Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
The clash you describe in the Batsari axis is a grim illustration of how the conflict in northwest Nigeria has evolved into a self-perpetuating cycle of violence driven as much by inter-factional rivalries as by attacks on civilians. When armed group leaders turn their guns on one another, the outcome is rarely contained within the forests; it spills directly into nearby villages, with civilians — particularly women and children — bearing the brunt. Breaking this cycle will require more than repeating strategies that have already shown clear limits.
A purely military solution, while necessary, has not been sufficient on its own. Tougher military action can disrupt armed groups, degrade their capacity, and temporarily restore calm, especially when operations are intelligence-led and sustained rather than sporadic. However, experience in Katsina, Zamfara, Sokoto and parts of Kaduna shows that when military pressure is inconsistent or overly reactive, armed leaders simply retreat deeper into forests, splinter into smaller factions, or regroup after losses. Intra-bandit clashes like the Namurjiya–Lamo confrontation often intensify after leadership decapitation or territorial pressure, as surviving commanders compete violently for control. Without a permanent security presence and effective control of rural space, military gains tend to be short-lived.
Renewed dialogue and local peace agreements have also demonstrated mixed results. In some communities, negotiated truces have reduced attacks, allowed farming to resume, and facilitated the return of displaced persons. Yet the repeated breakdown of such accords in Batsari, Jibia and neighbouring areas reveals a core weakness: peace deals are often fragmented, personality-based and unenforceable. When one armed leader defects or feels wronged — as seen in retaliatory killings like the murder of Abdulrahman — the entire arrangement collapses. Moreover, dialogue that excludes rival factions or fails to address cattle rustling, revenge killings, and access to resources can inadvertently empower certain armed actors while alienating others, sowing the seeds for future violence.
What is increasingly clear is that neither force nor dialogue alone can end the cycle. The region requires a fundamentally different, layered security approach that treats banditry not just as a military problem but as a governance and territorial control crisis.
First, the state must regain effective control of ungoverned spaces, particularly forests that have become sanctuaries for armed groups. This goes beyond short raids. It means sustained security bases, aerial surveillance, and coordinated operations across state borders, especially in corridors linking Katsina and Zamfara. Armed groups thrive on the seams between jurisdictions; closing those gaps is critical.
Second, community-based security structures need to be better regulated, trained and integrated into formal security frameworks. Local vigilance groups often possess superior intelligence about movements and loyalties, but without oversight they can become targets, tools of revenge, or even actors in the conflict. Proper integration can improve early warning systems and civilian protection while reducing abuses.
Third, any dialogue going forward must shift from informal deals with individual warlords to a structured disengagement framework backed by the state. This includes clear consequences for violations, mechanisms for monitoring compliance, and pathways for genuine disarmament and reintegration — not symbolic surrender ceremonies. Without accountability, peace agreements simply become tactical pauses for armed leaders.
Fourth, civilian protection must be elevated as a central objective, not a secondary outcome. The fact that clashes between armed groups routinely kill non-combatants underscores the need for rapid response units, safe corridors for evacuation, and emergency support for affected villages. When civilians consistently pay the highest price, resentment deepens, cycles of revenge expand, and trust in the state erodes further.
Finally, the conflict cannot be separated from long-standing grievances over land, cattle, justice and survival. Cattle rustling, broken compensation promises, and unresolved killings feed vendettas that leaders exploit to mobilise fighters. Strengthening local justice mechanisms, restoring trust in dispute resolution, and ensuring that crimes are investigated — even in rural areas — is essential to undercut the logic of armed retaliation.
In reality, ending the cycle of violence in northwest Nigeria will not come from choosing between tougher military action or renewed dialogue. It will come from combining sustained security pressure, credible governance, enforceable peace processes, and protection of civilians, while systematically shrinking the space in which armed leaders operate. Until forests stop being alternative centres of power and civilians stop being collateral victims of rivalries they did not choose, clashes like the one in Batsari will continue to repeat themselves under different names, with the same tragic consequences.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments