SECURITY LAXITY IN ZAMFARA STATE: WHO TO BLAME?

By: Ibrahim Bello Zauma

On October 2, 2017, I have written an article captioned "Security in Zamfara: Truth and Conspiracy Theories" in which I absolved Zamfara state government from directly having a hand in the sponsorship of brigandage, rustling and kidnappings in the state. I understand there is political undertone in the dissemination of such absurd conspiracy theories just like how Jonathan was wrongly accused of "sponsoring" Boko Haram insurgency "to destroy the North". In the article, I have categorically mentioned that it isn't just possible to accommodate the assumption that the state government is the brain behind the rustling and kidnappings gaining grounds in the state but that it is being handled with kids glove.

However, there are things that evoke some probing questions. One only need to take into cognizance the state government's romance with Buharin Daji which gave him the gut to even reside in Gusau before the fallout of the momentary truce with the bandits, or the ominous silence of the government in failing to dispute the bandits' allegation as aired by one of the rustlers' general called Liman that they were given motorcycles through a certain reconciliatory committee. More appalling is the conflicting assertion between the Governor and Wakkala on the material appeasement given to them to secure the release of 41 people kidnapped along Gobirawa-Bindin-Magami road. Governor Yari on BBC disclosed that they were given some appeasements while Wakkala disputed that they were given nothing to secure the release. There is no relativity or subjectivism in their nomenclatures

Some people stoop to a lowly logic as to equate the Federal government's negotiation that saw the release of some Chibok girls with the reconciliatory measures taken by the Zamfara state government with bandits. This is a very wrong correlation because banditry is not same as insurgency. There is nothing like relative perception here. The nomenclatures given to brigands and bandits and that of militant insurgency are the reflection of what they are and what they do. We can't just mix things up in order to justify equal treatment for both criminals. Insurgency is active revolt for power control against a state while banditry and brigandage is a gang-related crimes involving armed robbery, rustling etc. As different as the two crimes are, they are treated differently in a saner clime. There is no truce with brigands anywhere in the world. Only militancy and insurgency are treated as rebellious activities,  because they have some justification however flimsy as the cause of their mutiny. There is difference between brigandage and militant insurgency. I don't have to be a futurist to know that security will continue to evade us as long as the government whether of Zamfara, Katsina or Kaduna continue to make these criminals feel important by sitting with them on the table of treaty.

How on earth does any right-thinking leader allow a truce with bunch of criminals and even offer them material appeasement!