Controversial Islamic cleric, Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, has said that he and other religious leaders can no longer play any role in negotiating with bandits operating across parts of northern Nigeria, blaming the Federal Government’s decision to classify the criminals as terrorists.
Gumi, who has in the past held meetings with armed groups in a bid to persuade them to embrace peace, argued that the government’s approach had shut down one of the few remaining channels for dialogue.
Speaking in a viral video circulating online, the Kaduna-based cleric expressed concern that the terrorism designation could worsen the security crisis rather than bring it to an end.
“We don’t want to push them into terror beyond what they are doing now because it can get worse,” he said.
According to him, some of the armed groups had previously shown a willingness to engage in dialogue and negotiate an end to hostilities.
“They have shown us their willingness to negotiate, so people that are ready to negotiate, why are you rushing to declare them bandits so that you can use whatever weapons you bought,” he stated.
Gumi further claimed that before the terrorism designation, some bandits had assisted security agencies by handing over suspected Boko Haram members to authorities in Zamfara State.
“Before they used to catch Boko Haram and present them to the authorities in Zamfara, but now they are all terrorists,” he said.
He added that the declaration had effectively ended the involvement of clerics who had previously attempted to mediate between the government and armed groups.
“Secondly, the only door that is remaining is for us clergy to go in and negotiate with them, that is closed permanently,” Gumi said.
The Islamic scholar has remained one of the most controversial voices in Nigeria’s response to banditry. Over the years, he visited several forest camps in the North-West to meet with armed groups responsible for kidnappings, cattle rustling and attacks on rural communities.
He consistently argued that many of the bandits were willing to lay down their arms if their grievances were addressed through dialogue and reconciliation. His position, however, attracted criticism from many Nigerians who accused him of appearing sympathetic to criminals and undermining justice for victims.
Several groups, including victims of attacks and civil society organisations, had repeatedly opposed negotiations with bandits, insisting that violent criminals should be arrested and prosecuted rather than engaged in peace talks.
Nigeria’s security challenges have grown increasingly complex over the past decade. While the North-East has battled the insurgency by Boko Haram and its splinter group, the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), states in the North-West and parts of the North-Central have faced rising attacks by heavily armed bandit groups.
The bandits have been blamed for mass abductions of schoolchildren, attacks on villages, killings, destruction of property and the displacement of thousands of residents.
In November 2021, the Federal High Court in Abuja granted an application by the Federal Government to declare bandit groups as terrorists. The order followed increasing attacks across the country and gave security agencies broader legal powers to pursue and prosecute members and supporters of the groups.
Following the court ruling, the government intensified military operations against criminal gangs in forests spanning Zamfara, Kaduna, Katsina, Niger and other affected states.
Successive administrations have maintained that there would be no blanket amnesty for terrorists and that military pressure remains necessary to restore peace and protect communities under siege.
However, the debate over whether dialogue should complement military action has continued to divide opinion.
Supporters of negotiations argue that talks could encourage surrender, reduce violence and secure the release of kidnapped victims. They point to previous peace initiatives in some states that temporarily reduced attacks.
Critics, on the other hand, insist that negotiations often embolden criminal groups, allow them to regroup and create the impression that violence is rewarded. They argue that many agreements reached in the past collapsed shortly after they were signed, leading to fresh attacks.
As security forces continue operations against bandits and terrorist groups, questions remain over whether a combination of military action and dialogue can bring lasting peace, or whether the government should maintain its hardline stance against armed groups.