The prominent Islamic cleric, Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, has launched a strong defense of his controversial role as an intermediary between the Nigerian government and armed bandit groups, condemning critics calling for his arrest and insisting his efforts are crucial to peace and national security.
“For calling them to lay arms or amenities for them, or to educate the nation on their side of the story—so, what is there to arrest for?” Gumi queried in a detailed statement shared via Facebook on Sunday, responding to increasing pressure from sections of the public and security circles.
Gumi, who has long advocated dialogue over force in tackling rural banditry and associated insecurity, dismissed those demanding his arrest as “spineless, irresponsible and unpatriotic imbecilic people,” accusing them of “bigotry, ignorance and intolerance for differing viewpoints.” He called out what he described as a climate of outrage that targets mediators rather than addressing the structural roots of violence.
“ARREST HIM!!! These are the only words some spineless, irresponsible and unpatriotic imbecilic people can utter,” Gumi wrote, attributing the antagonism to those who would rather “politicise peace efforts” than seek solutions to Nigeria’s deepening insecurity.
He citing a major peace initiative in January 2021 in the Sabon Garin Yadi forest, Giwa Local Government Area of Kaduna State, Gumi described leading a team—accompanied by the then Kaduna State Commissioner of Police and representatives of the Inspector-General of Police—through a meeting with more than 600 armed bandits and commanders. “This meeting was part of a peace initiative where we preached to over 600 bandits and their commanders, who agreed to lay down their arms in exchange for security and basic amenities,” he explained.
He emphasized that the entire process was conducted transparently and with government knowledge and approval, stating, “the negotiation was transparent, legitimate and conducted with the approval and knowledge of the authorities.”
He noted, however, that while the armed groups agreed to surrender, the peace conditions they requested—including basic amenities, protection from arbitrary arrest, and guarantees of safety—were never fulfilled by the authorities, leading to the collapse of the peace arrangements.
“The outcome was that over 600 bandits agreed to lay down their arms. They presented conditions to the government… None fulfilled,” he lamented, expressing frustration at the failure of follow-through.Instead of interrogating these failures or examining why government commitments fell through, Gumi argued that some Nigerians “prefer to target him personally,” ignoring practical opportunities for de-escalation.
Challenging his critics, Gumi asked, “Is free speech no longer part of our constitutional right? Is their call for arrest not also prejudiced and an incitement to more violence?” He continued, “The purpose of the meeting was an effort to de-escalate violence by having bandits surrender their weapons and embrace peace. The outcome was that over 600 bandits agreed to lay down their arms.”
Gumi warned that silencing voices who advocate dialogue “does nothing to address the deep-rooted socioeconomic and security failures fueling insurgency and rural banditry.” Instead, he urged for practical engagement, cautioning that hate-driven narratives “only worsen insecurity.”
He concluded by urging Nigerians to “rise above emotional reactions and consider practical approaches to ending the banditry crisis,” while offering a prayer for unity. “May Allah protect our nation from bigotry, stubborn and complete intolerance of contrary views and opinions,” he said.
Sheikh Gumi’s comments have once again reignited debate about the use of dialogue versus force in addressing armed violence in Nigeria, as communities across the country grapple with the consequences of insecurity and fractured trust in peace-building initiatives.
