Public affairs commentator Mahdi Shehu has sharply criticised the Federal Government’s approach to tackling insecurity, arguing that continued negotiations and concessions to armed groups are deepening Nigeria’s cycle of violence rather than resolving it.
In a post shared on X on Friday, Shehu pointed to what he described as a noticeable escalation in killings across the country in recent months. He claimed that since late 2025—particularly from February 2026—Nigeria has witnessed a “geometric increase” in daily fatalities, affecting both civilians and security personnel.
According to him, the pattern suggests not isolated incidents but a sustained and coordinated wave of attacks, raising questions about the effectiveness of current security strategies.
A System Under Pressure
Shehu’s comments come amid growing public concern over persistent attacks in parts of the North-West, North-Central, and other regions where banditry, communal violence, and insurgency overlap. He argued that Nigeria’s security agencies are struggling to cope with the scale and sophistication of threats.
“All security agencies are overstretched, insufficient in number, and poorly equipped compared to the weaponry in the hands of criminal gangs,” he said.
While the government has repeatedly cited troop deployments and military operations as evidence of its response, critics like Shehu say these efforts are undermined by inconsistent policy signals—particularly the use of negotiations, amnesty deals, and reintegration programmes for armed actors.
Debate Over Amnesty and Negotiation
At the heart of Shehu’s argument is a long-running national debate: whether dialogue with violent groups is a pragmatic necessity or a dangerous concession.
Successive administrations in Nigeria have, at different times, adopted negotiation strategies—ranging from the amnesty programme for Niger Delta militants in 2009 to more recent attempts at dialogue with bandits in northern states. Proponents argue such measures can de-escalate violence and buy time for security reforms. Critics, however, warn they risk legitimising criminality and incentivising further attacks.
Shehu falls firmly in the latter camp. He contends that offering amnesty or recognition to individuals involved in violence sends the wrong signal and weakens deterrence.
“These senseless and orchestrated killings will only be curtailed when governments at all levels stop engaging in what amounts to appeasement,” he said.
Broader Governance Concerns
Beyond security tactics, Shehu linked the worsening crisis to deeper structural issues within Nigeria’s political system. He criticised what he described as a culture of rewarding individuals with questionable records through political appointments, traditional titles, and national honours.
He also pointed to electoral malpractice and judicial inconsistencies as factors that erode public trust and indirectly fuel instability.
“When votes truly count in real time, and when the judiciary refrains from legitimising outcomes that do not reflect the will of the people, we can begin to address the root causes,” he stated.
These claims reflect a wider frustration among sections of the public who see governance failures—not just armed groups—as central to Nigeria’s insecurity challenge.
What Is Known — and What Remains Unclear
While there has been widespread reporting of continued attacks across several regions, comprehensive nationwide data confirming a “geometric increase” in killings over the specific period cited by Shehu remains fragmented. Security agencies have yet to publicly respond to his assertions.
However, multiple incidents in recent months—ranging from village raids to attacks on security formations—have reinforced perceptions that the situation remains volatile.
Implications for Citizens
For ordinary Nigerians, the debate is not abstract. Persistent insecurity affects daily life—limiting farming activities, disrupting trade routes, increasing food prices, and forcing communities to rely on self-help security arrangements.
If Shehu’s argument gains traction, it could intensify pressure on policymakers to abandon negotiation strategies in favour of more force-driven approaches. But such a shift carries its own risks, including potential escalation of violence and humanitarian consequences.
What to Watch Next
The key question is whether the government will recalibrate its strategy or maintain a mixed approach combining military action with dialogue.
Observers will also be watching for:
- Any official response to Shehu’s claims
- New security policy announcements or reforms
- Legislative or judicial actions addressing governance concerns
- Public sentiment, particularly in affected regions
Ultimately, Shehu’s intervention underscores a deeper national dilemma: how to balance immediate security needs with long-term justice and institutional credibility. Until that balance is struck, the cycle of violence—and the debate over how to end it—is likely to persist.
