Terrorism

By Muazu Muhammad Adam

In recent times, public conversations surrounding insecurity in Nigeria have increasingly focused more on negative narratives, criticisms, and misinformation, while the tremendous sacrifices and operational victories being recorded daily by the Nigerian Army often go unnoticed or deliberately ignored.

At a time when troops continue to risk their lives across forests, deserts, rivers, and dangerous frontline locations to defend the country, many Nigerians unfortunately pay little attention to the countless successful operations being carried out against terrorists, bandits, kidnappers, oil thieves, and other criminal elements threatening national peace and stability.

Under the leadership of Lieutenant General Waidi Shuaibu as Chief of Army Staff, the Nigerian Army has intensified nationwide operations with visible and undeniable results across several theatres of operation. From the North-East to the North-West, North-Central, South-East, and South-South regions, troops have continued to demonstrate resilience, professionalism, courage, and operational superiority against criminal elements.

One of the major realities many Nigerians fail to acknowledge is that while citizens sleep peacefully in their homes, thousands of soldiers remain deployed in hostile environments under extremely difficult conditions, constantly confronting terrorists and armed groups on behalf of the nation. These sacrifices deserve appreciation, encouragement, and national support rather than constant condemnation and politically motivated narratives aimed at discouraging the morale of troops.

Recent operations carried out under Operation HADIN KAI clearly demonstrate the renewed operational strength and combat effectiveness of the Nigerian Army under the current military leadership.

On 8 May 2026, troops of Operation HADIN KAI decisively crushed a large-scale coordinated assault launched by ISWAP terrorists on Headquarters 27 Brigade at Buni Gari. The terrorists attacked from multiple directions under the cover of darkness in what appeared to be a desperate attempt to overwhelm troops and breach the location. However, Nigerian troops stood their ground with remarkable courage, tactical discipline, and overwhelming firepower.

The terrorists suffered catastrophic losses during the encounter as no fewer than 50 terrorists were neutralised while several others fled with gunshot wounds. The operation also led to the recovery of a large cache of arms and ammunition including AK-47 rifles, General Purpose Machine Guns, RPG launchers, RPG bombs, ammunition belts, magazines, and Improvised Explosive Device canisters. Despite the scale of the attack, troops successfully defended the camp and prevented any breach of the location.

The Air Component of Operation HADIN KAI also played a decisive role by conducting precision air interdictions against fleeing terrorists, further decimating insurgent elements attempting to escape through various withdrawal routes. Human intelligence reports later confirmed additional terrorist casualties scattered across surrounding bushes and escape corridors.

Again, on 9 and 10 May 2026, troops of Operation HADIN KAI successfully defeated another attempted ISWAP attack on the 120 Task Force Battalion in Gonori under Sector 2. The terrorists advancing from the Mandunari axis were detected early by vigilant troops, leading to a devastating ambush and coordinated spoiling attack that completely disrupted the terrorists’ operation before they could penetrate the camp.

Through effective coordination between ground troops, the Air Component of Operation HADIN KAI, and the Nigerian Army Aviation, retreating terrorists were subjected to intense air-land offensives which inflicted heavy casualties on the insurgents. Several weapons including General Purpose Machine Guns, PKTs, AK-47 rifles, assorted ammunition, and other combat materials were recovered after the failed attack.

These successful operations are only a few examples among numerous daily victories being recorded by troops across the country. Unfortunately, many of these achievements receive little public attention compared to negative stories and unverified social media narratives designed to portray the Nigerian Army unfairly.

No military institution anywhere in the world operates without challenges. However, fairness demands that Nigerians should also recognize and appreciate the extraordinary sacrifices, courage, and achievements of the men and women of the Nigerian Army who continue to confront terrorism and insecurity daily under life-threatening conditions.

The leadership of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in appointing Lieutenant General Waidi Shuaibu is increasingly yielding visible operational results as troops continue to sustain pressure against terrorists and criminal networks across the country. The current military leadership has demonstrated commitment toward operational efficiency, troop welfare, inter-agency cooperation, and aggressive offensives against enemies of the state.

Nigerians must understand that constant demoralisation of security personnel through fake news, propaganda, and one-sided narratives only benefits terrorists and criminal groups whose primary objective is to weaken national unity and public confidence. Patriotism requires citizens to support security institutions, encourage troops, and acknowledge genuine progress where necessary.

Constructive criticism remains important in every democracy, but deliberate campaigns aimed at discrediting the efforts of soldiers risking their lives for national security should be discouraged. The Nigerian Army deserves commendation for its resilience, bravery, and continued sacrifices in defence of the nation.

