Nigeria faces a mounting security dilemma as vigilance groups across the country demand access to firearms for self-defence, clashing with the nation’s stringent gun control laws. Balancing community protection with lawful arms regulation has become a pressing test of governance, AMEH OCHOJILA reports.
As insecurity concerns linger across Nigeria, communities are increasingly turning to vigilance groups for protection. From banditry in the North to separatist violence in the South-East, the failure of state security forces to check the nefarious activities of these non-state actors has forced civilians to seek alternative means of defence. This shift exposes a major legal contradiction: while Nigeria’s arms control laws strictly regulate firearm possession, vigilance groups argue that combating heavily armed criminals requires access to similar weapons. This dilemma reflects a broader governance crisis—one that pits national security regulations against grassroots realities.
Nigeria’s primary legislation on arms control, the Firearms Act of 1959, prohibits firearm possession without a valid licence. The law categorises weapons into different classes, with automatic and military-grade firearms reserved strictly for security agencies. To own a gun legally, individuals and groups must obtain approval from the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) or, in some cases, the President.
Efforts to strengthen arms control intensified on June 4, 2024, when President Bola Tinubu signed the Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) Control Act into law. This act enhances Nigeria’s capacity to regulate firearms, curb illicit trafficking, and enforce stricter monitoring.
According to Air Vice Marshal Haruna Muhammad (rtd.), the North-West Zonal Coordinator of the National Centre for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (NCCSALW), the new law provides a robust framework to fight illegal arms proliferation. It also aligns with Nigeria’s policies with international standards, including the ECOWAS Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons and the United Nations Programme of Action on Small Arms. However, while these legal measures aim to tighten control, they do little to address the urgent security concerns of communities under siege.
Despite strict federal laws, several state-backed vigilante groups have emerged, demanding access to firearms for self-defence. In the South-West, the Amotekun Corps was formed to combat kidnapping and armed robbery.
In the South-East, Ebube Agu was created to counter the activities of “unknown gunmen” linked to separatist violence. In the North-East, the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF) has played a key role in fighting Boko Haram.
Governors in states like Ondo and Benue, as well as some other states, have openly called for vigilantes to be armed, arguing that these groups are often the first line of defence against criminals. The former governor of Benue State, Samuel Ortom, had, during his days as governor, said: “All the vigilantes must carry weapons that are licensed so that anytime there is external aggression, they must be able to rise up to defend themselves.”
The governor said the state government has been mandated to support the vigilantes with logistics as provided in the law, adding that the recruitment of personnel should be carried out in the 23 local government areas of the state. The three socio-cultural associations in the state, the Mdzough U Tiv Worldwide, Ochetoha, K’Idoma and Omini Igede passed a vote of confidence in the governor.
Also, the former governor of Ondo State, late Rotimi Akeredolu, had in 2022 declared his intention to procure arms for the local security vigilante, Amotekun, to help the state government curb insecurity.
These are not the only state governors making a similar call; faced with rising insecurity across the country, governors of Katsina and Zamfara states, among other prominent Nigerians, have made similar calls in the past. Beyond appealing, the Zamfara State government, for example, tired of the federal government’s vacillation over the horrific security situation in the state, where hundreds have lost their lives and thousands have been displaced, directed the issuance of licences to citizens to arm and defend themselves.
However, the Federal Government, through the IGP and the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA), has resisted such moves, insisting that only federally recognised security agencies should bear arms.
The core debate centres on whether equipping vigilance groups with firearms is a necessary security compromise or a dangerous precedent. Proponents argue that communities should not remain defenceless against well-armed criminals and that vigilantes with basic weapons struggle against terrorists and bandits wielding sophisticated arms.
Opponents warn that without strict oversight, firearms could end up in criminal hands, leading to an increase in violence and arms proliferation. Concerns over human rights violations have also been raised, as some vigilance groups have been accused of extrajudicial killings. There is also the risk of political manipulation, with fears that armed vigilantes could be exploited for electoral violence.
Finding a balance between security needs and legal constraints requires a comprehensive approach. The government could introduce a controlled licensing system that allows select vigilante members to be trained and registered under strict oversight.
Instead of vigilance groups operating independently, the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) could integrate them into a structured community policing framework, providing legal backing and proper supervision.
Decentralising security powers would allow state governments to manage law enforcement more effectively, reducing the reliance on non-state actors. If vigilantes must be armed, robust tracking and accountability systems would be necessary to prevent weapons from being diverted to criminal groups.
The growing demand for vigilantes to bear arms underscores the overstretched state of Nigeria’s security institutions. Informal security plays a crucial role in many countries where formal law enforcement is either underfunded or overstretched. South Africa relies on community policing forums and private security firms to fill gaps left by the police.
