By: Abdulkadir Badsha Mukhtar

Insecurity recognizes no tribe and bows to no religion. It strikes without warning, without names, and without mercy—ravaging villages and cities alike. This sobering reality was forcefully articulated by Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf during a special prayer session convened by the Kano State Government on Sunday, 6 December 2025. The gathering was not merely symbolic; it marked a deliberate and bold response to the growing security challenges confronting the state, signaling a leadership determined to confront fear with faith, action, and collective resolve.
There comes a defining moment in the life of a people when fear can no longer be endured in silence and uncertainty must give way to decisive action. For Kano State, that moment is now. Confronted by the harsh realities of insecurity and violent criminality, the government has chosen not retreat, but resolve. With courage sharpened by clarity of purpose and guided by firm political will, the state is stepping forward—anchored in faith, strengthened by unity, and determined to reclaim peace from the shadows of fear.
The Governor reminded the people that unity is no longer a slogan but a survival imperative, and that division has no place in a collective struggle for peace. He stressed that insecurity thrives where cooperation fails, insisting that every hand must be on deck. His administration, he assured, will continue to offer unwavering support to all stakeholders—traditional institutions, security agencies, community leaders, and citizens—because securing Kano is a shared mission that demands collective ownership.
Beyond rhetoric, the government has moved decisively from promise to practice. Concrete steps have been taken to strengthen the operational capacity of security agencies through the provision of critical logistics. Patrol vehicles and motorcycles have been deployed to enhance mobility and ensure rapid response, particularly in hard-to-reach terrains where criminals often exploit distance and delay. Looking ahead, the administration has pledged to equip operatives with other modern surveillance technologies, signaling a shift toward intelligence-driven security operations capable of detecting and neutralising threats before fear takes root. It is a bold acknowledgment that to some extent, today’s battles cannot be won with yesterday’s tools.
Yet Kano’s response recognises that security is not forged by force alone or modern technology. There are moments when people must also draw strength from faith. In that spirit, the government mobilised over four thousand Qur’anic reciters from all forty-four local government areas of the state to offer special prayers for divine intervention. The gathering was more than a religious exercise; it was a convergence of the spiritual and a collective appeal for peace, protection, and restoration. As the voices of the memorizers rose in unison, they echoed a people’s shared hope and moral resolve.

At the event, the Emir of Kano, Khalifa Dr. Muhammadu Sunusi II, commended the state government for what he described as a timely and thoughtful initiative. He underscored the necessity of aligning prayer with preparedness, stressing that faith and logistics must work hand in hand if insecurity is to be effectively confronted. He urged citizens to support government efforts and cooperate fully with security agencies, warning that silence and indifference only embolden criminal elements. For the Emir, security is not the sole responsibility of government—it is a collective duty that binds every citizen to the fate of the state.
Several respected religious leaders also added their voices in support of the effort. Sheikh Karibullah Nasir Kabara, Sheikh Tijjani Bala Kalarawi and many others praised the initiative and called on the people to rise with renewed patriotism. They urged communities to reject fear and become active participants in the protection of their society. Their message was clear that a people who abandon responsibility risk surrendering their future to chaos.
The determination of the government has also been demonstrated beyond public gatherings. When Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf visited Faruwa village in Shanono local government he went with the leadership of all major security agencies including the Army Police DSS and Civil Defence. It was a visit that sent a strong signal of presence and seriousness. He made it clear that criminals would be confronted head on with the full weight of the law.
Standing before the villagers the governor assured them that the protection of lives and property is a priority that will not be compromised. He pledged that all necessary working equipment would be deployed to restore peace and stability. He also charged the people to provide credible information on the movements of criminal elements stressing that community cooperation remains one of the strongest weapons against insecurity. He extended these assurances to other affected areas including Shanono Tsanyawa Bagwai Ghari and surrounding communities.
The governor further revealed that the matter had been discussed with the President with a shared commitment to resolve the security challenges decisively. According to him other modern devices would be fully deployed and all captives would be rescued intact. It was a message designed not only to comfort the victims but also to warn those who profit from fear that the era of hiding is closing fast.
What makes Kano approach stand out is the balance between faith and force between community participation and government authority and between tradition and technology. It recognises that security is not merely the absence of violence but the presence of justice vigilance unity and shared purpose. It affirms that a society is strongest when its people and its leadership move in the same direction with courage and clarity.
At a time when many states struggle to find lasting solutions to insecurity Kano has chosen action over excuses and unity over division. The political will displayed by the government is a reminder that leadership still matters and that determined governance can still inspire confidence among the people.
Indeed Kano current strategy is worthy of emulation by other states facing similar challenges. It teaches that to defeat insecurity a society must speak with one voice think with one mind and act with one heart. When leadership meets faith and when faith meets responsibility the possibility of peace becomes real.
The journey ahead may be demanding but Kano has clearly refused to surrender to fear. With prayer in the heart technology in the field unity among the people and resolve at the helm the state is steadily rewriting its security story not as a narrative of despair but as a chapter of determined hope.

_Abdulkadir Badsha Mukhtar a veteran journalist, writes from BUK Road, Kano._

By Bala Ibrahim.

