By Sonnie Ekwowusi
Given the avalanche of evidence increasingly visible to Nigerians, it is becoming harder to dismiss the argument that the Nigerian government is complicit—directly or indirectly—in the arming, funding, and emboldening of terrorists who have murdered, maimed, and displaced thousands across the country. At the heart of this crisis lies a constitutional failure: the protection of lives and property, the primary duty of any government, has all but collapsed.
For about ten years, the government has expended immense energy and resources witch-hunting Nnamdi Kanu with single-minded fervour—determined to push him through a kangaroo trial designed to produce a kangaroo conviction. The paradox is that the politically predetermined judgment labels Nnamdi Kanu an “international terrorist,” yet the same government has shown only a fraction of such energy in arresting and convicting the real international terrorists who roam freely across the North-West and North-Central—invading villages, killing pregnant women, abducting infants, and sacking entire communities in Katsina, Nasarawa, Borno, and beyond. Had even half of the government’s zeal toward convicting Nnamdi Kanu been redirected toward confronting these terror gangs, Nigeria’s security landscape might look very different today.
Instead, the government has done the opposite. It has relentlessly witch-hunted Kanu through an arranged, predetermined, and politically motivated kangaroo trial. From the onset, it was obvious that the government had made up its mind to do away with him. Nothing would have rescued Kanu from its blood-stained claws. Judges of the highest courts stand, unblinking, as partisan songs like *On Your Mandate We Shall Stand* are played in their presence—raising serious questions about neutrality, independence, and constitutional ethics.
*International Terrorists Not in Hiding — They Are in Government Meetings*
The international terrorists themselves are hardly in hiding. In several parts of Katsina State and other parts of northern Nigeria, they occupy the homes of the very people they displaced. They levy taxes, enforce illegal tolls, and openly taunt the government, boasting that the state is too weak to challenge them.
Yet, instead of arresting them, the government has rolled out the red carpet—holding “peace meetings,” offering amnesty, enrolling some into the Nigerian Army, and even promising full scholarships abroad for others. In a country where millions of law-abiding youths struggle to access education, the idea of terrorists receiving government-sponsored scholarships is a stark symbol of a failed country.
*Ado Aleru’s Return: A Symbol of a failed country*
Nothing illustrates this failed country more dramatically than the recent reappearance of *Ado Aleru* one of the most notorious international terror kingpins in Katsina State. Long linked to mass killings, mass abductions, and scorched-earth raids, Aleru resurfaced casually at a government “peace meeting,” seated comfortably among state officials.
The images shocked the country: a wanted criminal presented not as a fugitive but as a stakeholder in regional security. For traumatised communities in Katsina, Zamfara, Kaduna, and Sokoto, this spectacle was a profound betrayal. Many wondered aloud:
How does a terrorist on multiple security watchlists walk into a government forum unchallenged?
Who facilitated his movement?
Why are victims burying their dead while perpetrators of terrorism are granted VIP treatment?
*A Fully-armed international Terror Commander Addressing Government Officials*
If *Aleru’s* presence was shocking, the appearance of another notorious international terrorist commander, *Kachalla Ummaru*, was even worse. Fully armed—with rifles and bandoliers strapped across his chest and torso—Ummaru* addressed government officials in Matazu Local Government Area, speaking with the confidence of someone who knows the state has no power over him.
“Truth be told, the government doesn’t care about anyone,” he said. “All it’s after is how to generate money.”
That a heavily armed criminal could issue such an indictment at government-sanctioned meeting speaks volumes. It highlights public disillusionment and exposes the extent to which the government’s authority has eroded.
A Cycle of Failed Peace Deals
Northern Nigeria has now entered a tragic cycle: the state negotiates peace with the very actors who shattered the peace. Instead of reinforcing justice, these talks rehabilitate international terrorists, elevate them as negotiators, and normalise the presence of warlords. Previous attempts—such as the failed Zamfara amnesty, where money and motorcycles were gifted to terror leaders—only led to renewed violence.
Katsina’s current efforts mirror these earlier failures. Rather than confronting terror, the state appears to be conceding to it—an implicit admission of government weakness or complicity.
