Nigeria is confronted not only with insecurity, terrorism, and banditry, but with a more dangerous crisis: the systematic distortion of truth by influential elites whose public utterances repeatedly excuse, sanitise, or rationalise violent criminality.
I speak particularly of certain Fulani religious, political, and intellectual figures whose statements on insecurity consistently undermine national resolve and betray constitutional responsibility.
For the avoidance of doubt, let us deal with verifiable records.
In a widely circulated public statement, Prof. Usman Yusuf stated, inter alia:
“We have entered forests where bandit leaders are located, engaged directly, and witnessed the devastation caused by military operations… In reality these bandits are themselves freedom fighters.”
This is not analysis. This is moral inversion. Armed groups engaged in mass murder, kidnapping, rape, and village destruction are criminals under Nigerian law, not “freedom fighters.” Any narrative that confers legitimacy on them directly contradicts Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution, which makes the security and welfare of the people the primary purpose of government.
Sheikh Ahmad Gumi has, on multiple occasions, publicly advocated negotiation, concessions, and engagement with armed bandits, while attributing their crimes to alleged grievances and state failure.
While dialogue is a policy choice, the persistent humanisation of perpetrators without equal moral outrage for victims has the effect of normalising terror and weakening deterrence. The Constitution does not recognise armed grievance as a defence to mass murder.
Statements attributed to the Sultan of Sokoto have repeatedly emphasised dialogue and restraint, while conspicuously avoiding firm, unequivocal condemnation of terrorist violence and the ideological foundations that sustain it.
Where moral authority exists, silence or ambiguity in the face of evil becomes complicity. Nigerians are entitled to ask whether such utterances comply with Section 15(2) of the Constitution, which mandates national integration and forbids conduct that promotes sectional loyalty above national unity.
4. Political Elites, Including APC Chieftains Several political figures have publicly dismissed insecurity concerns as exaggerated, misunderstood, or politically motivated. Such statements insult victims and amount to state-enabled denialism.
Even former President Muhammadu Buhari was widely criticised for statements that framed the Boko Haram conflict in religious or ideological terms, which many Nigerians reasonably interpreted as reluctance to confront terror with moral clarity. Whether intended or not, such messaging blurred the line between criminality and belief, in violation of Section 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits the adoption of any religion as state policy
Let it be stated clearly:
Terrorism and banditry are criminal offences, not ethnic struggles.
No religion, ethnicity, or cultural narrative excuses mass violence.
Loyalty to Nigeria is loyalty to the Constitution, not to primordial identity.
By Sections 1(1)–(3) of the 1999 Constitution, the Constitution is supreme. Any public narrative religious, ethnic, or political that undermines the security of Nigerians or excuses criminal violence is constitutionally illegitimate.
This is not an attack on any ethnic group. It is an indictment of elite conduct.
Nigeria cannot defeat insecurity while influential voices continue to:
Rationalise terror. , Ethnicise crime
Sanctify violence Or treat killers as negotiating partners instead of criminals
I therefore call on all public figures mentioned, and others similarly situated, to clarify, retract where necessary, and recommit publicly to the supremacy of the Constitution and the sanctity of Nigerian lives.
Anything less is unpatriotic.
Long Live the Federal Republic of Nigeria .
Signed:
Chief Malcolm Emokiniovo Omirhobo
Legal Practitioner & Public Interest Advocate
Nigeria
0 Comments