Defense Minister: Soldiers, citizens applaud General Musa’s renewed vigor in combat strategies.

By: Dr. James Bwala

General Christopher Musa’s recent appointment as Nigeria’s Minister of Defence has sparked optimism among both soldiers and citizens regarding the nation’s ongoing battle against insurgency. In the wake of rising tensions and persistent threats posed by terrorists, his leadership promises a renewed vigor in combat strategies. The developments over the past twenty-four hours have been particularly noteworthy, showcasing an unprecedented advancement in military operations directly stemming from Musa’s directive for soldiers to adopt a shoot-first mentality against terrorists.

The long-standing insurgency problem in Nigeria, primarily attributed to groups such as Bandits, Boko Haram, and ISWAP (Islamic State West Africa Province), has plagued the nation for over a decade. With communities devastated by violent attacks and abductions, many Nigerians have felt a sense of despair and helplessness. However, General Musa’s ascension to the ministerial role appears to align with the need for a more decisive approach towards ensuring national security and restoring hope among the populace.

Musa’s command reflects a significant shift in military strategy. Historically, engagement rules for soldiers often emphasized restraint, prioritizing the protection of civilian lives even in hostile situations. While this is an ethical and principled approach, it can sometimes hinder rapid responses necessary to thwart threats effectively. The new directive allows troops to engage directly and decisively with terrorist elements, focusing on dismantling their operations and enhancing security across affected regions.

In the initial hours following Musa’s orders, military reports indicated successful engagements with terrorist factions. These operations led to the neutralization of known insurgents and the interception of planned attacks targeting vulnerable communities. This immediate efficacy is a testament to the capabilities of Nigerian troops when provided with clear and assertive mandates. The initial outcomes are promising; however, they also raise important discussions around the implications of such military strategies on broader human rights considerations.

The operational changes proposed by General Musa must balance the necessity of aggressive engagement with the imperative of maintaining humanitarian standards. Previous military campaigns against insurgency in Nigeria have faced criticism for collateral damage and civilian casualties. An approach that emphasizes robust action must simultaneously incorporate measures to safeguard innocent lives. For the military to establish credibility and regain public trust, transparency, accountability, and adherence to international humanitarian laws must be central to these operations.

Indeed, Musa’s leadership invites scrutiny into the training and preparation of troops for this evolved methodology. Engaging in direct combat requires not only courage and dedication but also a level of situational awareness and tactical proficiency that can ensure a minimized risk of errors in judgment during high-pressure encounters. Effective training programs and continuous professional development for soldiers will be crucial in making this transition successful.

The response from citizens has been predominantly positive. Many have expressed relief at the prospect of a more aggressive stance against the insurgents that have wreaked havoc on numerous communities. The apparent fortitude in Musa’s strategy has rekindled hope among those living in fear. Citizens expect tangible results that will ultimately lead to the restoration of normalcy in their lives, allowing them to engage in daily activities without the looming threat of violence.

READ ALSO:https://newsng.ng/the-voice-of-dan-balki-an-attempt-to-derail-the-gains-of-building-a-stronger-north-with-vp-kashim-shettima-as-jagoran-arewa/

The civil society organizations, although optimistic, remain vigilant regarding the potential implications of increased military aggressiveness. There is a shared concern about how long-term peace will be achieved if the focus remains primarily on military solutions without addressing the underlying factors contributing to terrorism. Many believe that a comprehensive strategy, which includes social development, education, poverty alleviation, and community engagement, will be essential in countering extremist ideologies that breed such violence.

International observers have noted this juxtaposition—a call for stronger military action while also advocating for thoughtful policy-making that addresses the root causes of insurgency. General Musa’s administration might benefit from reaching out to experts in counterterrorism and community leaders to develop a multifaceted approach that blends military might with social reform initiatives.

Equally important is the need for collaboration between military forces and local communities. Trust-building initiatives could enable local populations to cooperate more effectively with military operations. When communities view the army not merely as an external force but as a protective ally, they are more likely to share critical intelligence that can aid in the identification of insurgent hideouts and prevent potential attacks. Community buy-in, fostered through dialogue and participation in security efforts, will play a vital role in sustainable peace.

In the realm of governance, General Musa’s leadership will necessitate collaboration with other agencies and institutions tasked with national security. Ensuring a cohesive operational framework amongst the police, intelligence services, and military forces is paramount for effective counterinsurgency. This interconnected response can foster an environment where information flows seamlessly, enabling quicker reactions to threats while minimizing miscommunications that may lead to operational failures.

As Musa navigates through his tenure, the overarching objective should remain focused on transforming the security landscape in Nigeria. Public sentiments indicate a readiness for progress, but this must translate into tangible, measurable outcomes. Metrics for success should not only include the number of insurgents neutralized but also improvements in community safety, diminished incidents of violence, and the re-establishment of trust between citizens and the state.

