Insecurity from expansionist terrorists, not conflict, is the wicked problem in Benue, By Gbemisola Animasawun

To provide a lasting solution, immediate and coordinated efforts must be made to deliver security to the people of Benue and other communities facing similar threats. The perpetrators are no longer competing for access to pasture; they are launching systematic attacks aimed at displacing and occupying communities through terror. Therefore, resources and attention should be directed toward establishing effective security systems — not only to prevent future attacks but to uphold the social contract between the Nigerian state and its citizens.

My immediate motivation for writing stems from a line in an article shared on the WhatsApp Forum of The Compatriots of the University of Ilorin on 24 June, titled, “Prof, no one is reading you.” The authors observed that “An average academic journal article is read in its entirety by about 10 people” and suggested that “To influence policy, professors should start writing commentaries in popular media.” The underlying reasons are encapsulated in these excerpts, inspired by the shocks and disappointments expressed at different times and in similar situations by presidents and commanders-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT).

Against the backdrop of one of the most chilling episodes of the intermittent cold-blooded slaughtering of persons in Benue State in 2018, Mr Buhari advocated for reconciliation, and now, in 2025, Mr Tinubu has directed the establishment of a peace committee following similar incidents with even greater casualties. These events and presidential directives should warrant reflection, particularly from students of peace, and national security, because of the seeming conflation of peace and security.

Drawing from the insights of distinguished scholars like Johan Galtung and Olawale Albert, peace is measured by the level of cooperation within and between social entities, akin to health and well-being. This perspective underscores that peace endures when social actors cooperate for societal well-being. Conversely, latent conflict or negative peace arises when such cooperation falters, often preceding open violent conflicts. Therefore, advocating for peace in the aftermath of repeated attacks, as seen in Benue State, runs contrary to established knowledge and evidence.

To this extent, it is clear that what is missing — and urgently needed — in Benue communities is not just peace, but security: that is, the protection of lives and the establishment of effective safeguards against both foreseeable and unforeseen threats to human prosperity; in this case from expansionist herders.

Having earlier demonstrated that peace stems from a social equilibrium built on cooperation among social entities, it becomes pertinent to ask: Who is responsible for providing security — that is, for ensuring the protection and prosperity of Nigerians? The answer is not far-fetched as it was long settled by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his treatise on the social contract. Whether in the era of collective security or under the prevailing human security paradigm — summed up as “freedom from fear and want” — the responsibility for securing the lives and well-being of citizens lies squarely with the government. The success or failure of any state is fundamentally judged by the extent to which it can guarantee the safety and security of its citizens. Unsurprisingly, insecurity has become a primary indicator of state fragility or failure.

The commonly used term “farmer-herder conflict” is an example of poor theorisation, much like the concept of “ungoverned spaces.” Both terms suffer from empirical weaknesses. Describing areas controlled or terrorised by bandits and insurgents as “ungoverned” ignores the fact that these actors now perform the functions that the state is constitutionally mandated to deliver. Similarly, characterising unprovoked attacks and raids — often aimed at displacing and seizing land — as “conflict” reveals a simplistic understanding of conflict theory.

How Governance Fuels Conflict and Insecurity in Nigeria

Since the advent of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic on 29 May, 1999, inherited fault lines — particularly those related to boundaries, ethnicity, and religion — have fuelled recurring violent clashes, with devastating consequences in terms of lives lost, property destroyed, and social bonds broken. Most of these episodes manifest as non-state conflicts, in which neither of the principal actors is the state. These conflicts have become even more widespread than insurgencies, as virtually no state in Nigeria has been spared from killings rooted in ethnic, boundary, or religious disputes since 1999. In this light, they represent the most pervasive threat to national unity, cooperation, and development.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

These conflicts escalate into insecurity largely because the government, which ought to act as a neutral arbiter and mediator, often engages in what Patrick Chabal termed the Calculated Violence of Neglect (CVN) — that is, doing nothing or doing too little due to vested political interests. When it does intervene, the response typically comes in the form of commissions of inquiry, which have become ineffective and symbolic. At best, such interventions stop immediate violence, freeze the conflict, and restore a superficial order — often mistaken for peace. But can there be genuine peace in the absence of deliberate reconciliation? Numerous examples from across the country suggest otherwise. Consequently, even when insurgents are not actively launching attacks, unresolved boundary, ethnic, or religious tensions can trigger days of deadly communal violence at the slightest provocation.

