After the publication of an article: “Professional Banditry” (The Tide: Monday, December 6, 2021) there came a reaction from a reader, probably a high cleric, with some Italian or Spanish connection. His purpose was to remind me to add, for public information, another species of bandits missed out, namely, the “Muchacho” variant. Like a hit squad, this variant of bandits are actually vicious terrorists who use violent means to pursue and advance political interests and ideological mindset. Usually faceless, they operate like mercenaries, hired and sponsored by groups or powerful interest bent on having their way, no matter the havoc caused.
The caller who also sent a text message, said a number of things that one dare not publish, pointing towards the fact that “bandito Muchacho” use “repentant posture” as a means to gain more grounds. It was not a surprise when military source, same day, told Nigerians that repentant groups of insurgents are not sincere about their claims. Whatever “muchacho” means, from the tone of my caller, violence, aggression, the use of force to make demands, etc, are implied in that expression. Neither is one sure about the actual pronunciation: Muchacho or Muchacha!
The history of insurgency movements in Nigeria can be an interesting study. Beginning with the history of British occupation of Nigeria, it was interesting how the Oil Rivers Protectorate which stretched from Lagos to Calabar, expanded to include the confluence of Rivers Niger and Benue. Under the Royal Niger Company territories, with administrative headquarters in Asaba and seaport at Akassa, there arose a trade war among European nations resulting in a Raid on Akassa in 1896.
Nobody talked about banditry then, even though activities of European traders, explorers and fortune hunters could be called acts of violence, aggression and force, with local people of various communities being at the receiving ends. Michael Crowder, in his West Africa Under Colonial Rule, told us that the Royal Niger Company, largely interested in trade and no aggressive military policy, resorted to “occasional bombardments of those hostile to its commercial policies”. Those hostile to its commercial policies included local communities which resisted the occupation of their lands by foreigners.
By 1895, trade and commercial interests and policies expanded to include ideological issues. Thus, with Joseph Chamberlain as British Colonial Secretary, the use of force took a hypocritical form. Chamberlain’s view was that “You cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs; you cannot destroy the practices of barbarism, of slavery, of superstition which for centuries have desolated the interior of Africa, without the use of force.” Therefore, the use of forceful aggression as an instrument of colonialism used the claim of “barbarism, slavery, superstition”, etc as excuses to attack and take possession of the interior of Nigeria.
One would ask: who began acts of barbarism and slavery in Africa? Wole Soyinka would remind us that our ancient invaders and enslavers were the Europeans and Arabs. Without going into how history was distorted to present Africa in bad light, it would suffice to say that the anonymous caller who introduced the issue of “Bandito Muchacho”, demanded that current trends of neocolonialism be studied. It cannot be denied that powerful interest groups pursue their goals using economic and political influences, whereby weak and unsuspecting groups remain at the receiving ends.
It is a known fact that between 1899 and 1919, there were organised opposition by various local communities in West Africa, against colonial invaders. It is known also that despite the official abolition of slave trade, the slave culture continued in some communities, necessitating organised efforts to stop the practice in the hinterlands. Thereafter the sight of a few” White men with gun-carrying local militia” in the hinterlands evoked suspicion and some hostility among the local communities. Missionaries did their best to help, but the fear arising from past slave raids caused suspicion and hostility among local people.
A part of what my anonymous caller demanded to be investigated included the possibility of armed and security agencies being in the league of “bandito Muchacho”. Obviously the caller was quite serious and wanted to provide some vital clue for further investigation. It was particularly important that a former Army Chief of Staff General T. Y. Danjum, could say that the armed forces are not neutral in the issue of insecurity in Nigeria. For a Muslim group, the Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI), to indict security chiefs for insecurity in the country could not have been without some reasons or facts.
For armed bandits operating in Zumi Local Government Area of Zamfara State to impose a N10 million fine on Zamfara Communities would imply the presence of a parallel government within the Nigerian states. A BBC Hausa Service report was that there was a reconciliation meeting between the people of the communities and representatives of the bandits where loyalty was pledged to the bandits for peace to reign, on payment of the money. Whether the bandits are Boko Haram or any other group of insurgents, their goal or mission is ideological loyalty rather than money.
Like the Muslim group, the Christian Association of Nigeria, (CAN) in 19 Northern States condemned the recent gruesome murder of innocent travelers by bandits in Sokoto State. Truly, how can people be productive when they are living in fear both in their homes and anywhere they go? According to CAN, security agencies have all it takes to defeat the bandits, but why has such feat not been achieved yet? The concept of Bandito Muchacho comes in where there is a suspicion of complicity between official security agencies and the sponsors of insecurity in a country. Afgharistan was cited as an example, where the military supported insurgents.
A coalition of Northern Ethnic Group Assembly (NEYGA) was quoted as lamenting that “Nigeria has been turned into a killing field by these bandits terrorising the country where innocent civilians looking for their daily bread are forced to live in perpetual fear”. That was in response to the setting ablaze of 23 travellers in Sokoto State. Many concerned  Nigerians have asked and wondered why it has become so difficult to deal decisively with the menace of banditry and terrorism in Nigeria, despite the fact that  some of the insurgent and their sponsors are  known to some state authorities. There are unknown sponsors too. Faceless people!
My anonymous caller, reacting to the article on Professional Banditry, stated specifically that there is more to the “politics of banditry than meets the eye”. He went on to ask why there is some reluctance in “naming and shaming sponsors” whose identities are open secret. Thus he wanted readers to be told that “Bandito Muchacho” is an old hide-and- seek business. Whether a business or not, banditry is a serious menace in Nigeria which must be addressed now.

By: Bright Amirize
Dr Amirize is a retired lecturer from the Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.