Katsina State Government

By Muhammad Isyaku Malumfashi

There are people within this government who support negotiations with bandits, and this piece aims to address them. I wrote against former Governor Masari’s governance when he had negotiated with bandits in an article published by The Daily Reality newspaper, titled “How Governor Masari is Wrongly Governing Katsina State.” I’m doing the same to refute any move to negotiate with bandits at the expense of the government’s power.

Meanwhile, apart from the government’s “data boys,” the problem we now have is the “negotiation lawyers” who protect the government from criticism of negotiating with terrorists. As I have been saying, it is a failure of the government to negotiate with terrorists.

Not only I, but many security experts have opined that negotiating with bandits is futile. In fact, the governor himself, Dr Dikko Umaru Radda, admitted during a call-in interview with Channels Television that he wouldn’t negotiate with bandits at their weakest point. We all applauded, as they have no justifiable reason for their actions and hence no grievances to present to the government for it to listen to. They should either surrender and cease fire, or the government should use force to wipe them out.

We’ve seen many such negotiations with bandits in both the previous administration and the present that have not borne fruit. Perhaps the Fulani terrorists breached the truce by breaking the agreement, thereby continuing to commit crimes against innocent citizens. 

The biggest problem is that they will come into town with weapons, as we’ve seen in the Kankara Local Government area, until people become accustomed to seeing them. Then, some will start to befriend them, so they, too, can get the opportunity to handle weapons. Thus, the country might become like Libya – God forbid – where arms became available to citizens as a result of government carelessness in the name of self-defence, and subsequently turns into a lawless state.

Because in Libya today, one with more sophisticated arms is the most feared and powerful being, just like a government. They can do and undo as they want. Nigeria, particularly Arewa, might face a similar fate, but I believe God will embarrass them. The worst thing about this negotiation is that even if there is negotiation, these Fulani bandits won’t take up any job that will earn them money. Instead, they’ll move to another town where there’s no security problem and continue their terrorist activities. If there’s another negotiation, they’ll move forward.

They wanted to pursue an agenda of conquest with great force, as in the 1804 Jihad. I know historians among us will relate better, though I’m not one; I’m a history enthusiast and studied it in secondary school. Thus, we’re not ignorant of the past. If we don’t forget, those Fulani bandits camped at the Kankara forest under the notorious bandit leader Babaru, aka, had to negotiate with the people of Yar Goje town, before they could target some villages.

Then, they got the opportunity to attack the Mantau village in Malumfashi, where they killed many worshippers during dawn prayers in the mosque and thereafter kidnapped many residents and took them to their camps. Although they later released them, the government claimed the release was due to a firefight with troops, but Zuma Times reported the opposite. We believe the latter, as the government didn’t present any evidence of casualties.

The Mantau village has been a headache for the bandits for years. They’re well-prepared and gallant, and on many occasions, they’ve hidden at routes where bandits pass by to attack and kill them. The village was a no-nonsense and fearful place for bandits. Even the day they attacked them, it was a raid, not face-to-face, which shows an act of cowardice. Therefore, the Fulani won’t stop terrorising; they’ll move forward until they’ve conquered the Hausa land entirely, as captured and masterminded by their ancestors for centuries.

Negotiation with bandits, even though it has never happened at the state level but at the local governments’ level, as seen in Jibia, Batsari, Kurfi, Kankara, and others, makes us suspect that even those that happened at the local governments’ level were with the governor’s consent. He doesn’t want to admit his failure or is afraid of reversing his stance on non-negotiation with bandits.

The idea is totally archaic and reckless because not everybody will sit down and watch people who killed their loved ones or bankrupted them through ransom payments be forgiven and allowed to roam freely, while the people they killed are no more. The properties destroyed or collected for ransom are not compensated.

Even the government’s careless move to empower repented bandits is not welcoming because they have enough money collected from ransom payments. Why should the government empower them with our money? I think the best approach is to empower the victims, not the repentant bandits. The government should also reintensify its security approach, especially given the recent surge in banditry attacks in eastern and southern Malumfashi over the past two days. May Allah restore absolute peace and stability in our towns, states, and the country at large.

By Engr. Abubakar Sulaiman

The Amnesty International Nigeria and some Northern Intellectuals were asleep or in a state of limbo when the Kano state government invited Mallam Lawan Shuaibu Triumph to appear before the Shura Committee and defend what some segments of Muslims considered blasphemous or disrespectful. He appeared, defended his statements, and heaven did not fall. He also made it clear that he was open to further discussion or debate.

Waking up from slumber, Amnesty International found its voice only when the ‘anointed’ Yahaya Masussuka (whom some people laughably expect to bring about a ‘revolution’ in mainstream Islam and its preachings) was invited by the Katsina state government to appear before a committee regarding his preachments. That was when they realised someone was about to be stripped of their freedom. The olive branch that wasn’t extended to Mallam Lawal Shuaibu Triumph.

Is it double standards or hypocrisy from the organisation and the so-called intellectuals? It is both. And it is a clever-by-half and calculated attempt to arm-twist a government procedure. But this is a discussion for another day.

