By Odesola JF., PhD
“You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist.” — Indira Gandhi
Nigeria finds itself once again confronting a painful and frustrating paradox.
Reports indicate that wanted bandit leader Bello Turji recently surfaced in a viral video, allegedly claiming responsibility for attacks on security operatives in parts of Sokoto and Zamfara States. In the same message, he reportedly suggested that his group was willing to negotiate with the government while also declaring readiness for continued armed confrontation.
For many Nigerians, this development is both disturbing and confusing.
How can a man accused of orchestrating violence be speaking the language of peace? How can someone allegedly linked to attacks on innocent citizens and security personnel simultaneously present himself as a candidate for dialogue?
It is a contradiction that leaves many citizens wondering whether this is a genuine call for peace, a calculated public relations strategy, or simply another attempt to gain leverage over a government struggling to contain insecurity.
Whatever the answer may be, one question stands above all others:
Should any reasonable government negotiate with armed bandits who continue to kill, kidnap, and terrorize innocent citizens?
This is not merely an academic debate. It is a matter of life and death.
Across many communities in Northern Nigeria, the scars of banditry are real and visible. Villages have been attacked. Farmers have abandoned their farmlands. Children have been forced out of school. Families have sold everything they own to pay ransom for loved ones. Some have paid and still never saw their relatives again.
Behind every statistic is a human story.
A grieving mother.
A displaced family.
An orphaned child.
A farmer whose harvest was destroyed.
A community living under constant fear.
These are not headlines. These are human lives.
That is why many Nigerians struggle to understand why the same criminals who create fear and instability are sometimes presented as potential partners in peace.
Of course, peace is a noble objective. Every sensible person wants peace. Every government should pursue peace wherever possible. No nation can develop in an atmosphere of violence and insecurity.
But there is an important distinction between pursuing peace and rewarding criminality.
Peace should never come at the expense of justice.
History teaches us that not every invitation to dialogue is sincere. Around the world, violent groups have often used negotiations as strategic tools rather than genuine efforts toward reconciliation. Negotiations can become opportunities to buy time, regroup, recruit new members, replenish supplies, and improve public perception.
Military strategists have long understood this reality.
As one famous saying goes:
“When your enemy asks for a pause, find out what advantage he hopes to gain.”
This does not mean that every negotiation is wrong. In some situations, dialogue has helped resolve conflicts and save lives. However, successful negotiations typically involve parties that demonstrate a genuine commitment to peace.
Words alone are never enough.
Actions matter.
A person who sincerely wants peace usually begins by stopping violence.
A person seeking reconciliation does not continue attacking communities while asking for dialogue.
A person pursuing peace does not threaten further bloodshed while discussing negotiations.
That is why many Nigerians are understandably skeptical.
If peace is truly the goal, why continue the attacks?
If reconciliation is the objective, why continue the kidnappings?
If dialogue is desired, why continue intimidating innocent citizens?
These questions deserve honest answers.
The average Nigerian is tired.
Tired of hearing reports of killings.
Tired of hearing stories of kidnappings.
Tired of seeing communities destroyed.
Tired of watching security personnel risk their lives while criminal networks continue to operate.
The people who suffer most are not policymakers sitting in air-conditioned offices. They are ordinary citizens.
Consider the farmer in Zamfara who can no longer cultivate his land because armed groups control surrounding forests.
Think about the trader who must travel through dangerous roads wondering whether she will return home safely.
Imagine parents sending their children to school while worrying whether they may become victims of kidnapping.
For such people, peace is not a political slogan.
Peace means survival.
Peace means sleeping through the night without fear.
Peace means being able to travel freely.
Peace means earning a living without intimidation.
Peace means dignity.
This is why governments must be extremely careful about the signals they send.
One of the dangers of repeatedly negotiating with violent criminals is that it can unintentionally create incentives for others to embrace violence.
Imagine a school where disciplined students receive little attention, but those who constantly cause trouble are rewarded with special privileges, meetings with school authorities, and material benefits.