As insecurity continues to evolve, national unity and public support for security forces have become more important than ever. Nigerians must stand behind the Armed Forces and appreciate the efforts of gallant troops who continue to pay the ultimate price so millions can live peacefully.

The courage displayed by troops during the Buni Gari and Gonori operations once again proves that the Nigerian Army remains battle-ready, determined, and fully committed to defeating terrorism and restoring lasting peace across the country.

By Zayyad I. Muhammad

The Saturday, 25th April 2026, coordinated attacks by gunmen in Mali are frightening and call for serious reflection. Several news outlets have reported that insurgents have attacked multiple locations across the country, including the capital, Bamako, and nearby Kati, as well as Gao and Kidal in the north, and the central city of Sévaré.

Observers say these attacks are well coordinated and “unprecedented.” Reports also indicate that fighting is ongoing in several locations, including areas near the airport in Bamako, an alarming development that underscores both the scale and audacity of the assaults. The ability of insurgents to strike multiple, geographically dispersed targets almost simultaneously suggests not only careful planning, but also a growing level of sophistication and operational confidence.

These coordinated assaults, particularly in the Malian capital, should be a cause for concern for everyone in West Africa, especially in the Sahel, a region already grappling with the activities of numerous armed groups linked to extremism, separatism, and organised crime. What is unfolding in Mali is not an isolated crisis; it is part of a broader regional security challenge that continues to evolve in both intensity and complexity.

If underfunding, weak training, corruption, and poor intelligence are persistent problems within the military, then such daring and large-scale attacks become not only possible but inevitable. The situation raises critical questions about the preparedness and effectiveness of Mali’s security architecture. It also highlights the urgent need for institutional reform, better coordination among security agencies, and a renewed commitment to professionalism within the armed forces throughout the Sahel

Assimi Goïta, the current military leader and head of state of Mali, seized power in 2020 and again consolidated control in 2021, largely on the grounds of addressing severe insecurity. His rise was justified as a corrective measure to restore stability and reclaim territory from insurgents. Yet, under his watch, Mali is now witnessing some of its most brazen and coordinated attacks, even right in the heart of Bamako.

This reality presents a stark contradiction. It forces both the leadership and the public to confront difficult truths about the current trajectory of the country’s security situation. Has the strategy changed in a meaningful way? Are the structural weaknesses being addressed, or merely managed? And perhaps most importantly, is the state regaining control, or gradually ceding more ground?

Beyond Mali, these developments carry serious implications for neighbouring countries across the Sahel and West Africa. Borders in the region are porous, and armed groups have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to exploit weak state presence to expand their reach. What happens in Mali rarely stays confined within its borders.

This moment, therefore, should serve as a wake-up call, not only for Mali’s leadership but for the entire region. It demands stronger regional cooperation, intelligence sharing, and a unified approach to tackling insecurity. Without this, the cycle of violence risks deepening, with consequences that could destabilise an already fragile region.

The attacks in Mali are not just headlines; they are warnings. And ignoring them would come at a high cost.

Zayyad I. Muhammad writes from Abuja via zaymohd@yahoo.com.

By Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu

Recent signals from Washington suggest a growing impatience with Nigeria’s internal complexities, especially as they relate to religion, security, and political leadership. At the centre of this emerging posture is a troubling tendency to compress Nigeria’s layered crises into externally convenient labels—labels that risk doing more harm than good.

One of the clearest flashpoints in this evolving narrative is the renewed attention to former Kano State governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso. His name, along with those of Fulani-affiliated organisations and, by implication, Nigeria’s Muslim political class, has begun to feature in American policy conversations framed around religious freedom and accountability. What appears, at first glance, as principled concern deserves closer scrutiny.

Nigeria’s security breakdown is undeniable. Insurgency, banditry, farmer–herder violence, and organised criminal networks have torn through communities across the country. But these tragedies have never respected religious boundaries. Muslims and Christians, northerners and southerners, rural farmers and urban traders have all paid the price. To reframe this national trauma primarily as a story of religious persecution is to flatten reality into something politically useful but analytically false.

This framing did not emerge organically. It has been cultivated through persistent lobbying, selective reporting, and advocacy-driven briefs circulated within Western policy and faith-based circles. Many of these narratives rely on contested data sets and ideologically motivated interpretations that have been challenged by journalists and security analysts familiar with Nigeria’s terrain. Yet repetition has given them traction.