The challenges faced by General Musa as the defense minister are complex and multifaceted. The fresh perspective he brings heralds an opportunity for substantial change in Nigeria’s counterinsurgency efforts. The recent developments seen in the military’s operations within just twenty-four hours are indeed unprecedented and signal the possibility for a more secure future for a nation long afflicted by terror. Throughout this process, the efficacy of military strategies must continuously be weighed against humanitarian principles, fostering a balance that seeks not only to defeat insurgency but also to heal the fractures within the society.

As General Christopher Musa embarks on this critical journey as Defense Minister, the expectations are high, and the stakes even higher. His leadership has the potential to redefine Nigeria’s approach to security, offering hope to millions who long for peace in a region overshadowed by violence. The path ahead will require resilience, integrity, and a commitment to forging a safe and prosperous Nigeria for all its citizens.

* James Bwala, PhD, a security strategy analyst, writes from Abuja.

Defense Minister: Soldiers, citizens applaud General Musa’s renewed vigor in combat strategies.

POLICE TACTICAL UNITS, MILITARY PERSONNEL, AND VIGILANTES DEPLOYED FOR SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS OF THE KIDNAPPED STUDENTS OF GOVERNMENT GIRLS COMPREHENSIVE SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAGA

By: Our Reporter

The police in Kebbi State have said that security forces, including the military, have been deployed with the support from local vigilantes to search for and rescue hundreds of students abducted from GGCSS, Maga, in Kebbi State.

According to a statement from the Police Public Relations Officer, CSP Nafiu Abubakar, the Command got the information on the abduction on the 17th of November, 2025, at about 0400 hrs.

The statement said information received revealed that a gang of armed bandits with sophisticated weapons, shooting sporadically, stormed the Government Girls Comprehensive Secondary School, Maga, Danko district, Danko/Wasagu LGA of Kebbi State.

“The police tactical units deployed in the school engaged them in a gun duel.

“Unfortunately, the suspected bandits had already scaled through the fence of the school and abducted Twenty Five students from their hostel to unknown destination.

“Similarly, one Hassan Makuku ‘m’ was shot dead while Ali Shehu ‘m’ sustained injury in his right hand.”

The statement said upon receiving the unfortunate incident, a combined team of additional police tactical units, military personnel, and vigilantes has been deployed in the area, and they are currently combing the bandits’ routes and nearby forest, with a view to rescue the abducted students and possibly arrest the perpetrators of the dastardly act.

“In the light of the above regrettable incident, the Commissioner of Police, Kebbi State Command, CP Bello M Sani, had reiterated the Command’s unwavering determination in safeguarding the lives and property of the residents of Kebbi State.

“The Commissioner equally appealed to the members of the public to remain calm and vigilant and continue supporting police operations for peace and stability to be maintained.” The statement said.

POLICE TACTICAL UNITS, MILITARY PERSONNEL, AND VIGILANTES DEPLOYED FOR SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS OF THE KIDNAPPED STUDENTS OF GOVERNMENT GIRLS COMPREHENSIVE SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAGA

Trump’s Military Action: Genocide, Hypocrisy, and Blood on Nigeria’s Soil

By: Dr. James Bwala

President Donald Trump has doubled down on military actions following ongoing violence and conflict in Nigeria, particularly in regions like Plateau, Kaduna, and Benue, which have drawn the attention of various groups, including religious communities. The argument put forth by many who identify as Christians in Nigeria centers around whether the killings they face can be classified as genocide. The actions of these bandits, terrorists, or Fulani militia and the silence of some Nigerians irrespective of their position in leadership or the poor affirmatively revealed that these actions warrant such a label. Examining the roles of different organizations, particularly Muslim scholars, leaders, and groups like the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC), which is now calling for the sack of INEC Chairman, Professor Josh Amupitan; the Jama’atul Nasrul’la, which is almost nonexistent; as well as the broader implications of American military presence or presence in Nigeria calls for redoubling down indeed. 

I believe that it is critical to define what constitutes genocide according to international law. The United Nations defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. This includes killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Given the systematic targeting of Christians in areas such as Plateau, Benue, Kaduna, and other places, one could argue that these attacks meet the criteria for genocide. 

READ ALSO:https://newsng.ng/harassment-of-muslim-women-in-maiduguri-hospitals-an-assertion-amidst-an-alarming-increase-in-terrorist-activities-in-nigerias-northeastern-region/

Reports from various human rights organizations indicate a pattern of violence against Christians that suggests an organized effort to eliminate their presence in certain regions. These are facts facing us, which we cannot deny. The use of terror tactics, mass killings, and displacement aligns with the characteristics of genocide as outlined by the UN. Indeed, the persistent nature of these attacks over time raises questions about the intentions behind them, reinforcing the argument that Christians in Nigeria have a legitimate claim to label these acts as genocide.

