Banditry: Between Gumi and the military

Sheikh Ahmad Gumi may have more inkling on recent abductions and banditry in the north than the Nigerian State, which in any case seems to nurture no more than a passing interest.

All the same, there has been no synergy of purpose between the two parties that hapless Nigerians, particularly victims of kidnapping and banditry, can cheer about. The ravaging of the north by bandits is nothing but criminality, and it is time to address it as such, rather than standing logic on its head and increasing the anguish of the ordinary citizen.

This week, about 26 students were kidnapped by armed bandits at Bethel Baptist School, Maraban Rido, Chikun Local Council of Kaduna State, indicating at least, that kidnapping is a lucrative business, is not about to end. Indeed, Gumi has shown to be more of a bandits’ apologist than of a mediator between criminals and victims. The Armed Forces to have performed more of hiding and seek with criminals that are readily accessible to non-state actors like Gumi. These contradictions betray public expectation from both parties, who should actually work in sync in the interest of the State to end banditry.
  
Far more than just bystanders or umpires, non-state actors are becoming more active than the security agencies in the battle against banditry, and this is a huge cause for worry. Sheikh Gumi’s recent roles and altercations have not gone unnoticed. Besides negotiating a ransom for the release of abducted students and saving them from being killed, the controversial cleric had been meeting daredevil bandits in the forests with photo ups for the world to see. In one fell swoop, he accused the military of colluding with the bandits, which is a grave allegation, to begin with. But equally disturbing has been his appeasement policy and amnesty advocacy for criminal herders engaging in banditry and kidnapping. This attempted rationalisation and justification of sheer criminality betray the genuine intent of the revered scholar. Blurring the line between good and evil, and making phantom proposals has no place in civilised settings and State governments have rejected Gumi’s offer for good.  
 

However, Gumi’s posture deserves more than just a verbal or a handshake session with the DSS. The question that should agitate the mind of the intelligence community is the real interest of Gumi in this matter. What exactly does he know about military collusion with bandits and what evidence has he to back his claims? Also, how much value has Gumi brought to the table in fixing insecurity and banditry? Has he not been disastrously distractive, considering that many governors disagree with his suggestion to end the conflict, having tried it and seen the failure? A more proactive military will neither dismiss his claims with a wave of the hand; nor treat him as an irritant nor untouchable. Gumi cannot be parading himself as a negotiator for the victims of banditry and still pose as bandits’ spokesperson at the same time.