News
FOREIGN POLICY AND THE PATH TO PEACE IN A DANGEROUS NEIGHBOURHOOD
FOREIGN POLICY AND THE PATH TO PEACE IN A DANGEROUS NEIGHBOURHOOD
By: Michael
Mike
Nigeria’s foreign policy to promote peace and prosperity is a constitutional obligation as much as it is a considered and sensible manifesto pledge, writes Hon Yusuf Tuggar, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I was born in a civil war and was not able to vote for my leader until I was in my 30s. Nigeria is now a country guided by the rule of law and a constitution that clearly defines our system of government. This includes our foreign policy objectives, and rightly so, because in an interconnected world, we define our sovereignty in the context of certain, key principles: our right to self-determination; our right to defend our autonomy and secure our borders; and responsibility to respect our obligations under international law.
As foreign minister, I think these provisions are not just reasonable but vital – both for our own democracy, domestic peace and prosperity but also for a more just and stable international order. But the point is this: it is the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, not the manifesto of a political party or predilections of a particular politician, that lays out these provisions. In a democracy, we have the privilege of healthy debate about our values, policies and performance. But if we are to live up to the responsibilities that come with democracy, that debate should be informed, fair and reasonable.
I respect the Constitution and its vision for Nigeria’s place in the international community, as do many of us. It has been an honour and a privilege to protect and promote those constitutional principles. They are the best guarantees for legitimacy, and the authority all governments need if they are to deliver. It is complex and time consuming. To our cost, we have learnt that there are no short cuts. Some Nigerians find fault in our Constitution, while others seek to amend it. There is always room for serious debate in a healthy democracy. But the fact remains it is the very document that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and every public official has sworn to uphold since 1999.
Nigeria’s Constitution declares that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria, from whom government, through this Constitution, derives all its powers and authority. The same Chapter of the Constitution goes on to state Nigeria’s five foreign policy objectives: promotion and protection of the national interest, African integration and support for African unity, promotion of international cooperation for peace and mutual respect, respect of international law and treaty obligations and promotion of a just world economic order. Those who suggest Nigeria does not have a foreign policy or those who agitate for a shift away from an Afro-centric foreign policy are wrong; either they are ill-informed, or deliberately disingenuous.
The irony of it all is that Nigerians are able to speak in support of our military-ruled neighbours, governed without constitutions, precisely because Chapter Four of our own constitution guarantees them these rights and freedoms. This is not the same for the citizens ruled by the very regimes for which they seek to cheerlead of those countries governed without constitutions. Nigerians who are older than 30 know this to be true because we have been there, done that. Somehow in the passage of time, some forget that the military regime here that despatched troops to restore democracy in Sierra Leone and Liberia in the 1990s had first – and by force – taken that same democracy and rule of law away from us – just as military regimes continue to do the world over.
The Constitution also makes clear why any responsible Nigerian government should be concerned when neighbours are governed without a constitution or codified rules. It goes without saying that the sovereignty of our neighbours is their business. They can grant powers to whatever governing structures they deem fit and should expect their autonomy to remain safeguarded. But when our Interdependence Sovereignty overlaps, we equally have a right to exercise control over our borders in those cases where neighbours face insurgencies that significantly comprise territorial integrity and state authority.
International Legal Sovereignty also becomes an issue when we consider that respect for international law and treaty obligations is one of our irreducible foreign policy objectives. This is not the Tinubu administration’s foreign policy; it is a constitutional provision that every Nigerian President and government official swears to uphold. Nigeria is a member of ECOWAS, which is founded on treaties and protocols to which our foreign policy objectives commit us. All 15 member countries are signatory to the treaties and protocols, which is why it was no surprise that President Tinubu, as one who swore to uphold the Constitution, abided by it when ECOWAS leaders collectively objected to Unconstitutional Changes of Government.
In reality, the contemporary nation-state system is highly competitive and Nigeria exists in a self-help world. Our Constitution and international laws are meant to serve as guard rails in navigating the system. And by virtue of our size, we have the additional responsibility of being the regional power. Regardless of how some may try to diminish our standing, it is the way other countries perceive us. Our Constitution further reifies this leadership role right from the preamble- dedicating ourselves to promoting inter-African solidarity, to the foreign policy objectives- promotion of African integration and support for African unity and elimination of discrimination in all its manifestations.
The Tinubu administration comes at a time when an interlocking suite of occurrences have made our neighbourhood less secure; implosion of Libya, failure of the EU Sahel Strategy, terrorism and criminal gangs, effects of climate change and population explosion. Nigeria did not create these challenges and was equally contending with its own domestic issue as these challenges escalated. Nigeria was not part of Operation Barkhane or the G5 in the Sahel, which were intended as efforts to fight terrorism and irregular migration but instead strengthened some irridentist Azawad/Tuareg groups that controlled border areas. This created a cauldron of disharmony between them and their national militaries, trained for a lifetime to keep their countries intact.
