By DAYO ADESULU
A coalition operating under the banner of Sons and Daughters of Hausaland has issued a strongly worded rejoinder to Professor Usman Yusuf and other prominent voices it accuses of “bandit apologism,” rejecting what it describes as a dangerous attempt to reframe armed banditry in northern Nigeria as a struggle for justice or freedom.
In a statement circulated widely on Monday, the group dismissed calls for unconditional dialogue with armed groups, insisting that Fulani bandits are terrorists, not freedom fighters, and warning that any narrative that blurs this distinction undermines justice, security, and the memory of thousands of victims across the region.
Rejection of ‘Freedom Fighter’ Framing
The group accused Professor Yusuf and some Fulani elite figures of using soft language such as dialogue, non-violence, and freedom fighting to shield violent actors responsible for killings, kidnappings, and village destruction.
According to the statement, rebranding armed groups as political actors is neither academic inquiry nor peacebuilding. Rather, it is described as a moral failure that excuses terror and delegitimizes the suffering of affected communities.
“Mass murderers and kidnappers cannot be laundered into freedom fighters through semantics,” the group declared, stressing that violence targeting civilians cannot be justified by ethnicity, history, or grievance narratives.
Accusations of Contradiction Against Prof. Usman Yusuf
A central argument of the rejoinder focuses on what it calls a contradiction in Professor Yusuf’s public commentary. While he has argued that the Nigerian state should not “fight Fulani people,” he simultaneously refers to perpetrators as Fulani bandits.
The group questioned this framing, asking why crimes are ethnicized when military action is proposed, yet depersonalized when victims name their attackers. It argued that if bandits do not represent the Fulani community, then opposing security operations against them effectively shields criminals rather than protecting innocent citizens.
They further accused Yusuf of opposing military operations, resisting community self-defence initiatives like Yan Banga, and failing to demand disarmament or accountability as prerequisites for dialogue.
A Broader Pattern of Bandit Apologism
Beyond Professor Yusuf, the statement pointed to comments attributed to other influential figures as evidence of a broader pattern. It cited past remarks by political leaders and advocacy groups that allegedly described armed bandits as reacting to oppression or vigilantism.
The Hausaland group countered these claims with historical and academic references, noting that documented research traces organized banditry in Zamfara State to around 2011, long before the rise of community vigilantes. According to the statement, criminal networks, not ethnic persecution, formed the backbone of modern banditry.
“Facts do not support these narratives,” the group said, adding that the scale of civilian casualties contradicts claims of defensive or reactive violence.
Dialogue Without Justice, Group Warns
While acknowledging that dialogue has a place in conflict resolution, the group argued that dialogue without justice amounts to collaboration with criminals. It questioned proposals for talks that do not include surrender, disarmament, or prosecution.
Referencing notorious bandit leaders by name, the statement asked how negotiations could proceed with individuals accused of terrorizing communities and disrupting livelihoods across multiple states.
“Peace without accountability is not peace,” the group insisted, warning that such approaches embolden violent groups and weaken the rule of law.
Yan Banga and the Right to Self-Defence
Addressing criticisms of vigilante groups, the statement defended Yan Banga as a response to state failure rather than a cause of insecurity. It argued that self-defence emerges when communities are left exposed and unprotected.
The group rejected any moral equivalence between armed bandits and local defenders, stressing that vigilante groups did not create banditry but arose because of it. According to the statement, condemning community defence without equally condemning bandit violence distorts the ethical balance of the conflict.
Academic Evidence and Historical Context
Citing academic work on banditry in Zamfara State, the group claimed that research shows the phenomenon evolved from organized criminal activity rather than ethnic resistance. It further rejected claims of historical Hausa oppression of Fulani communities, pointing instead to long periods of coexistence, shared governance, and Fulani dominance in regional power structures.
They challenged advocates of the oppression narrative to provide concrete historical evidence, insisting that myths cannot replace documented history.
Final Position of Hausaland
The statement concluded with a firm declaration of principles, asserting that terror has no ethnic justification and that rebranding violence amounts to intellectual dishonesty. It emphasized that communities have buried too many victims to accept narratives that minimize or excuse armed violence.
“If these actors are innocent,” the group asked, “why do they operate from forests with weapons instead of courts with evidence?”
As the debate over security, dialogue, and justice continues in northern Nigeria, the rejoinder underscores the growing tension between calls for negotiation and demands for accountability in addressing banditry.
#FulaniBandits #BanditryInNigeria #NorthernNigeria #Hausaland #SecurityCrisis #YanBanga #JusticeAndAccountability
