The president should address the nation directly, acknowledge the severity of the crisis, and demonstrate a visibly intensified commitment to protecting lives. If the state proves unable or unwilling to guarantee basic security across vulnerable regions, then a serious national conversation must also consider whether citizens should be legally empowered to defend themselves…
By Farooq A. Kperogi
Recent events show a widening pattern of killings, abductions and reprisals stretching from Borno to Zamfara, Kebbi, Niger, Kwara and elsewhere. The scale of fatalities alone demands sustained national attention. But the Bola Ahmed Tinubu government’s muted presence in the public response raises troubling questions about its priorities and its appreciation of the fierce urgency of the moment.
Start with Borno State, long regarded as the epicenter of Boko Haram’s insurgency. International media outlets reported last Friday that Boko Haram militants attacked a Nigerian military formation, killing at least eight soldiers and leaving dozens wounded. Casualty figures varied across accounts, but the deaths of eight soldiers were consistently reported.
Incidents of this nature once triggered nationwide debate and highly visible federal reaction. They now pass with limited public engagement outside specialist security coverage. That shift in attention probably reflects outrage fatigue, but it does not reduce the severity of the threat.
In the northwest and north central zones, mass casualty attacks have become distressingly frequent. Reports from Kebbi and Zamfara States describe repeated bandit raids, civilian deaths and abductions.
Again, an Associated Press dispatch from last Friday documented coordinated assaults in Kebbi resulting in at least 33 fatalities. That number alone represents a catastrophic loss for rural communities, yet the federal government hasn’t even acknowledged these tragedies much less comfort victims. This is increasingly becoming a pattern.
The Borgu region, where I am from, illustrates how violence transcends state boundaries while policy responses remain fragmented. Borgu’s communities span Kebbi, Niger and Kwara States. They share historical and cultural ties but operate under different administrative authorities.
Armed groups exploit this fragmentation. Attacks in one area of the region reverberate across others and reshape daily behavior far beyond the immediate site of violence.
In Tungan Makeri, Konkoso and Pissa in Borgu Local Government Area of Niger State, news reports and police statements from this week confirmed deadly pre-dawn raids by gunmen. Initial figures indicated about 32 civilians killed across the affected settlements.
The more pressing concern, however, lies at the federal level. The cumulative death toll across Borno, Kebbi, Niger and Kwara States in just these few cited incidents exceeds any threshold that should trigger unmistakable national urgency
Specific breakdowns varied, with six deaths reported in Tungan Makeri and as many as 26 in Konkoso, according to local accounts cited in early coverage. These numbers represent entire families extinguished within hours. They also underscore the persistent vulnerability of communities repeatedly targeted by armed groups.
Earlier in the year, Borgu recorded another mass casualty episode at Kasuwan Daji market. Credible reporting placed the death toll at 30 or more people killed, with several others abducted. Shops were burned. Civilians were shot. Survivors described chaos, devastation and disorientation.
The recurrence of large-scale lethal attacks within the same geographic zone should have triggered an unmistakable escalation in federal visibility. That response has not been evident at the level many residents consider commensurate with the losses.
Across the Kwara axis of Borgu, the psychological impact of nearby massacres is now frighteningly noticeable. In Baruten, formerly part of the historical Borgu configuration, fear recently overwhelmed a weekly market day.
A vehicle passed through town. Someone suspected it might be transporting terrorists. The reaction was immediate and visceral. Traders and buyers fled. Goods were abandoned. People ran without coordination, and injuries followed. Some residents reportedly broke limbs in the stampede. Elderly individuals fell and required hospitalization. Many retreated indoors, remaining inside overheated rooms for hours. Goods abandoned in the market were stolen.
But no attack occurred. The vehicle posed no danger. It was the panic itself that inflicted the harm. This happened in my hometown on a Wednesday, a bustling market day that serves as both an economic outlet and a space of interaction, exchange and communal vitality.
Such reactions are not irrational. They reflect what psychologists call learned responses in environments where credible violence repeatedly erupts nearby.
In adjacent Kaiama Local Government Area of Kwara State, residents recount continual episodes of extreme brutality in the hands of bloodthirsty terrorists, the recent mass slaughters in Woro and Nuku that captured the national and international attention being the latest.