That said, I believe state governments should find a way to disengage from organising religious debates. They should enact laws that regulate religious preaching and require JNI or CAN (or any other faith-based body) to license preachers. Whoever has a disagreement or believes a cleric’s preachment is an affront to overriding public interest should approach the court. Based on the enacted laws, the court should determine what constitutes extremism or actions inimical to social stability and thereby de-license a cleric or even sentence them to time in correctional facilities where appropriate.

I think debates on religious ideologies should be organised by faith-based organisations, or anyone who has an axe to grind with another person on religious issues should extend an invitation to a debate. Two Salafi scholars, Shaykh Isa Ali Pantami and the late Shaykh Idris Abdulaziz, extended such an invitation to the Boko Haram leader, the late Muhammad Yusuf, without any state government spearheading or supervising the engagement. Many people later renounced the Boko Haram ideology after listening to that debate. Additionally, Mallam Al-Qasim Hotoro also approached Mallam AbdulJabbar Nasiru Kabara for a debate, though AbdulJabbar used a ‘tactical manoeuvre’ to decline the engagement. The populace will then be the judge of who can present convincing evidence for their beliefs or ideology from such debates.

State governments risk falling into a quagmire if they continue to entertain complaints and organise religious debates without referring them to government-recognised faith-based organisations or a court of competent jurisdiction. It is difficult to digest, given the fear of censorship from our kind of governments, but regulation is key to taming religious hiccups and extreme tendencies while enhancing social integration.

Abubakar writes from Kaduna and can be reached via abusuleiman06@gmail.com.

By Ibrahim Mukhtar

The Katsina State Government has formally invited the Quranist preacher, Yahaya Ibrahim Masussuka, who has recently become well-known, especially on Social Media, to appear before an Ulamas’ committee following complaints that his teachings allegedly breach “the general principles of Islamic law.”

The preacher debunks all prophetic sayings (Hadith) and calls the famous Hadith reporters liars. He later adjusted his stance, saying he agrees with three forms of Hadith and refutes all others. According to Masussuka’s new stand, he agrees with any Hadith on three conditions: 1) If the Hadith didn’t violate anything from the Qur’an; 2) If the Hadith didn’t say anything bad against the Holy Prophet, and or 3) If the Hadith preaches peace. However, some scholars have already labelled his current stance as clever bait to catch gullible, ignorant followers.

Masussuka has preached and discussed controversial issues and dismissed some fundamental issues of the Islamic religion as heresy and disowned all the revered Hadith books of Islam as mere concocted lies.

According to the Katsina State’s Secretary to the State Government, Alhaji Abdullahi Faskari, the government has received petitions from some scholars and concerned citizens regarding the nature and manner in which Masussuka’s preachings and sermons do not align with orthodox interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence.

At the same time, Masussuka himself has filed a complaint, claiming that some members of Jama’atu Izalatul Bid’ah (also known as Izala) have insulted and threatened him.

Although Masussuka has great backing and massive support from some Darika disciples, his heretic preaching still continues to stir controversy as many scholars, even among the Darika, see his teachings, which are based on debunking all prophetic sayings, as being completely un-Islamic.

In a bid to resolve the tension, the matter was referred to the Katsina Emirate Council, where both parties were invited to engage in dialogue. After the discussions, Emir Abdulmuminu Kabir Usman reportedly admonished that no one must preach in a way that offends fellow Muslims.

Following the Emir’s intervention, Governor Dikko Umaru Radda directed that Masussuka defend himself “before a Committee of Ulamas.” The SSG’s office also announced that standards and guidelines for preaching would be developed; anyone found to contravene them may face “appropriate action.”

Authorities have called on the public to remain calm, noting that the process will be handled “judiciously.”

The summoning has drawn mixed reactions from several groups, while many others, especially from the Dariqah and other rights and religious-freedom groups, vow to support the preacher. ICADAR (Impactive Centre for Accountability, Democracy, and Rights) warned that targeting Masussuka, whom they describe as “a preacher known for his peaceful teachings,” could undermine Nigerians’ religious expression.

Similarly, Amnesty International has raised concern over what it describes as a coordinated attempt to silence Masussuka. The group cautioned that shutting down his religious activities might violate his constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Another rights organisation, Ettrah: Voice for Freedom and Human Rights, called on both state and federal governments to protect Masussuka, arguing that calls to question his preaching risk “deepening misunderstanding” and threatening national unity.

On the other hand, some social analysts see the current development as worth pursuing, as many scholars were invited to defend their stands, which were deemed contrary to the general teachings of Islam. Some others view it as sectarian tensions, which, if not managed carefully, could inflame existing tensions between different Islamic groups in Katsina and beyond, particularly between Masussuka’s following and the Izala movement.

Sheikh Masussuka’s invitation by the Katsina State Government to defend his teachings marks a critical moment in northern Nigeria’s debate over religious freedom, state intervention, and sectarian balance. With vocal responses from rights groups and religious leaders alike, the outcome of this committee could resonate far beyond Katsina, touching on broader issues of governance, faith, and coexistence in Nigeria.