Nor was Nigeria part of the Partnership Framework with Third countries that conditioned aid and trade deals for Sahelian migration transit states in exchange for reducing the flow of migrants, with penalties for those who do not comply. In the case of Niger, a moment of truth was the passing of Law 2015-36 in May 2015 when its government, in consultation with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and technical and financial support from the European Union and its member states, criminalized ancillary activities of the migration economy, such as providing transportation and accommodation to foreign nationals anywhere north of Agadez, in direct contravention of ECOWAS Protocol on the free movement of people. They were persuaded to use a blunt hammer to crack a delicate nut. There is a highly politicised migration crisis in parts of Europe, that together we can and should resolve. But it was reckless to seek to solve one problem by creating another.
There is a reason why we have free movement in West Africa; seasonal migration- referred to in Hausa as ‘Ci Rani’. Seasonal migration in the semi-arid Sahel can be a matter of life and death, which is why we have always had turbaned Tuaregs going as far as Lagos and Port Harcourt to work as Maigadis (security) during the dry months, only to return back north during the rainy season. The weaponisation of sub-Saharan migration in Europe as a political tool led to the securitisation of the Sahel region, further exacerbating the security situation by forcing many of those affected to turn to criminal activities and terrorism. European migration figures show majority of migrants are from Syria, Afghanistan and Central Asia, not sub-Saharan Africa.
Yes, we need to work with our Sahelian neighbours to fight terrorism, by maintaining a right of pursuit into each others territories. But it would be myopic to think of this in absolutist terms, because we can accede to all conditionalities laid by them, it would still not be enough to tackle the challenges without a lasting solution to the bifurcated Libyan State as a source of weapons, training and fighters, as well as the shadowy involvement of a range of other state and non-state actors.
To achieve a lasting peace in Libya and the Sahel, Nigeria needs to deal with all the countries in the neighbourhood as well as all the major powers. For this reason, it does not make sense to simply deduce that Nigeria has to distance itself from France because that is the prevailing trend in its former colonies. The fulcrum of the Tinubu administration’s foreign policy is Strategic Autonomy, providing us with the clarity to engage with any and all nations based on our national interests and not those of others. As a nation, Nigeria is adult enough and sophisticated enough to deal with countries without being unduly influenced, because that has been part of our historical and civic tradition. You cannot cure an illness by picking which symptoms to consider and which to ignore.
Nigeria and ECOWAS will continue diplomatic efforts towards Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. At a minimum, we have shared interest in peaceful co-existence. President Tinubu has sent a number of high-level delegations that included a former Head of State, traditional rulers and religious scholars. President Tinubu pushed for the unconditional removal of ECOWAS sanctions imposed on Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. What he has consistently asked of the countries in question is for them to come up with a timetable for the restoration of constitutional rule and, in the case of Niger, the release of ousted President Bazoum.
Their response was to declare their intention to leave ECOWAS. With the one-year notice period coming to an end in January 2025, President Tinubu further pushed for ECOWAS to extend the grace period for another six months whilst intensifying diplomatic efforts. The response to this initiative last month was evidence-free allegations that Nigeria was harbouring foreign soldiers and as sponsoring state terrorism. Whenever President Tinubu and other democratic leaders offer stoic statesmanship and an opportunity to work together towards our common interests, it is met by confected controversy designed to divert and distract from a failure to meet the basic responsibilities of public administration. I know why coup leaders might seek to do that: it’s harder to understand the motives of apologists closer to home.
On my part, since assuming the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs on 21st August 2023, I have engaged diplomatically without pause, proposing personal visits and inviting senior government officials and representatives. Response has been akin to a diplomatic cold shoulder. We constituted a ministerial advisory committee that visited Niger and Mali and facilitated the visit of the Nigerian CDS to meet with his counterpart in Niamey. I regret that a proposed return visit was suspended by Niger after a date had been set. But let there be no doubt: we will continue to pursue diplomatic efforts assiduously, with a Ministry of Foreign Affairs that has existed for 67 years.
Nigeria’s principle of strategic autonomy is one that abhors the presence of foreign forces and private military companies in our region, whether from east or west. Nigeria presently has troops on peace keeping operations in Guinea Bissau and Gambia, with Sierra Leone on the way, where it is also supporting the setting up of a logistics base in Lungi. Nigeria is also leading the actualisation of the ECOWAS standby force, all in an effort to fight terrorism and instability within our region under the rule of law. We work closely with our partners on sharing of intelligence in order to guarantee the same rights and freedoms are enjoyed by all the people of the region.