In Kenya, the Nyumba Kumi initiative functions as a neighbourhood watch system, and in Ghana, vigilante groups provide security in areas with limited police presence. Across Asia, India has local village defence groups and private security firms supporting law enforcement, while in Pakistan, tribal militias known as Lashkars assist in securing volatile regions.
The Philippines rely on barangay tanods (village security units) to support law enforcement, and in Afghanistan, tribal militias and private security contractors play a significant role in maintaining order.
Latin America has also witnessed the rise of informal security, with Mexico’s autodefensas self-defence groups operating in cartel-controlled areas, while Brazil’s militias and neighbourhood security groups exist in favelas where state policing is weak. In Colombia, community self-defence groups have emerged in response to guerrilla and cartel violence. Even in developed regions like America, volunteer neighbourhood watch groups, militias, and private security firms often act as informal security providers, while in Ukraine, civilian defence units have supplemented official forces since the Russian invasion.
In the Middle East, Iraq relies on tribal security forces in certain regions, and in Lebanon, Hezbollah functions as both a political entity and a security force in areas where the state is weak. These informal security structures often emerge where formal policing is inadequate, with communities taking matters into their own hands. However, they can sometimes become lawless or politically influenced, raising concerns about accountability and the rule of law.
In Nigeria, while existing laws strictly regulate firearm possession, communities facing daily threats feel abandoned. Until the government addresses the root causes of insecurity—poor law enforcement, corruption, and weak governance—the push for armed self-defence will continue. The challenge remains: how can Nigeria uphold its arms control laws while ensuring that citizens are not left vulnerable in the face of escalating violence?
A security expert, Dennis Amachree, said bearing arms has become a big dilemma for vigilance groups in light of the Firearms Act (2004), which governs firearm possession and use. He said the Act generally restricts vigilance groups from being armed except under specific circumstances. He, however, noted that in areas with limited government security presence, particularly ungoverned spaces, vigilantes could theoretically supplement security efforts and deter criminal activity by bandits and terrorists.
According to Amachree, allowing vigilance groups to carry firearms risks significantly increasing the number of weapons in circulation, exacerbating existing arms proliferation issues.
He explained that in societies where the rule of law is fragile, vigilantes are prone to taking the law into their own hands, leading to extrajudicial killings, human rights violations, and further destabilisation.
Furthermore, Amachree said vigilantes typically lack the same accountability structures as formal law enforcement, increasing the potential for abuse and impunity, adding that uncontrolled clashes with other armed groups, including the police, could result in heightened violence and instability.
He suggested that creating state-level police forces would expand security coverage, particularly in ungoverned areas. The security consultant added that Community-Based Policing Initiatives, which promote grassroots policing strategies, would foster closer relationships between communities and law enforcement.
He added that arming vigilance groups may appear to offer a short-term security boost, but the substantial risks, including arms proliferation, vigilantism, and lack of accountability, outweigh their potential benefits. “A more sustainable and responsible approach involves strengthening formal security structures through state police organisations and community-based policing. This strategy addresses security concerns while mitigating the dangers associated with uncontrolled vigilante activity and the proliferation of firearms,” he said.
Another security expert, Mike Ejiofor, thinks differently. He is of the view that private security operatives and vigilance groups should be allowed to carry firearms, arguing that restricting legal access to weapons would leave citizens vulnerable.
He noted that the proliferation of illegal firearms is already widespread, and tighter gun control would only serve to disarm law-abiding individuals while criminals continue to have access.
Ejiofor emphasised that communities are under constant threat because they lack the means to defend themselves. He dismissed stricter firearm regulations as ineffective, stating that security forces alone cannot adequately address the crisis. Instead, he advocated policies that would empower vigilantes and private security outfits to complement the efforts of the armed forces in combating insecurity.
The Director General, Nigeria Army Resource Centre, Maj-Gen. Ayodeji Wahab (rtd) called for concerted efforts by all stakeholders to arrest the debilitating insecurity situation, which is stunting national development in the country.
At the 2nd edition of the National Security Summit with the theme, “Insecurity and the Nation, the journey thus far” organised by the Green Assembly Initiative in collaboration with other youth organisations, Wahab noted that though insecurity is a global problem and is being experienced in all regions of the world, the solution for Nigeria must be local.
Wahab blamed Nigeria’s peculiar problem on cultural differences like ethnicity, religion, education, perceptions of marginalisation and activities of the political elites.
He, therefore, suggested a homegrown security solution to the country’s challenges.
“Disarming law-abiding citizens while criminals remain heavily armed leaves communities defenceless. Vigilantes must be empowered to protect themselves and complement security forces in combating rising insecurity.”
QUOTE
Disarming law-abiding citizens while criminals remain heavily armed leaves communities defenceless. Vigilance groups must be empowered to protect themselves and complement security forces in combating rising insecurity.