Under Donald Trump, the United States has shown a greater willingness to convert these narratives into policy instruments. Nigeria’s earlier designation as a “Country of Particular Concern” over alleged religious persecution, and the signals accompanying its reconsideration, reinforced the impression that Washington had settled on a moral script that leaves little room for nuance.

What is especially alarming is how this posture now intersects with Nigeria’s domestic political timeline. The proposal of punitive measures against figures like Kwankwaso—who has no public record of religious extremism—raises uncomfortable questions about motive and timing. Sanctions, visa restrictions, or terror designations do not occur in a vacuum; they shape reputations, constrain political options, and influence electoral perceptions.

Even more dangerous is the elastic use of terms such as “Fulani militia.” The Fulani are not a monolith, nor are they a security organisation. They are a vast, diverse population spread across West and Central Africa, encompassing professionals, farmers, scholars, politicians, and pastoralists. To collapse this diversity into a security label is not accountability—it is ethnic profiling with far-reaching consequences.

Those who defend this approach often argue that allowing clerics or religiously identified politicians into democratic space risks sanctifying power. That concern is not without merit. In plural societies, when political authority borrows the language of divine legitimacy, dissent can be recast as moral deviance. But that argument cuts both ways. External actors who cloak geopolitical interests in moral absolutism risk exporting the very instability they claim to oppose.

Nigeria’s democracy, imperfect as it is, rests on pluralism, negotiation, and the acceptance of politics as a human—rather than sacred—enterprise. When foreign policy instruments treat Nigerian political actors as symbols in a global religious drama, they undermine this fragile equilibrium. Worse still, they embolden local extremists who thrive on polarisation and grievance.

None of this is to argue against international engagement or concern for human rights. On the contrary, Nigeria benefits from cooperation with partners such as the United States in intelligence sharing, capacity building, and counterterrorism. But partnership must be grounded in evidence, context, and restraint—not in sweeping classifications shaped by advocacy pressure or domestic American politics.

If Washington’s objective is stability in West Africa, then the path forward lies in engagement rather than labelling, dialogue rather than designation. Nigeria’s challenges are internal, complex, and deeply rooted. They cannot be solved by reducing political figures to caricatures or entire communities to security threats.

Kwankwaso’s politics, like that of any public figure, should be judged by Nigerians through debate, scrutiny, and the ballot. External political labelling, however well-intentioned, risks distorting that process and deepening divisions within an already strained federation.

In the end, what Nigeria requires from its partners is not moral theatre but sober cooperation. Fairness, evidence, and respect for internal democratic processes remain the only sustainable foundations for international engagement.

Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu is a journalist and syndicate writer based in Abuja.

By Zayyad I. Muhammad 

Bandits, Lakurawa, Ansaru (Jama’atu Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan) and other terrorist groups have been terrorising Nigerians through killings, kidnappings, and rape. They have displaced thousands of people, carved out territories for themselves, collected taxes, and effectively governed parts of the North-West and North-Central regions.

For 13 years, the violent separatist group IPOB/ESN, designated a terrorist organisation by the Federal Government, has been operating in southeast Nigeria, terrorising the region through armed attacks on security forces, the enforcement of sit-at-home orders, and the killing and coercion of citizens to obey its directives.

For over 15 years, Boko Haram and ISWAP have established their authority on soft targets in some parts of the North-East, as well as attacking military formations, killing and kidnapping civilians, and carrying out suicide bombings against innocent people.

From the North-East to the North-West and North-Central regions, both local and foreign terrorist groups have carved out territories within Nigeria, killing and kidnapping innocent citizens, collecting taxes, imposing their own laws, displacing hundreds of people and brazenly displaying their weapons in public and on social media platforms.

On December 25, 2025, the United States, with the coordination and approval of the Nigerian government, launched 16 GPS-guided missiles at terrorist targets in parts of Sokoto State. As a result, some debris fell in Jabo and Offa. In Jabo, the debris fell on open fields, while in Offa, two hotels were hit.

Nigeria’s failure to eliminate these terrorists has brought the country to this point. No nation welcomes foreign military intervention on its soil. 

However, which constitutes a greater infringement on Nigeria’s sovereignty: the existence of local and foreign terrorist groups operating freely, killing, kidnapping, conducting suicide bombings, collecting taxes, and displacing innocent citizens from their lands, homes and places of business for nearly two decades, or a few hours of a U.S. missile strike authorised by the Nigerian government?

 Zayyad I. Muhammad writes from Abuja via zaymohd@yahoo.com.

