Fulani bandits are terrorists and not freedom fighters, Let truth be told for once
Fulani bandits are terrorists and not freedom fighters, Let truth be told for once
Professor Usman Yusuf’s recent re‑designation of armed Fulani criminal networks as freedom fighters exposes the political economy at the heart of this violence. His stance, reported to reject a full military campaign against these groups and to describe them as freedom fighters, signals more than a difference in terminology, it suggests complicity with a criminal enterprise that has terrorized ordinary Nigerians. Such framing undercuts accountability and diverts attention from the victims and the state’s duty to protect them.
If his theory of redesignation is to be interrogated seriously, several hard questions must be asked. Who supplied weapons to these armed gangs? What political or financial sponsors benefit from portraying them as freedom fighters rather than terrorists? What grievances do they claim, and who are those grievances truly against, impoverished communities, the government, or hidden political actors? Answering these questions is necessary before recasting clearly criminal actors as legitimate combatants.
Calling them Fulani bandits does not mean they represent all Fulani people. Yet the label itself already denotes a criminal identity, not an ethnic one. The deeper problem is that Yusuf’s rhetoric appears to blur that distinction, allowing a criminal network to claim a political or ethnic mantle. Even more revealing is that such groups have attacked and kidnapped members of their own ethnic group, including rustling Fulani cattle. This self‑evidence contradicts any claim that their actions serve a broader Fulani interest rather than narrow criminal ends.
Professor Yusuf’s personal involvement—reportedly entering forests to meet these armed men without clarifying his motives, raises additional concerns about his role. Rather than serving as neutral peace envoy, his visits leave the public with few plausible conclusions other than that he may be an enabler, beneficiary, or financier of terror. The lack of transparency in such engagements is alarming when the nation faces terrorism, kidnapping, rape, and widespread killings.
The optics are further strained by Yusuf’s association with figures who have been under scrutiny for alleged terror financing. In this context, his warnings against military action and his push for negotiations read less like prudent counsel and more like protection for clandestine interests. If these motives are not exposed, the nation risks repeating the cycle of so‑called peace deals that merely shield sponsors and prolong suffering rather than deliver real security.
Given the scale of the atrocities, armed Fulani criminals operating in the forests must be treated as terrorists, not freedom fighters. No amount of rebranding or rhetorical maneuvering can erase the reality of their heinous acts against civilians. The refusal to acknowledge this reality only emboldens violence and weakens public trust in those who claim to seek peace.
It is therefore proper and urgent for security agencies to examine closely Professor Yusuf’s activities and statements. The Department of State Services, alongside other oversight bodies, should investigate the full context of his forest visits and the basis for his redesignation theory. Until such scrutiny is conducted and the true sponsors of banditry are revealed, the nation cannot afford to entertain or legitimize narratives that effectively whitewash terrorism.
Solomon Dalung, LLM, LLB, BL
Igbarmanotarok & Dike Egwureogwu
Voice of the Silent Majority
igbarman@gmail.com