How Governance Failure Fuels Insecurity in Conflict-Affected Areas

Unlike conflict, which erodes peace due to a lack of social cooperation, insecurity arises from the inadequacy of protection and prosperity. Threats to security are best understood through the lens of human security, defined as freedom from fear and want. Anything that leaves citizens afraid to live their everyday lives constitutes a security threat. In the absence of effective state structures to prevent or mitigate these threats, insecurity becomes the norm for affected communities.

The commonly used term “farmer-herder conflict” is an example of poor theorisation, much like the concept of “ungoverned spaces.” Both terms suffer from empirical weaknesses. Describing areas controlled or terrorised by bandits and insurgents as “ungoverned” ignores the fact that these actors now perform the functions that the state is constitutionally mandated to deliver. Similarly, characterising unprovoked attacks and raids — often aimed at displacing and seizing land — as “conflict” reveals a simplistic understanding of conflict theory. This is not to deny that reprisals can occur due to unresolved tensions between two groups. Indeed, when genuine competition over land and pasture arises between farmers and herders, a case can be made for labeling such a situation a conflict. But where the aim is displacement and occupation, like in Benue, the label no longer fits.

From PMB to PBAT: How Consistently Misdiagnosing the Problem Has Made It a Wicked One

The violent activities of expansionist herders invading farms in agrarian communities across Nigeria’s North-Central, South-South, and South-West are not new. Since at least 1997, such attacks have been recorded, yet government responses have remained inadequate. While there has been consistent public outcry demanding action, there has been little effort to interrogate why the actions taken so far have failed.

These repeated, recycled responses are symptomatic of a deeper issue: a fundamental misdiagnosis. The root of the problem is misunderstood, rendering it a wicked problem — one that is complex, ill-defined, and resistant to resolution. Rather than allowing victims to define their experiences and needs, the state has imposed definitions based on top-down power and authority, sidelining lived realities.

Government responses have come in three forms: rhetorical, policy-based, and kinetic. Rhetorically, both Presidents Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) and Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) have framed the problem as one of “conflict,” prescribing reconciliation and the setting up of peace committees as solutions. Likewise, the Inspectors-General of Police appointed by both administrations have performed in ways that elicited similarly dismayed reactions from their principals.

For instance, in 2018, Buhari appeared visibly helpless in Makurdi when he discovered that the then IGP, Ibrahim Idris, had ignored his directive to relocate to Benue. Similarly, in 2025, PBAT expressed frustration with the current IGP, Kayode Egbetokun, after no arrests were made following a massacre in Yelewata. The president’s public query — “IG, where are the arrests?” — evokes memories of Buhari’s helplessness and highlights the ongoing crisis in policing communities under threat from expansionist herders.

These repeated, recycled responses are symptomatic of a deeper issue: a fundamental misdiagnosis. The root of the problem is misunderstood, rendering it a wicked problem — one that is complex, ill-defined, and resistant to resolution. Rather than allowing victims to define their experiences and needs, the state has imposed definitions based on top-down power and authority, sidelining lived realities.

This is why the perspective of the Tor Tiv and Chairman of the Benue State Council of Chiefs, His Royal Majesty James Ayatse, should be taken seriously as qualitative data — an emic perspective grounded in lived experience. As both a victim and an informed observer, Ayatse’s rejection of the “conflict” framing exposes its inadequacy. Ceasefires and reconciliation only occur between willing, known parties. Who, then, represents the herders on the so-called Peace Committee? Or is the committee expected to consist of just one side? This moment calls for the Nigerian state to reaffirm — clearly and demonstrably — its constitutional responsibility to protect.

Conclusion: Prioritising Security as the Foundation for Lasting Peace

To provide a lasting solution, immediate and coordinated efforts must be made to deliver security to the people of Benue and other communities facing similar threats. The perpetrators are no longer competing for access to pasture; they are launching systematic attacks aimed at displacing and occupying communities through terror. Therefore, resources and attention should be directed toward establishing effective security systems — not only to prevent future attacks but to uphold the social contract between the Nigerian state and its citizens. Only then can we hope to move from the illusion of peace to the reality of security and justice.

Gbemisola Animasawun is of the Centre for Peace and Strategic Studies, University of Ilorin and a 2025 Kwame Karikari Fact-checking and Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) Fellow.