The argument for calling these acts genocide is not solely based on the statistics of violence but also on the response—or lack thereof—from other religious groups. For example, while groups like MURIC have vocally addressed issues impacting Muslims, particularly in relation to the hijab controversy and recently the case of harassment of female Muslims regarding routine checks before entry into some hospitals in Maiduguri for security purposes, there has been a conspicuous silence regarding the atrocities of banditry and other terrorist groups committed against Muslims by these same organizations. This silence in response to Muslim killings invites skepticism regarding the motivations and priorities of these organizations. It raises the question: why do Muslim scholars or groups remain silent when Muslims are victimized by bandits, Fulani militia, and Boko Haram but are quick to respond to grievances on other grounds without looking at the weighty things? This inconsistency is indicative of a deeper hypocrisy, suggesting that these groups may be selective in their advocacy based on who is affected, even if Muslim, rather than the universal principle of fighting against injustice for all classes of Muslims.

It is rather essential to understand the sociopolitical context in which these killings occur. Nigeria is characterized by a complex tapestry of ethnic and religious identities, with tensions frequently surfacing between the predominantly Muslim North and the predominantly Christian South. This divide has been exacerbated by economic hardship, political corruption, and increasing competition for resources. In this volatile environment, the actions of armed groups—often labeled as “bandits” or “Fulani militias”—have plunged the nation into chaos, with significant consequences for interreligious relations. The failure of organizations like MURIC and others to condemn violence perpetrated by bandits and terrorists, even against Muslims, or to address this violence by terrorists against the Muslims also calls for questioning regarding what Professor Akintola and his MURIC stand for. Such stands indeed raise troubling questions about the Islamic wing’s and Christian groups’ genuine commitment to justice and community welfare and, indeed, the concerns for Muslims, as Professor Akintola has shown, or which he claimed to be standing on, revealed he is only standing on his own political and business gains and not for any Muslims being victimized daily by bandits. 

The passivity exhibited by some Muslim leaders in denouncing violence within their ranks signals complicity or at least a reluctance to hold their community accountable when it comes to dealing with evil because killing, especially of innocent people, as carried out by these bandits, is the greatest evil against mankind. Such a stance does not foster an inclusive approach to resolving grievances. Instead, it entrenches divisions and fuels cycles of doubt. This, in turn, undermines efforts toward national healing and reconciliation. Without collective action against all forms of terrorism, Nigeria will continue to face escalated violence, making it increasingly challenging to address the root causes of these evils going on and perpetrated by enemies of peace, or whatever names we call them. The results we are getting now with our armed forces rising to the occasion areindicative of the capability of our soldiers to deal with the situations given the support. 

READ ALSO: https://ebonyheraldnewsonline.com.ng/the-kidnapped-kebbi-deputy-speaker-breath-air-of-freedom-by-jamil-gulma-kebbi/

What we are struggling with now, the fear that the American military boots may be seen on our soil, is the case of invoking the UN RnP. The shame of not being able to clean up our mess is that someone else is coming to clean it up for us. That is the ‘disgrace’ Trump allegedly said about us. Indeed, the role of external actors—most notably the presence of American military forces—has stirred debate about intervention strategies in Nigeria. The arrival of American soldiers, if they come, serves both as a sign of hope and as a contentious issue. For many Nigerians, particularly those suffering under the weight of banditry and terrorism, the presence of foreign military personnel signals a potential turning point in the fight against armed groups. There is an expectation that U.S. forces can aid in dismantling the networks of violence and restoring a semblance of peace.

However, this brings up important ethical considerations. Interventions are often fraught with the risk of achieving unintended consequences. If not approached delicately, increased militarization might further exacerbate existing tensions between religious groups, especially if perceptions emerge that foreign troops are intervening in a manner that favors one group over the other. Therefore, the intervention must be accompanied by dialogues aimed at building bridges between communities and addressing historical grievances. Failure to consider the local nuances could lead to a wider rift, countering the very objectives of stabilizing the regions.

The engagement of international communities—including Western nations—is imperative in helping stabilize Nigeria but should be carefully measured. The focus should remain on humanitarian aid, support for local peace-building efforts, and facilitating interfaith dialogues. While military action can neutralize immediate threats, long-term solutions require cooperation among diverse groups within Nigeria and sustained dialogue about shared grievances and aspirations.

READ ALSO:https://newsng.ng/asuu-like-pengasan-and-the-unending-trauma-of-the-nigerian-federal-university-students/

The situation faced by Christians in Plateau, Kaduna, and Benue does qualify as genocide under international definitions, highlighting an alarming trend of targeted violence against religious minorities. The silence of groups such as MURIC illustrates a troubling hypocrisy that suggests selective outrage confined to ethnoreligious identity.  While the presence of American military forces may offer hope for mitigating the influence of violent extremist groups, it must be accompanied by comprehensive strategies that recognize the complex socio-political landscape of Nigeria. Ultimately, genuine reconciliation will require the collaboration of all parties involved—Christians, Muslims, and international actors—to forge a path towards an inclusive and peaceful society that respects the rights of every individual, irrespective of their faith.

* James Bwala, PhD, a security strategy analyst, writes from Abuja.

Trump’s Military Action: Genocide, Hypocrisy, and Blood on Nigeria’s Soil