By Austine Agbo Emmanuel, Kaduna
Nigeria’s worsening insecurity continues to test the nation’s conscience and the credibility of its security architecture.
From Benue to Plateau, and from parts of Kaduna to Zamfara, communities have been subjected to repeated mass killings, abductions, and displacement.
Entire villages have been overrun by armed groups whose operations have become increasingly sophisticated and brutal, leaving behind trails of grief, fear, and unanswered questions. This tragedy is no longer episodic; it has assumed a frightening pattern suggesting deep-rooted failures beyond the battlefield.
The persistent attacks in Benue and Plateau States are particularly troubling. These are not isolated criminal incidents but coordinated assaults that wipe out families, destroy livelihoods, and fracture communal coexistence. Each new massacre reinforces the public perception that the Nigerian state is struggling to fulfill its most basic constitutional responsibility, the protection of lives and property. Across these regions, the silence of the graveyards has become louder than official assurances.
It was against this grim backdrop that former United States President Donald Trump issued a warning regarding the killing of Christians and the risk of genocide in Nigeria. While the Nigerian government rejected the framing of the violence as religiously motivated, Trump’s comments resonated globally, reigniting international scrutiny of Nigeria’s security crisis. Whether viewed as a political statement or a moral alarm, the warning underscored how Nigeria’s internal failures have become external concerns.
Tensions escalated further following reports of United States military intervention, specifically airstrikes targeting terrorist enclaves in parts of northern Nigeria on Christmas Day. The symbolism of the timing was striking, while Christians around the world marked the birth of Christ, military jets were striking terrorist positions in Nigeria. Supporters of the intervention argued that it demonstrated international solidarity against terror, filling gaps Nigeria has struggled to close. Critics, however, raised concerns about sovereignty, foreign interests, and the long-term implications of an external military presence.
Amid these developments, Rev. Joseph John Hayab, Chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in the 19 Northern States and the FCT, struck a measured yet firm tone. In his Christmas message, Hayab acknowledged the sacrifices of security forces but insisted that military action alone cannot end terrorism. He called on the Federal Government to carry out a sincere, transparent, and courageous probe into terror financiers.
According to him, peace will remain elusive as long as those who fund, protect, or politically shield terror networks walk free. His position effectively shifted the debate from gunfire to governance, accountability, and moral responsibility.
In sharp contrast, Islamic cleric Sheikh Ahmad Gumi openly opposed foreign military involvement, particularly by the United States. He warned that permitting foreign powers to conduct military operations on Nigerian soil could transform the country into a theatre of international conflict and worsen insecurity. Gumi maintained that terrorism in Nigeria should be handled internally through dialogue and strategic reforms rather than foreign firepower.
His stance, consistent with his earlier advocacy for engagement with armed groups, continues to provoke strong reactions, especially from victims of terror who view negotiation as appeasement.
One of the strongest responses came from Dr. Paul Enenche, Senior Pastor of Dunamis International Gospel Centre. Reacting to the airstrikes and the broader security debate, Enenche argued that terrorists, their sponsors, sympathizers, and negotiators should be treated as one and the same. He asserted that anyone who speaks for or defends violent criminals shares responsibility for their crimes. His position reflects growing public frustration and a demand for a zero-tolerance approach to terror, particularly among communities that have suffered repeated losses.
Collectively, these voices expose the deep fissures in Nigeria’s approach to insecurity. There is the military option, the diplomatic argument, the call for justice and accountability, and the moral outrage of victims and faith leaders. Yet, they all point to one uncomfortable truth: Nigeria’s terror crisis is no longer just about guns in the forest. It is about compromised systems, unresolved complicity, and a failure to decisively confront those who profit from chaos.
As the nation moves forward, the challenge facing the Federal Government is clear. It must restore public confidence by protecting lives, prosecuting terror financiers without fear or favor, and articulating a security strategy that reassures citizens while preserving national sovereignty. Until that happens, the blood-soaked fields of Benue, Plateau, and other troubled regions will continue to indict the nation’s leadership and collective conscience.