By Aliyu Ya’u

His Excellency, Dikko Umar Radda’s position on rural banditry has provoked considerable reactions, with some questioning his resolve to confront bandits rather than seek a peace agreement.

Given that he lacks control over the paramilitary and armed forces present in the state, it is fair to say that he has taken commendable steps by establishing the state’s community policing group and encouraging the civilian population to engage in self-defence. 

I fully empathise with his frustration, especially in light of the constant criticisms and pleas from victims suffering due to the terror of rural banditry. Understandably, his excellency may feel disheartened and powerless to prevent these criminals from continuing their activities. 

Further, everyone, especially the civilian population, would welcome a peace accord in a real conflict situation. In such situations, all parties’ demands are tabled and deliberated, and sustainable solutions are found and implemented. 

However, in the case of an unorganised and unregulated group like rural bandits of the North-western and North-central Nigeria, who wreak havoc daily without reasonable justification. 

The question lies not in the society respecting the peace accord, but in the modalities employed to guide the peace settlement. Another question is whether the peace accord is sustainable, using historical parameters to assess the credibility and reliability of the commitment of the violent party involved. 

Any peace accord between a government, society, and an armed group should be based on disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR). 

According to the United Nations Peacekeeping operation unit, DDR is “a process of removing weapons from the hands of members of armed groups, taking these combatants out of their groups and helping them to reintegrate as civilians into society.”

The question is whether the militias or bandits are ready to surrender all their weapons, demobilise from their dens, and reintegrate into the larger society. Unless the government can confirm these terms with the bandits’ leaders, mediators, and sureties, it will not be obligated to build a wall of ash blocks. 

Other questions include, How strong and convincing are the commitments laid down or presented by the militias? How committed is the leadership to the pact? What are the demands? How cogent and soluble are they? Do they have a unified command structure? Is the command structure capable of issuing an effective directive that will be respected by various dens and groups committing heinous bandit crimes? 

These armed groups are often small; in most cases, a group comprises 10 or fewer bandits who act autonomously, unless they need to cooperate against a sedentary enemy community. The absence of a centralised governing body makes it difficult to build an effective peace agreement with the groups. How could a peace accord with hundreds of bandit groups roaming the regions’ thick and interconnected forests that span hundreds of kilometres and access many states be possible? 

Another aspect deserving the government’s focus is the scope of Katsina state’s peace accord. What areas will it encompass? Will the armed bandits responsible for heinous crimes in Katsina state prevent others from neighbouring states from crossing into the area to commit banditry? It’s crucial to recognise that we are not dealing with an insurgent group, a separatist movement, or an ideological terror organisation; rather, the state is confronting multiple disorganised criminal entities. 

The focus should be on the following: The state’s primary concern is achieving lasting peace, not a temporary ceasefire. The bandits should establish a reliable leadership structure that is known and accessible, and willing to take full responsibility if they breach the agreement. They should clearly specify what sets their current commitments apart from those made with previous governments. Additionally, they should submit their complaints for the state’s review and assessment. The sureties must first confiscate or disarm the bandits before any peace accord is signed.

Aliyu Yau holds an M.Sc. in Defence and Strategic Studies and is a public policy and conflict analyst based in Kaduna.

By Zayyad I. Muhammad

On Saturday, November 1, 2025, U.S. President Donald J. Trump made his famous “guns-a-blazing” remark and described Nigeria as “the now disgraced country.”

On Sunday, November 2, he repeated that the United States could deploy troops to Nigeria or launch airstrikes to stop alleged killings.

In what appears to be a reaction to Trump’s comments, terrorists and bandits in Nigeria have intensified attacks, especially the mass abduction of pupils, students, and worshippers.

On November 17, bandits abducted 25 female students from Government Girls’ Comprehensive Secondary School, Maga, Kebbi State.

On November 18, daredevil gunmen attacked Christ Apostolic Church, Oke-Isegba, Eruku, kidnapping 38 worshippers during an evening service.

On Friday, November 21, gunmen raided St. Mary’s School in the Papiri community of Niger State’s Agwara District, abducting 215 pupils and 12 teachers.

That same day, after Trump appeared on Fox News and declared, “I think Nigeria is a disgrace,” reports emerged that ISWAP fighters had abducted 13 teenage girls working on farmlands in Askira-Uba, Borno State.

Armed groups across Nigeria have long understood the symbolic power of their targets. But the timing and composition of these attacks suggest deeper motives:

Three separate days. Four mass kidnappings. Hundreds of victims. Mostly female victims. This is not a coincidence. This is a strategy.