Terrorists Speak accusing the government of sponsoring them
Then came a statement that stunned even the most seasoned observers. During a separate peace meeting in Charanchi and Batagarawa LGAs, of Katsina State, another terrorist stepped forward and declared, on camera:
“It was the government that turned us into terrorists. It was the government that wanted us to engage in banditry, but now it has called us and told us to stop.”
He went further:
“If the government wants all this insecurity to end, they have the power to end it—but they don’t want it to end.”
Such an admission, delivered openly to government negotiators, strikes at the heart of Nigeria’s security tragedy. Whether fact, exaggeration, or manipulation, the statement reflects a dangerous perception shared by many citizens: that the line between the state and the terror groups has grown disturbingly thin.
A Country at a Crossroads
Nigeria now faces an uncomfortable truth: the government’s handling of terrorism has emboldened criminals, demoralised citizens and implicated the government as a terrorist. When terrorists move freely and speak boldly at official meetings—armed, unrepentant, and unapologetic—it signals a state losing both moral, coercive authority and complicit in high level terrorism.
For the victims burying loved ones in Katsina, Zamfara, and beyond, the message is devastating. Their grief is invisible. Their justice is suspended. And their killers enjoy state platforms.
Until the government abandons failed negotiations, restores the rule of law, and prioritises justice over political expediency, Nigeria’s spiral into insecurity will continue—with devastating consequences for generations to come.
A terrorist’s recent claim that the Nigerian government can end terrorism “whenever it wants” is as explosive as it is unsettling. That such an allegation was made openly—without denial, rebuttal, or even a perfunctory clarification from authorities—deepens long-standing suspicions of state complicity. Whether the statement is propaganda, exaggeration, or a reflection of long-whispered political compromises, it exposes the dangerous ambiguity at the heart of Nigeria’s security crisis. If terrorists can boldly accuse the government of aiding their operations, what more evidence are Nigerians expected to demand?
The Katsina “peace meeting,” where armed commanders strolled into a government facility and issued accusations on camera, mirrors a troubling pattern across northern Nigeria: cosmetic dialogue, indulgent negotiations, and amnesty deals that collapse as quickly as they are announced. Time and again, state officials elevate warlords to the status of community representatives while victims watch justice dissolve into political expediency.
The consequences are predictable. Each flawed peace deal buys only temporary calm before violence resurges. Each concession signals weakness. Each handshake with a wanted terrorist chips away at public trust. Nigerians deserve answers: How do wanted terrorists access government premises so freely? Why do they attend negotiations heavily armed and walk away untouched? Why do inflammatory claims of state involvement in terrorism pass without contradiction? And what kind of “peace” is built on secrecy, impunity, and the blood of citizens?
Insiders who exposed the failed State
Retired Major General Danjuma Ali-Keffi recently added his voice to the chorus of allegations. He claims that after leading operations that tracked Boko Haram’s key figures—including what he called the “real leader” of the group—he was not commended but detained in solitary confinement for 64 days and then forcibly retired. According to him, his team’s operations uncovered not just masterminds but a network of financiers: senior government officials, military officers, and major financial institutions. Once they began exposing the financial pipelines sustaining the terror networks, he said, powerful interests moved swiftly to shut them down and silence the unit.
Retired Commodore Kunle (Oladunle) Olawunmi, a veteran intelligence officer and Professor of Global Security Studies, has issued similar warnings. Having spent decades in military intelligence—including stints at Defence Headquarters, the Defence Intelligence College, and as Deputy Defence Attaché to France—he insists that the government knows the identity of many Boko Haram sponsors. He recalls that former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami once announced plans to prosecute 400 Boko Haram financiers, yet the list was never released and no meaningful trials followed. At the time, the Northern Youths Council issued a 14-day ultimatum demanding that the Buhari administration publish the names. It never did.
Olawunmi alleges that some Boko Haram financiers remain in government: governors, senators, and individuals in the Presidency. He claims their names surfaced during interrogations of insurgents and are known to the DSS, DIA, and other intelligence agencies. He also criticises Defence Headquarters for opening its gates during Juma’at prayers on Fridays, arguing that such practices allow terrorists to observe and “profile” military security architecture.
Former Benue State Governor Samuel Ortom echoed these concerns in a Channels TV interview, accusing some Buhari-era cabinet members of sponsoring Boko Haram. He went further: “President Buhari is the worst President when it comes to issues of security and keeping his promises.”