As several of my colleagues in the region remind me, we are the hegemon, whether we admit it or not. And global politics works almost like physics, with polarity, ordering principles, distribution of power, balancing, etc. Nigeria has never had expansionist tendencies, never been threatening towards our neighbours and always chosen the path of peace and conciliation. This in part may have to do with the makeup of our polity and social fabric. Being such a huge country, we are used to the virtues of principled compromise. It is not by accident that we are the only country on the continent with six former leaders living in peace and harmony within our borders. Diversity, not division, is our strength. This is as true for Nigeria as it is for the smallest of countries – and collectively for all of our region.
FOREIGN POLICY AND THE PATH TO PEACE IN A DANGEROUS NEIGHBOURHOOD
News
Troops repel bandits’ attack in AgatuBenue
Troops repel bandits’ attack in Agatu
Benue
By Zagazola Makama
Troops of the Nigerian Army, in collaboration with the police, repelled an attack by suspected armed bandits on a joint patrol team in Agatu Local Government Area of Benue State.
Security sources said the incident occurred at about 9:00 a.m. on April 4, when the troops on routine patrol encountered the armed bandits.
According to the sources, the bandits opened fire on sighting the troops, leading to a gun duel.
“The troops responded decisively, forcing the bandits to retreat after a brief exchange of fire,” the source said.
The attackers reportedly fled through a nearby river, taking advantage of the difficult terrain.
The sources confirmed that no casualty was recorded among the troops during the encounter.
Following the incident, troops have intensified patrols and commenced combing operations in surrounding bushes to track down the fleeing suspects.
The operation is part of ongoing efforts by the military to curb banditry and sustain peace in the area.
Troops repel bandits’ attack in Agatu
Benue
News
Six more top bandit leaders eliminated alongside Ado Allero’s son in Zamfara offensive
Six more top bandit leaders eliminated alongside Ado Allero’s son in Zamfara offensive
By Zagazola Makama
Additional details have emerged on the identities of notorious bandit leaders eliminated during the recent military offensive in Tsafe Local Government Area of Zamfara State, where the son of feared kingpin Ado Allero and scores of fighters were neutralised.
At the heart of the operation was the elimination of Kachalla Iliya Sarki, the son of Ado Allero, alongside more than 65 fighters and several high-ranking commanders who had long orchestrated attacks, kidnappings, and cattle rustling across Zamfara and neighbouring states.

For years, the forests of Tsafe, Shinkafi, and Zurmi have served as operational bases for heavily armed groups, with Allero’s network emerging as one of the most feared. The death of his son, widely regarded as a rising figure within the hierarchy, is not just a tactical success, it is a symbolic strike at the core of the group’s command structure.
Security sources confirmed that the offensive, which targeted multiple camps in Munhaye and surrounding forest enclaves, led to the elimination of several key commanders.

Among them was Kachalla Biyabiki, a notorious kidnapping kingpin linked to numerous abductions in the western Tsafe axis. Intelligence indicated he had at least 10 victims in captivity at the time of his death, with ransom negotiations ongoing.
Also killed was Kachalla Dogon Bete, a feared field commander known for leading violent raids on rural communities and coordinating cattle rustling operations.
Other commanders neutralised include Kachalla Dan Bakolo, believed to be responsible for arms supply and logistics; Kachalla Na’Isa, a sub-commander involved in enforcement operations; Kachalla Yellow, linked to reprisal attacks; and Kachalla Mudi, associated with kidnapping activities along rural transit routes.

Together, these figures formed a critical part of the operational backbone of banditry in the Tsafe–Shinkafi corridor.
“These individuals were key actors within the network. Their neutralisation has disrupted command and control structures in the area,” a security source said.
The offensive, which targeted multiple camps in Munhaye and surrounding forest enclaves, also resulted in the destruction of hideouts and recovery of weapons and other logistics.
However, security experts warn that the killing of such high-profile figures—particularly the son of Ado Allero—may provoke retaliatory attacks by fleeing elements seeking revenge.
Troops have consequently intensified clearance operations, aerial surveillance, and aggressive patrols across Tsafe, Shinkafi, and adjoining areas to prevent regrouping and forestall possible reprisals.
Efforts are ongoing to track down remaining loyalists and dismantle residual cells operating within the wider Zamfara-Katsina forest corridor.
In Zamfara’s forests, where power shifts quickly and alliances are fluid, today’s victory can only be secured by tomorrow’s vigilance.