Observers cite four major reasons:

1.  To escalate the situation and attract international attention. Nothing provokes global outrage like the mass abduction of schoolgirls or worshippers. Terrorists crave visibility, especially when a powerful international figure has threatened intervention.

2.  To instil fear and embarrass the government , psychological warfare, so to speak. Targeting female students and worshippers strikes directly at the heart of communities. Schools and places of worship are supposed to be sanctuaries; when they are violated, society trembles.

3.  To use abducted victims, especially girls, as human shields. If the U.S. were ever to conduct air strikes, the bandits and terrorists understand the protective value of having dozens of young female hostages in their custody.

4.  Ransom opportunities: To exploit heightened international interest as leverage for ransom or negotiation. Heightened American interest increases the “value” of hostages. Criminal groups see an opportunity to negotiate for large payouts.

President Trump’s threats have become a local weapon for the terrorists. To be fair to President Trump, he may not intend it, but his sensational remarks have become ammunition in the arsenal of Nigeria’s armed groups. They interpret his words as an opportunity or a provocation and recalibrate their tactics accordingly.

Also, to be fair to President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, he or his government cannot control the statements made by foreign leaders. Still, they can control how prepared the country is for the consequences. This moment demands urgency. The Nigerian delegation to the US, led by Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, is engaged in sterling diplomatic work. Thus, apart from local efforts, this visit indicates to the Nigerian leadership that a well-planned diplomatic strategy can prevent reckless foreign commentary from escalating domestic crises.

Local and international efforts must work together!

Zayyad I. Muhammad writes from Abuja via zaymohd@yahoo.com.

By Uzair Adam 

The Nigerian Army has apprehended a suspected arms dealer, rescued a kidnapped victim, and disrupted terrorist logistics networks within the last 24 hours.

A credible source at the Army Headquarters reportedly disclosed that the troops of Operation FANSAN YAMMA, on Thursday, apprehended a suspected terrorist informant during an ambush at Ungwan Gombawa in Kontagora Local Government Area (LGA) of Niger State.

The source said troops of 1 Brigade also arrested an alleged major terrorist logistics supplier and arms dealer at Danjigba in Bukkuyum LGA.

According to him, preliminary investigations reportedly linked the suspect to two coordinators in Anka LGA, believed to be responsible for storing weapons sourced from the Niger Republic.

He said the troops recovered military uniforms, a helmet, boots, financial receipts amounting to about N4 million, and audio evidence linked to arms transactions.

The source added that troops responding to intelligence on the recent abduction of students of GGSS Maga in Kebbi State stormed a terrorist camp in the Gando–Sunke Forest, which belongs to a kingpin known as Bello Kaura.

He said the attackers fled the location, allowing troops to destroy the camp and its support facilities.

The source explained that another suspected informant travelling from Sokoto was arrested at Augie, where troops recovered five ATM cards, clothing, and N78,900.

In another development, he said troops survived an ambush along the Kaiga–Mara road in Katsina State, forcing the attackers to flee.

He added that an operation carried out in Shinkafi and Zurmi LGAs also resulted in a firefight during which troops captured two AK-47 rifles, ammunition and two motorcycles.

Under Operation Enduring Peace in Plateau State, troops foiled a kidnap attempt in Jos South, rescuing a victim who sustained gunshot wounds.

The source also confirmed that eight suspected criminal herders were arrested in a separate raid in the same LGA.

Similarly, troops of Operation Whirl Stroke responded to a road incident in Nasarawa State, where three passengers were reportedly kidnapped and a driver was injured. Efforts to rescue the victims are ongoing.

He added that troops arrested two herders accused of destroying crops in Guma LGA of Benue State.

According to him, the Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Waidi Shaibu recently undertook operational visits to Borno, Kaduna, and Zamfara, during which he assessed ongoing operations and urged troops to remain disciplined, alert, and committed to the fight against terrorism.

By Muhammad Abubakar

A federal court in Abuja has sentenced Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to life imprisonment for terrorism-related charges. The judge stated that Kanu’s calls for “sit-at-home” orders incited violence and constituted acts of terrorism.

The court ruled that for several of the charges, the law prescribes either life imprisonment or the death penalty. In delivering the verdict, the judge described Kanu as a “tyrant” capable of violence and said he should no longer remain a part of society.

The prosecution immediately called for the death penalty following the conviction. Kanu has previously been imprisoned, first in 2015 and again in 2021 after a controversial extradition from Kenya.

