamists fighting for Islamic rule. Similarly, Kaduna-based cleric Sheikh Ahmed Gumi has consistently advocated negotiation with Fulani bandits, portraying them as aggrieved groups deserving amnesty, drawing parallels with the Niger Delta militancy. Yet, no justification has been provided for the scale of violence unleashed on innocent Nigerians.
Another controversial figure was Isa Pantami, former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, who in sermons between 2010 and 2014 expressed sympathy for extremist leaders and referred to Boko Haram members as “our Muslim brothers.” Though Pantami later recanted upon assuming office, his prior statements raised concerns about placing individuals with documented extremist sympathies in sensitive national roles.
For many northern elites and segments of the population, groups such as Boko Haram, ISWAP, Lakurawa, and Fulani bandits are viewed as Islamic militias pursuing Islamic rule in a secular Nigeria. Their activities also advance an expansionist Fulani agenda aimed at extending influence beyond the North. In a December 12, 2021 interview, Prince Rwang Pam Jr revealed that over 100 Plateau communities were attacked and renamed following the displacement of indigenous populations, reinforcing fears of territorial expansion.
Reports have also surfaced of northern state governments paying ransoms to terrorists. Publications in 2021 quoted former officials admitting that funds were paid to Fulani militias to halt attacks in places like Southern Kaduna and Zamfara. More recently, allegations surfaced that ransom payments were made through the Office of the National Security Adviser, claims later denied. If true, such practices represent the misuse of public funds to strengthen terror networks and advance ethnic agendas at the expense of national security.
Nigeria’s political handling of terrorism suggests either complicity or deliberate tolerance. Boko Haram reached its peak under Jonathan, who admitted in 2012 that the group had infiltrated his government. The late NSA, General Andrew Azazi, blamed insurgency on internal political conflicts, yet no prosecutions followed. Buhari rose to power on promises to end terrorism but allowed new networks to flourish, treating groups like Miyetti Allah with leniency and proposing policies such as RUGA settlements that alarmed many Nigerians.
Under the current administration, despite the appointment of Nuhu Ribadu as NSA, trust breaches persist. Terrorist expansion into Kogi and Kwara states, allegations of arming non-state actors, and admissions by security authorities that weapons were supplied to irregular groups for “community protection” raise fundamental constitutional questions. While regional outfits like Amotekun faced restrictions, non-indigenous armed groups reportedly received sophisticated weapons under official approval.
These developments point to a troubling conclusion: terrorism has become normalized within Nigeria’s political system. It cannot be examined outside the country’s political and religious dynamics. Ending it requires seriousness, transparency, accountability, and above all, the political will to confront the gravest threat Nigeria has faced since independence.