Six more top bandit leaders eliminated alongside Ado Allero’s son in Zamfara offensive
News
Why truth, not narratives, will end the killings in Plateau’s endless cycle of bloodshed
Why truth, not narratives, will end the killings in Plateau’s endless cycle of bloodshed
By Zagazola Makama
In Plateau State, the sound of gunfire is no longer shocking. It is expected. What follows each incident has also become predictable outrage, media attention, blames and accusations, as well as a rush to frame the tragedy within familiar narratives.
The latest reports of miners lynched by unknown gunmen have once again drawn national and international attention. Youth leaders, clerics, and advocacy groups are already describing the incident in sweeping terms, some branding it as genocide.
But beneath the headlines lies a more complicated and more troubling reality. Plateau is not witnessing isolated acts of violence. It is caught in a deeply entrenched cycle of reprisals, where attacks and counter-attacks have become the norm, and where truth is often buried beneath sentiment and selective narratives.
In the early hours of April 3, troops responded to a distress call from Sabongida village in Jos South Local Government Area. What they found was grim: the lifeless, beheaded body of a 30-year-old herder, identified as Shafiyu, lying in the bush. Security sources indicated that the killing was allegedly carried out by suspected Berom youths. Before the shock of that incident could settle, retaliation came swiftly.
Later that same day, armed men attacked an illegal mining site in Gyel village, Riyom Local Government Area. Three miners, including Samuel Davou, were killed in cold blood, while others fled for safety as troops moved in to secure the area. What might appear as separate incidents are, in reality, part of a continuous chain of violence, one feeding directly into the other.
Across Plateau, recent events reveal a troubling pattern that has defined the conflict for years.
On March 25, the body of Abdullahi Mohammed , a Fulani boy, was discovered in a shallow grave in Mangu Local Government Area, raising suspicions of targeted killing. On the same day in Riyom, irrigation farms belonging to several farmers were destroyed, by Fulani herdsmen, an act capable of provoking immediate retaliation.
Three days later, on March 28, gunmen assassinated Alhaji Bilyaminu Julde, a prominent Fulani community leader and Ardo of Gindiri, in Barkin Ladi. The attack, carried out at his residence, sent ignited tensions through the Fulani community and set off alarm bells across the state.
That same day, another flashpoint emerged in Riyom, where stray cattle destroyed farmlands in Tahoss village an incident that further strained relations between farmers and herders.
By April 2, violence had escalated again. In Bokkos Local Government Area, troops foiled an attack by suspected armed herders following a clash with vigilantes over grazing disputes. One vigilante sustained gunshot injuries.
Then came April 3, a day that encapsulated the crisis. Aside from the killing of the herder in Sabongida and the retaliatory attack on miners in Gyel, more killing were reported in Jos South.
On the same day, troops in Barkin Ladi recovered suspected rustled cattle reportedly taken by the Birom armed militia, while in Riyom, another Fulani youth was allegedly killed in an isolated attack. Each of these incidents is not just an entry in a security log. They are links in a chain, each one strengthening the justification for the next.
The Plateau conflict has increasingly been framed through singular lenses, often ethnic or religious. While these dimensions exist, they do not fully capture the complexity of what is happening on the ground. What emerges from security reports and field accounts is a cycle of reciprocal violence involving armed elements across communities. Fulani herders have been attacked and killed. Berom farmers and miners have also been targeted in deadly reprisals.
Yet, public discourse often pointing fongers only one side of the suffering.
This selective framing creates a dangerous distortion. It fuels anger, deepens divisions, and makes reconciliation even more difficult. More importantly, it prevents a clear understanding of the crisis one that is essential for any meaningful solution.
As observed by Simon Kolawole, the conflict has become a cycle of “attacks and counter-attacks, reprisals and counter-reprisals.”
In such an environment, violence becomes normalized. Communities begin to see retaliation not as a crime, but as justice.
Without accountability, peace remains elusive,”he said in his latest article, titled The Killing fields in plateau State.
In Plateau State, the search for peace has become a long, uncertain journey with no immediate destination in sight. Despite sustained military deployments and repeated calls for calm, deadly attacks continue to rage across communities, reinforcing a grim reality: this is a conflict deeply rooted in cycles of violence, mistrust, and silence.
For many residents, the first instinct after every attack is to look toward the government, Security forces and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Questions are asked why were the troops not there? Why was the intelligence not acted upon? Why are communities left exposed?
These concerns are valid. The primary responsibility of any government is the protection of lives and property. Yet, beneath these criticisms lies a difficult truth that is often left unspoken. In many cases, the same communities that demand protection are unwilling to confront the problem from within.
