Dr. Abejide Olusegun
The Governor of Borno State, Professor Babagana Umara Zulum, has once again alarmed the public, highlighting a critical failure within the Nigerian federation: the inability to protect its most vulnerable citizens, even in the face of significant investments in national security. In a nation where billions are allocated to military spending each year, Governor Zulum’s frustrations are not only justified but serve as a stark indictment of the entire national security apparatus.
Borno, historically a bastion of resistance to Fulani expansionism in pre-colonial Nigeria, has endured over a decade of relentless insurgency. The citizens of the ancient Kanem-Bornu Empire, who once bravely defended against centuries of Fulani jihad, now find themselves trapped in a cycle of violence that seems deliberate and tragically unresolved. This alarming situation raises a fundamental question: why has the state failed to defeat the insurgents decisively despite its massive security budget?
Governor Zulum’s grievances underscore a troubling disconnect between federal security funding and the reality on the ground. Despite substantial military budgets, frontline soldiers reportedly lack adequate arms, logistics, and support. Such contradictions are not only unacceptable but also dishonorable. Even more disheartening is the perception among the people of Borno that the federal response has been slow, selective, and lacking in urgency.
To grasp the severity of this situation, one must acknowledge the deeper historical wounds. The Fulani-led jihadist campaigns of the 19th century, which successfully conquered large parts of Hausa territory, faced fierce resistance in Borno. Today, the nature of conflict has evolved. Instead of a visible cavalry charging on horseback, the attack increasingly manifests as a silent war fought through terror cells, political subversion, and internal compromises.
Many Nigerians, especially those from Borno, are alarmed by the issue of dual loyalties among certain individuals responsible for managing national security. Nuhu Ribadu, Nigeria’s current National Security Adviser, exemplifies this fear. Ribadu, a prominent Fulani figure, has long been a polarizing presence in the political landscape—not due to his ethnicity, but because of questions surrounding his past allegiances.
A moment worthy of revisiting occurred in 2010 during Ribadu’s presidential campaign under the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN). In a surprising press conference in Abuja—attended by journalists and party stakeholders from the diaspora, including representatives from the United States—Ribadu announced he was stepping down in favor of General Muhammadu Buhari, the presidential candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC). His reasoning? “It is an abomination for a junior Fulani to contend with a senior Fulani.” This statement shocked many and raised significant concerns about Ribadu’s prioritization of ethnic loyalty over democratic principles and merit.
Having such a leader now oversee Nigeria’s national security, especially amidst a conflict where Fulani-linked insurgents play a central role, is deeply troubling. This is not a personal attack, but rather a legitimate demand for scrutiny and accountability. How can Nigerians, particularly those in Borno, trust that security policies are crafted with noble intentions when their architect has a track record of favoring ethnic hierarchy over national unity? So, Ribadu’s position as head of security warrants scrutiny. The flamboyant attire he often wears is not indicative of a serious security leader. As a core Fulani individual, I question the effectiveness of his actions, suspecting he may be biased towards his Fulani kin.
It is also crucial to consider the implications of historical intermarriage and political compromise in Borno. Borno’s Fulani presence extends beyond its physical boundaries, deeply embedded in its political and social structures. Many influential political figures have Fulani ancestry or alliances, which complicates their loyalties during escalating insurgencies. For instance, Vice President Kashim Shettima is widely believed to have mixed Fulani and Kanuri heritage. While such backgrounds should not disqualify anyone from public service, leaders need to transcend identity politics and transparently advocate for the people they are sworn to protect.
Security expert Dennis Amachree recently questioned how Nigeria continues to experience setbacks in counterinsurgency despite increasing defense budgets. The military’s performance in the northeast remains inadequate, exacerbating citizen disillusionment. What accounts for the continued failure to disrupt known insurgent hideouts? Why do military helicopters mysteriously malfunction or go missing during operations? Why do IDP camps continue to grow while the government claims to be winning the war?
Nigeria is not alone in grappling with such internal contradictions. Colombia endured a decades-long struggle against the FARC, often accused of having sympathizers among certain political elites. However, real progress began when leaders set aside political entanglements and prioritized the nation. Similarly, in Sri Lanka, the defeat of the Tamil Tigers occurred only when national unity became the state’s foremost priority, rather than appeasement or divided loyalties.
Governor Zulum has consistently shown his willingness to challenge the status quo, but now is the time for action. A comprehensive audit of Nigeria’s security leadership is needed. Those in positions of authority must demonstrate their commitment to the nation through tangible results, not mere rhetoric. We should examine Nuhu Ribadu’s situation not based on his background but on his statements and their relevance to his current role.
The Nigerian populace deserves a security framework that prioritizes loyalty to the constitution and the citizens it serves. We must remove individuals whose track records threaten this loyalty if necessary. It is a national shame that political actors at the federal level continue to manipulate Borno, the epicenter of resistance and honor, for their personal gain.
We must also address the ideological warfare that masquerades as ethnic politics. If past Fulani jihad efforts failed to conquer Borno through military means, we cannot allow them to succeed through political manipulation and selective security failures. Nigerians must demand accountability, not solely from bandits but also from those in suits and uniforms who perpetuate insecurity through silence or incompetence.
The message is clear: we need transparency, justice, and unwavering protection for all Nigerians, regardless of their region. Borno has made enough sacrifices. It is time for the Nigerian state to demonstrate its capability to defend its integrity.
Until that happens, the pleas of Borno’s people—and Governor Zulum—will continue to resonate unanswered in the halls of a government that has forgotten the true meaning of service.
Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com