Residents across Borgu consistently describe a sense of exposure and disabling siege. In the Niger State sector, communities report repeated attacks on the same settlements. In Konkoso, for example, locals say after militants killed large numbers of villagers, the assailants returned on February 17 to burn the remaining homes. Whether every detail withstands subsequent verification, the pattern of repeated raids across the region is corroborated by multiple independent reports of killings and abductions.
Governmental reaction shapes how citizens interpret both tragedy and state legitimacy. In Kwara State, the governor’s visit to sites of violence in Kaiama was widely noted by affected residents. Such gestures cannot reverse fatalities, but they acknowledge suffering and communicate presence. Insecurity is not only a military problem. It is also a political and psychological one.
In contrast, many inhabitants of Niger State’s Borgu communities express dissatisfaction with the state government’s posture following major incidents. Residents recount episodes in which official statements emphasized blame.
After the Papiri abductions, villagers say responsibility was publicly shifted toward school authorities without a gubernatorial visit to the affected location. Following reports that more than 70 people were killed in Kasuwan Daji, locals similarly describe narratives of fault attribution unaccompanied by direct engagement with survivors. These perceptions may not capture every administrative constraint, but they significantly influence public trust.
The more pressing concern, however, lies at the federal level. The cumulative death toll across Borno, Kebbi, Niger and Kwara States in just these few cited incidents exceeds any threshold that should trigger unmistakable national urgency.
Eight soldiers killed in Borno. Thirty-three civilians killed in Kebbi. Thirty-two civilians killed across Tungan Makeri, Konkoso and Pissa. Thirty or more killed in Kasuwan Daji market, with local claims of even higher figures, including over 70 fatalities. Locally reported deaths approaching 300 in Woro and Nuku. These are not sporadic disturbances. They are large-scale lethal events distributed across multiple states.
Yet the federal government’s public posture has lacked the intensity typically associated with crises of this magnitude. There has been no sustained national address centered on these specific killings. No widely visible mobilization signaling exceptional concern for Borgu’s repeated devastation. No consistent federal narrative that conveys to affected populations that their losses command the same urgency as tragedies elsewhere.
I agree that security challenges in Nigeria are undeniably complex. Intelligence failures, logistical limits and political coordination problems complicate rapid response. None of these constraints, however, justify the normalization of mass fatalities or the attenuation of federal visibility. When killings of dozens or hundreds struggle to command durable national attention, citizens inevitably question whether their suffering is fully recognized within the national hierarchy of concern.
Persistent violence also produces cumulative secondary effects. Economic activity contracts. Mobility declines. Educational continuity suffers. Residents alter movement patterns, avoid gatherings and recalibrate routine decisions around perception of threat. Fear becomes a structural condition rather than an irregular reaction.
Operation Savannah Shield, recently launched to address insecurity across parts of the north, offers an opportunity for recalibration. Its effectiveness will depend not only on tactical operations but on geographic scope. Borgu’s border communities, repeatedly affected by lethal raids and abductions, require explicit incorporation into security planning. Fragmented jurisdiction has long benefited attackers. Coordinated federal presence could begin reversing that asymmetry.
The number of people who have died unjustly in the hands of nihilistic terrorists this week alone is already staggering. A repetition of this number would signal deeper systemic failure. Preventing that outcome requires more than periodic, contingent deployments. It demands sustained federal attention, interstate coordination and a public posture that communicates unmistakable commitment to civilian safety.
It is worth recalling that even at the height of insecurity during President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, the scale and frequency of mass killings did not approach what many communities now experience, yet Bola Tinubu, then an opposition figure, publicly urged Jonathan to resign.
Invoking resignation today, however, feels like an exercise in futility because no Nigerian elected official has ever relinquished office solely on account of failure, incompetence or public dissatisfaction. Rather than dissipate intellectual energy on an outcome with no historical precedent, a more pragmatic appeal is necessary.
The president should address the nation directly, acknowledge the severity of the crisis, and demonstrate a visibly intensified commitment to protecting lives. If the state proves unable or unwilling to guarantee basic security across vulnerable regions, then a serious national conversation must also consider whether citizens should be legally empowered to defend themselves, including through responsible firearm ownership, instead of remaining defenseless sitting ducks in the face of unremitting terrorist and bandit violence.
•Opinions, positions or thoughts expressed here are personal and strictly of the writer/author and do not represent the views of The Daily Crucible.