Supporters of Kanu have staged protests, and opposition politicians have criticised the government, alleging that the trial was politically motivated.

By Lawan Bukar Maigana 

The growing hunger among media organisations and young people to publish exclusive news has created a climate where speed is valued more than truth and its consequences. Many rush to break stories without verifying details, flooding the digital space with noise and carelessness.

This reckless chase is more dangerous than it appears. Insurgents and criminal groups quietly monitor social media ecosystems. They sit behind screens, study posts, and gather intelligence that was never meant for them. A single careless update becomes an open door for those who wish to harm the nation.

The tragedy of Brigadier General Mohammed Uba stands as a painful reminder of how information can be weaponised. His initial capture, his escape, and the later recapture that ended with his execution reveal how ruthless these criminal networks have become. While many sympathised with his ordeal, few understood how online chatter influenced the events.

These groups constantly scan conversations, comments, and reactions. They interpret patterns and extract clues from citizens who treat every issue as content. The story of General Uba should teach the country a life-saving lesson. Silence is sometimes safer than speed. Enemies are listening and active online, and every careless post strengthens their hand.

They learned from social media chatter that he was still in the bush after escaping. Thoughtless updates provided them with clues. They mobilised fighters, tracked him again, recaptured him, and executed him. This is the heavy cost of posting without restraint.

Security matters require silence more than spectacle. Media organisations must recognise that operational secrecy protects lives. Sensational updates during crises do not inform, but they endanger. The right to know cannot outweigh the need to safeguard ongoing operations. 

This protection is not just for soldiers but also for citizens. Insurgents study community movements, market patterns, celebrations, and tragedies. Careless information helps them identify the weakest points. 

If anyone must share information during sensitive times, the only safe place to do so is with the authorities. Security spokespeople exist to process information responsibly. They verify claims, filter sensitive information, and ensure that outsiders cannot track anything that could compromise national security.

Despite these realities, many still chase virality with reckless boldness. A recent incident exposed this trend when a fabricated story circulated about a young lady in  Gubio Local Government Area of Borno State, who allegedly took her life because she was forced into marriage. Influencers shared it widely without verifying a single detail from her family or the authorities.

The emotional weight of the story carried it across timelines. People blamed parents, culture, and religion. The story was false, yet the damage was already done. The truth moved more slowly than the lie. Later, those who invented the news were arrested, and they confessed that they had shared the information without any verification after a whole LGA had been demonised.

This incident reflects a troubling social habit. People now prefer drama to accuracy. They prefer emotional reactions to factual clarity. They prefer virality to responsibility, at the expense of people’s lives, especially among northern netizens. 

This culture feeds insecurity and weakens the nation’s sense of truth. When false alarms dominate the digital space, real warnings become harder to identify. When emotion overshadows fact, society becomes vulnerable.

Young people must understand that social media is no longer a playground; it is a battlefield for attention and a monitoring ground for criminals, organisations, and individuals with exclusive access who read everything posted online.

Editors and influencers must rise above the chaos and set a standard. They must insist on verification before publication and accuracy before speed. Their platforms should become places where truth is valued and rumours are filtered out. If they uphold responsible reporting, their followers will learn to do the same.

They must also use their influence to educate the public. People should understand that clicks are not worth the life of a soldier or a citizen, and shares are not worth the shame of an innocent family. Only through responsible reporting can society rebuild trust, strengthen security, and protect the dignity of those whose stories are too important to be mistreated or used to strengthen news agencies’ visibility.

Lawan Bukar Maigana wrote via lawanbukarmaigana@gmail.com.

By Hadiza Abdulkadir

Chadian authorities have arrested Muslim Muhammad Yusuf, identified as the son of Boko Haram’s late founder, Muhammad Yusuf. Muslim, believed to be 18 or 19 years old, was captured along with five others while leading an Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) cell.

Analyst Bulama Bukarti confirmed Muslim’s identity after speaking with family friends and relatives, who said he is the son of Bintu, Muhammad Yusuf’s first wife. His arrest reportedly followed a tip-off from Nigerian intelligence.

The development comes in the same week Nigeria announced the capture of two top leaders of Ansaru, a Boko Haram offshoot, and the head of the Mahmuda Group, active in parts of North Central Nigeria.

Security experts describe the arrest as a turning point, marking the first time a major faction leader has been taken alive. They warn, however, that Nigerian authorities must now focus on dismantling bandit groups wreaking havoc in the North West and North Central regions.