A Pattern of Collusion
For years, Nigerians have heard similar warnings from respected figures. Retired General T. Y. Danjuma—former Chief of Army Staff—publicly accused the security forces of colluding with bandits and terrorists. In a now-viral video, Danjuma declared: “The Armed Forces are not neutral. They collude with the armed bandits that kill Nigerians… If you are depending on the Armed Forces to stop the killings, you will all die one by one.”
Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah once argued that there is no difference between the Buhari government and Boko Haram except that Boko Haram uses bombs.
These are not fringe voices. They are former defence chiefs, state governors, military intelligence veterans, and respected clerics. Their allegations converge on one alarming theme: Nigeria’s terrorism problem is not merely a failure of capacity—it is a failure of will, and perhaps even a failure of integrity at the highest levels of the state.
Until government officials confront these accusations directly, transparently, and with verifiable action, Nigerians will continue to ask the question that refuses to die: Who is truly fighting for Nigeria, and who is fighting against it?
When former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy Dr. Isa Pantami was exposed referring to Boko Haram militants as “fellow Muslims,” public outrage was swift. Yet, instead of suspending him pending investigation, the Buhari administration closed ranks and shielded him. This is the same Pantami long accused of praising Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and allegedly attempting to procure arms during the administration of the late Governor Patrick Yakowa to wage a jihad in Kaduna State. Each allegation was swept aside with political ease.
Former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank, Dr. Obadiah Mailafia, told Nigerians that a serving northern governor was a Boko Haram commander. He warned that Boko Haram and the so-called bandits operate as one structure—airlifting ammunition, money, and supplies even during the COVID-19 lockdown while the country remained ostensibly shut down. According to him, the militants had already infiltrated the rainforests of the South and were preparing a second phase: invading urban centres and assassinating prominent citizens.
Rather than investigate, the Buhari administration dismissed him.
The consequences of that silence are well documented. For eight years, heavily armed Fulani herdsmen and allied militias—some arriving from Niger Republic—unleashed unrestrained violence across Nigeria: killings, kidnappings, rapes, land seizures, and village invasions. Communities begged the Federal Government to formally designate these AK-47-wielding militias as terrorists. Buhari refused. The killings escalated.
On May 30, 2021, Fulani herdsmen stormed three border communities in Benue State, killing and injuring scores. A day earlier, at least 42 people were slaughtered in Katsina-Ala and Gwer West. The following month, residents of Igangan in Oyo State suffered yet another massacre.
The government’s response? Silence—an eerie, consistent silence that Nigerians have come to recognise as acquiescence.
Even more troubling was the admission by prominent Islamic cleric Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, who said on national television that the Federal Government knows exactly where the bandits and terrorist herdsmen are located. Gumi, who had repeatedly accessed their camps with no resistance, insisted that the government deliberately chose not to act.
Conclusion
After years of bloodshed, Nigerians are owed answers. Why are terrorists declared wanted moving freely? Why do military operations mysteriously halt whenever high-profile terrorists are within reach? Why does the government negotiate under the table with those who leave mass graves in their wake?
The federal and state governments should explain to the Nigerian people why they have refused to arrest and prosecute the international terrorists attending their “peace meetings”. Nigeria cannot continue operating a dual system where victims bury their dead while terrorists sit comfortably at “peace meetings.”
Peace built on allowing terrorists to go scot free is no peace at all. It is peace from the grave yard.
Nigeria’s path to stability lies in arresting terrorists and sentencing them upon conviction. Government must re-establish the authority of the state, dismantle the political networks protecting armed groups, and rebuild a security architecture capable of defending citizens—not bargaining with their killers. Government should stop bargaining with international terrorists. If the government has jailed Nnamdi Kanu it must also arrest and jail the terrorists killing and maiming Nigerians day by day.
Until the country confronts its failures honestly, these peace parades will remain empty rituals. Figures like Ado Aleru and Kachalla Ummaru will continue to kill their victims. Their unchecked power serves as a stark reminder of a failed country.
As long as terrorists occupy negotiation tables while victims mourn at mass graves, Nigeria will remain under the grid lock of terrorism.
Follow us on all social media platforms @dailyquery for news and analyses around the globe.