Across flashpoints in Riyom, Barkin Ladi, Bokkos, and Mangu, patterns have consistent which suggest that perpetrators of violence are not faceless outsiders operating in isolation. They are often known by name, by face, by affiliation. But they are rarely exposed. Instead, a culture of silence prevails. Fear, loyalty, and sometimes complicity prevent communities from identifying or handing over those responsible for attacks.
This silence creates a protective shield around perpetrators, allowing them to strike repeatedly without consequences. The result is a dangerous cycle: attacks occur, blame is assigned externally, and the real actors remain embedded within the communities.
There have been instances where youth leaders publicly blamed Fulani groups for atrocities even in cases where the victims themselves were Fulani. Such claims stretch logic and risk undermining credibility. The argument that a group would attack itself, rustle or poison its own livestock, and transport it into rival territory solely to assign blame raises fundamental questions.
While misinformation is a powerful tool in conflict, it cannot fully explain away patterns that are repeatedly documented by security agencies. These narratives, rather than promoting justice, deepen mistrust and inflame passions, making reconciliation more difficult.
This cycle has blurred the lines between victim and aggressor. Communities that mourn their dead today may be accused of launching attacks tomorrow. In such an environment, truth becomes contested, and justice becomes subjective. A herder is killed, reprisal follows.
Miners are attacked, revenge is planned.
Cattle are rustled, retaliation is inevitable. Each incident becomes both consequence and justification.
Intelligence gathering, the backbone of effective security operations depends heavily on local input. When communities withhold information, protect suspects, or distort facts, security agencies are left to operate in the dark.
This creates gaps that perpetrators exploit.
Blaming the government alone, without acknowledging this dynamic, presents an incomplete picture of the crisis.
Security forces have remained active, responding to distress calls, conducting patrols, and attempting to stabilize volatile areas. Yet, their presence has not been enough to stop the killings. The reality is that no amount of military deployment can fully secure a population that is unwilling to cooperate.
One of the most dangerous drivers of the conflict is impunity. For decades, perpetrators of violence in Plateau have rarely been brought to justice. Killings are recorded, condemned, and eventually forgotten until the next incident occurs.
Community, religious and youths leaders, who should serve as stabilizing forces, are increasingly unable to control armed youth groups. Such interventions are rare and often overshadowed by more powerful forces of anger and revenge. In many cases the leaders are the once directly fueling the crises and encouraging the youths to take up arms to carry out reprisals attacks.
The nature of the Plateau conflict makes it resistant to purely military solutions. This is not a conventional war with clear battle lines. It is a fragmented conflict driven by local grievances, economic competition, and historical mistrust.
Calls for heavy-handed interventions, including suggestions of foreign military involvement, fail to recognize this reality. Force alone cannot resolve a conflict that is rooted in social and communal dynamics.
If Plateau is to break free from this cycle, the first step must be honesty. The violence must be acknowledged for what it is a series of interconnected attacks involving multiple actors, not a one-sided campaign. Only then can meaningful solutions emerge.
This is not just a story of victims and aggressors. It is a story of a society caught in a loop of vengeance, where yesterday’s victim can become today’s perpetrator. Until the truth is confronted in its entirety without bias, without omission peace will remain elusive.
The government must move beyond reactive security measures and take decisive steps to address the root causes of the conflict. This includes ensuring accountability, strengthening intelligence capabilities, and facilitating genuine dialogue among communities.Equally important is the role of local leaders. They must rise above partisan interests and work actively to restrain their followers, promote peace, and reject all forms of violence regardless of who commits them.
Zagazola Makama is a Counter Insurgency Expert and Security Analyst in the Lake Chad Region
Why truth, not narratives, will end the killings in Plateau’s endless cycle of bloodshed
-
News2 years agoRoger Federer’s Shock as DNA Results Reveal Myla and Charlene Are Not His Biological Children
-
Opinions4 years agoTHE PLIGHT OF FARIDA
-
News12 months agoFAILED COUP IN BURKINA FASO: HOW TRAORÉ NARROWLY ESCAPED ASSASSINATION PLOT AMID FOREIGN INTERFERENCE CLAIMS
-
News2 years agoEYN: Rev. Billi, Distortion of History, and The Living Tamarind Tree
-
Opinions4 years agoPOLICE CHARGE ROOMS, A MINTING PRESS
-
ACADEMICS2 years agoA History of Biu” (2015) and The Lingering Bura-Pabir Question (1)
-
Columns2 years agoArmy University Biu: There is certain interest, but certainly not from Borno.
-
Opinions2 years agoTinubu,Shettima: The epidemic of economic, insecurity in Nigeria
