Insecurity in the North: How dialogue without disarmament fuels fragile peace

By Austine Agbo Emmanuel

Despite an increasing reliance on dialogue and reconciliation strategies across Northern Nigeria, violent insecurity persists, raising serious concerns about the structure and credibility of these engagements. 

From Zamfara to Katsina and Kaduna states, negotiations with armed groups have become a recurring feature of conflict management. However, security observers point to a fatal flaw undermining these efforts: the failure to enforce disarmament during and after peace talks.

Conflict researcher Idris Mohammed, who focuses on North-West Nigeria, notes that many amnesty and dialogue initiatives fail to produce lasting outcomes because armed groups consistently retain their weapons and operational capacity. In several cases, bandits have actively exploited peace negotiations to ease military pressure, reorganize, and expand their influence rather than genuinely disengaging from violence.

This assessment strongly aligns with findings from SBM Intelligence, a Lagos-based geopolitical research consultancy. They have repeatedly reported that poorly structured peace deals and ceasefires in the North-West inadvertently enable armed groups to regroup and launch fresh attacks.

Across affected communities, the fact that armed actors are never compelled to surrender their weapons drastically weakens the credibility of these agreements and sustains a climate of fear.

Consequently, localized peace arrangements in states like Katsina and Zamfara frequently collapse after brief periods of calm, leaving communities vulnerable to renewed raids and kidnappings. Even in Kaduna State, where the government promotes the more structured "Kaduna Peace Model," outcomes remain mixed, with rural violence still prevalent.

In contrast to the North-West, Borno State has adopted a rehabilitation and reintegration model specifically targeting repentant insurgents. While this approach has successfully encouraged defections, recent attacks in the state expose significant gaps in monitoring and highlight the ongoing challenge of continued extremist recruitment.

At the national level, the Federal Government maintains a firm stance against formal negotiations with bandits and terrorists. Nigeria’s Minister of Defence, General Christopher Musa (retd.), has publicly warned State governments that negotiating with bandits actively undermines military operations and national security. 

He emphasized that criminals routinely renege on agreements, making disarmament an absolute prerequisite for lasting peace. 

Furthermore, General Musa has reiterated the Federal Government's strict no-ransom policy, warning that ransom payments directly fund further insecurity and urging citizens to rely on security agencies rather than engaging with criminal networks.

This divergence between federal caution and state-level experimentation has created a highly fragmented security landscape. Armed groups readily exploit these jurisdictional inconsistencies in policy and enforcement to their advantage.

Security experts maintain that disarmament must be the cornerstone of any credible peace process. Without clear, enforceable mechanisms to ensure armed groups surrender their weapons, negotiations will continue to serve as temporary respites rather than sustainable solutions. 

As violence continues to devastate livelihoods across Northern Nigeria, the current crisis underscores the urgent need for a coordinated national framework, one that firmly aligns dialogue with enforcement, and peace agreements with strict accountability.