What lesson would the other students learn?
The answer is obvious.
Bad behavior becomes attractive.
The same principle applies to society.
When criminal violence appears to generate influence, recognition, and bargaining power, it risks encouraging others to follow the same path.
A nation cannot build peace by making violence profitable.
That is a dangerous road.
The primary responsibility of every government is simple and clear: protect lives and property.
Everything else comes after that.
Citizens surrender certain freedoms and obey laws because they trust the state to provide security and justice. When that trust begins to weaken, confidence in institutions also declines.
Former United States President Ronald Reagan once observed:
“Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.”
That distinction is important.
Banditry is not a peaceful means.
Kidnapping is not a peaceful means.
Mass murder is not a peaceful means.
Extortion is not a peaceful means.
These are criminal acts.
No society governed by the rule of law can afford to blur the distinction between law-abiding citizens and those who terrorize them.
There is another aspect of this crisis that continues to trouble many Nigerians.
While security agencies pursue gunmen in forests and rural communities, questions remain about those who allegedly finance, support, equip, and benefit from these criminal networks.
Banditry does not sustain itself.
Weapons cost money.
Logistics cost money.
Intelligence gathering costs money.
Recruitment costs money.
Someone somewhere often profits from chaos.
Many citizens therefore wonder why discussions frequently focus on the foot soldiers carrying guns while less attention appears directed at those who may be providing support behind the scenes.
This perception fuels frustration.
People naturally ask why innocent citizens continue to suffer while some sponsors and collaborators seem untouched.
Justice cannot stop at the trigger man.
It must extend to the financier.
It must reach the supplier.
It must reach the enabler.
It must reach every individual who profits from bloodshed.
As Martin Luther King Jr. wisely stated:
“True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.”
Without justice, peace becomes temporary.
Without accountability, violence often returns.
Without consequences, criminality becomes emboldened.
This is why defeating banditry requires more than military operations alone.
Security operations are essential.
Intelligence gathering is essential.
Border security is essential.
Community engagement is essential.
Judicial reforms are essential.
Economic opportunities for vulnerable communities are essential.
And above all, political will is essential.
The fight against insecurity must be comprehensive.
It must target both the gunman in the forest and the individual financing him from the comfort of a city.
This does not mean government should refuse every form of communication. Security agencies may engage in tactical discussions to secure hostages, gather intelligence, facilitate surrenders, or protect innocent lives.
However, there is a crucial difference between tactical engagement and legitimizing criminality.
The state must never appear weaker than those challenging its authority.
Government exists to uphold the rule of law, not to negotiate from a position of fear.
The ultimate objective should not simply be the temporary reduction of violence. The objective should be the restoration of law, order, justice, and public confidence.
Anything less merely postpones the problem.
The truth is that Nigerians deserve better.
They deserve roads they can travel safely.
They deserve farms they can cultivate freely.
They deserve schools where children can learn without fear.
They deserve communities where security is normal rather than exceptional.
Most importantly, they deserve a government that consistently demonstrates that no criminal group is stronger than the state.
The debate before Nigeria is therefore not a choice between peace and force.
Every sane person wants peace.
The real question is whether lasting peace can be achieved by granting leverage to those who have repeatedly demonstrated contempt for human life.
A sustainable peace cannot be built on fear.
A durable peace cannot be purchased through endless concessions.
A meaningful peace cannot emerge when violence becomes a bargaining chip.
Nigeria must continue pursuing peace, but it must be a peace anchored in justice, accountability, security, and the rule of law.
Anything less risks turning peace talks into a dangerous illusion—an illusion that may provide temporary calm while leaving the roots of violence untouched.
The nation deserves genuine peace, not the silence that sometimes follows intimidation, but the lasting peace that comes when citizens are protected, criminals are held accountable, and justice is seen to prevail.
That is the peace worth fighting for.
That is the peace worth defending.
And that is the peace Nigerians deserve.
