Opinion
War Against Insurgency
Insurgency refers to armed aggression by groups of rebels fighting against the government of their own country. Issues involved in insurgency movements usually have to do with separatist agitations arising from political marginalisation, religious proselytism pursued through armed aggression; land-grabbing banditry and foreign-sponsored expansionist proclivity for economic, religious or political purposes. There is also neocolonialist aspect of insurgency, arising from genetic propensity to lord and rule over other groups, as a civilising mission. Historically, there are wandering and marauding races, with an irresistible urge to expand and conquer others.
It was quite instructive that the National Security Adviser to President Muhammadu Buhari, retired Major General Babagana Monguno, named “Islamic Groups Behind Boko Haram, Terrorism in Nigeria” – The Tide 15/12/2021. Monguno identified Jama’at Nasr al-Islam Wal Muslimin (JNIM), Islamic and Muslim Support Group; and Islamic State in Greater Sahara (ISGS) as organisations behind terrorism in Nigeria and other regions in Africa. Coming from such an eminent public notary, Monguno’s revelation was a confirmation of what many Nigeria’s knew before now.
What retired Major General Babagana Monguno did not say, though relevant, is the position of a global body of Islamic brotherhood, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), on the activities of the named Islamic groups. Considering the huge expense involved in insurgency movements, there is a need to ask about the key motives and goals of the groups behind banditry and terrorism in Nigeria and Africa! What goals do the aggressive groups want to achieve, that can warrant such devotion and commitment? And funding!
As a sovereign and independent nation, whose constitution guarantees freedom of worship, conscience, conviction and associations; is it not an act of aggression that groups of insurgents should hold Nigeria hostage? Over what grouse, to warrant President Muhammadu Buhari to say that: “We’re In Final Phase of War Against Insurgency”? – The Tide, Friday 24/12/2021. Hiding under the nomenclature of banditry, aggressive groups had taken up arms against Nigeria, warranting the launching of a final phase of war against insurgency.
President Buhari, addressing troops at the Air Force Base in Maiduguri, said that “the entire nation remains grateful for the gallantry displayed in ensuring gradual return of peace to the North-East…” The President went on to say: “I urge you also to stay focused to achieve our strategic end-state which is the defeat of all adversaries and restoration of an economically viable North-East Geopolitical Zone …” Obviously groups of insurgents are adversaries who deserve to be treated measure for measure, and in the language they understand.
Nigerians were told that “Brigadier General Dzarma Zirkushu and other personnel of 25 and 28 Task Force Brigades, died on November 13, 2021. Other personnel had also died in other operational areas across the country. Such tragic deaths of members of the nation’s armed forces are sad prices being paid, albeit quite involuntarily, in a war against insurgency. What many Nigerians have wondered about is the classification of IPOB as a terrorist group, while other groups of insurgents are being described as bandits. While the demand of one group is clearly stated in the open, other groups such as those mentioned by Babagana Monguno, have not made a clear declaration of what they want to achieve.
There is yet another aspect of the insurgency issue which many Nigerians are not comfortable about, which is the visible presence of aggressive security personnel in South-Eastern Nigeria, than there are in Boko Haram zones. There had been denials that the Boko Haram and ISWAP species of bandits were being treated with kid-gloves, but many observers are not quite impressed with the antics of the war against insurgency. Someone was also quick to say that naming and shaming sponsors of insurgency-related insecurity in the country is not the priority of the Federal Government. Then what is?
The Burning Grass, a humorous book written by late Cyprian Ekwensi, and published 1962, introduced us to the phenomenon of “Sokugo” or the Wandering disease, whereby Maisunsaye as a fictional character, would embark on wandering from one desert zone to another. Thus, the Boko Haram phenomenon and life style can be a reminder that the wandering disease, as an inexplicable propensity, is not merely a fiction. Whatever that may give rise to “Sokugo” or the wandering disease, its victims, like Maisonsaye, are known to be wanderers, with no settled habitation. Looking for what?
Another issue arising from the war against insurgency is the fact that the Boko Haram and ISWAP variants of insurgents are not always Nigerian citizens. There had been a suggestion in some quarters long ago that the Fulani Ethnic Nationality Movement (FUNAM) had a standing agendum of providing a homeland settlement for all Fulani stock in West Africa. Nigeria featured as being a homeland handed to the Fulani by British colonial administrators. One Badu Salisu Ahmadu, was audacious enough to reveal in 2018 that there was a “Fulani Strike Force ready to claim Nigeria.
For the purposes of mutual trust, security and peaceful co-existence, the Federal Government of Nigeria should rise up to the issue of insurgency and seek to address the demands at stake. A large number of Nigerians believe that former President, retired General Olusegun Obasanjo, did not mean a joke when he alerted Nigerians about Islamisation and Fulanisation agenda, not long ago. Several other individuals and groups have also pointed out the possibility of Boko Haram insurgency being a part of a coordinated plan to enact the Afghanistan tale in Nigeria. Mention of a religious war had also been made.
Another angle from which some observers view the issue of insurgency in Nigeria is that religion and banditry-related insecurity are mere Smoke-screen applied to divert attention away from something else. Thus, hiding under religion and politics, some clandestine economic agenda are being perfected, without the Kingpins allowing themselves to be identified. That Clandestine agendum devolves around Nigeria’s political economy, of which oil and gas resources are the driving power. It is a complex issue involving local and foreign interests, but all said and done, the stakes are quite high.
Late Ken Saro-Wiwa would say that high fences make good neighbours. That local idiom implies that peace and good neighbourliness are fostered where people’s privacies, rights and boundaries are respected. Unfortunately, wandering tribes of humanity, fired by ambition, vanity and “Sokugo” disease, would not allow those they consider weak and vulnerable, have peace. What are the issues at stake in the War against insurgency? Let us face them boldly and with justice!
By: Bright Amirize
Dr Amirize is a retired lecturer from the Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