The caption above is not mine, it’s borrowed from an ancient Latin proverb that says, “De mortuis nil nisi bonum.” The literal meaning of the proverb is that-it’s inappropriate, disrespectful or even rude, to speak ill of the dead because, they can’t defend themselves. In Islam, there is a hadith that goes thus: “Do not curse the dead, for they have reached the result of what they have done. There is also a Christian principle with similar ambition, like Proverbs 24:17-18 (don’t rejoice in enemy’s fall) and Ephesians 4:32 (be kind, forgiving). All of them are reflecting on the importance of saying nothing but good about the dead. The two religions are encouraging us to focus on God’s grace and the good qualities of the dead, by letting go of bitterness and leaving judgment to God, because, it’s unfair to speak ill of those who can’t defend themselves.

Yesterday, Monday, a book was unveiled at the Presidential Villa Abuja, titled “From Soldier to Statesman”. It is a biography of the late former president, Muhammadu Buhari, authored by Charles Omole. Reacting to the book, President Tinubu said late President Muhammadu Buhari was a leader defined by integrity, discipline and a lifelong commitment to public service, whose legacy should guide future leaders rather than be reduced to slogans. He said the book offers Nigerians the opportunity to learn from Mr Buhari and affirmed that the greatest honour to be bestowed on the late President is to sustain his legacy, to which his administration would do. These are comments that come in tandem with the ambition of saying nothing but good about the dead.

On his side also, Mr. Yusuf Magaji Bichi, the former Director General of the Department of State Services, DSS, who served under Buhari as well as briefly under President Tinubu, he eulogized Buhari very well, describing those accusing him of rigging elections as ignorants. He stated that the late former President Muhammadu Buhari lacked any tendency to rig elections. He was too correct to engage in such wrong doings. Those are comments that came in tandem with the ambition of saying nothing but good about the dead.

Even in the journalism profession, we are tutored to distant ourselves from doing stories that carry the badge of bias. The imperative of balancing stories in journalism is the cornerstone of ethical practice. The aim is for journalists to be seen as fair, impartial, and accurate in the presentation of events. That way, an informed public debate would be fostered always. Without hearing the other side, if published, the story is classified, or even crucified, as unbalanced and unfair. That is the imperative of balancing in order to champion the truth and accuracy. If you submit a story that carries one side only, without the other side, you have failed in upholding the truth and accuracy, thereby denting the cradle of credibility and public trust. The credibility of the story becomes more questioned, when the other side belongs to the dead. That is a professional position in tandem with the ambition of saying nothing bad about the living, talk less of the dead.

But, in something “surprising” (and I put the word surprising in inverted comma because, it hits me as an unethical act), the widow of late President Muhammadu Buhari, Hajiya Aisha Buhari, commented in contrast to the missions of both Islam and Christianity, as well as the positions of many professions and ethical values. In her comments about the dead, on whom the book was written, Aisha is quoted all over the media, as saying somewhere in the book, that her late husband, former President Muhammadu Buhari, became distrustful of her at the tail end of their stay in the villa. According to her, Buhari bought into gossips and fearmongering, to the extent that he began locking up his room when going out, because he was told she was planning to kill him. “My husband believed them for a week or so. Buhari began locking his room, altered his daily habits, and most critically, meals were delayed or missed, the supplements were stopped. For a year, he did not have lunch. They mismanaged his meals.”

Whoever the “they” may be, these are not the kind of comments to expect from a widow, whose late husband is in the grave. They are comments that run contrary to the ambition of saying nothing but good about the dead, and in conflict with the principle of balancing, in the narration of a story. She gave her own side, which she wants the world to believe, knowing fully that we can not get the other side. That’s unethical. Everyone said something good about late Buhari, which requires no balancing. But the submission of Aisha is a balderdash, that is not balanced.

By Musa Iliyasu Kwankwaso

In the history of leadership, force may be loud, but wisdom delivers results. This is why security experts agree that while military action can suppress violence temporarily, dialogue is what permanently closes the door to conflict. It is a lesson the world has learned through blood, loss, and painful experience.

When Dr. Bello Matawalle, as Governor of Zamfara State, chose dialogue and reconciliation, it was not a sign of weakness. It was a different kind of courage one that placed the lives of ordinary citizens above political applause. A wise leader measures success not by bullets fired, but by lives saved.

Across conflict zones, history has consistently shown that force alone does not end insecurity. Guns may damage bodies, but they do not eliminate the roots of violence. This understanding forms the basis of what experts call the non-kinetic approach conflict resolution through dialogue, reconciliation, justice, and social reform.

When Matawalle assumed office, Zamfara was deeply troubled. Roads were closed, markets shut down, farmers and herders operated in fear, and citizens lived under constant threat. Faced with this reality, only two options existed: rely solely on military force or combine security operations with dialogue. Matawalle chose the path widely accepted across the world security reinforced by dialogue not out of sympathy for criminals, but to protect innocent lives.

This approach was not unique to Zamfara. In Katsina State, Governor Aminu Bello Masari led peace engagements with armed groups. In Maiduguri granted amnesty to repentant offenders of Boko Haram, In Sokoto, dialogue was also pursued to reduce bloodshed. These precedents raise a simple question: if dialogue is acceptable elsewhere, why is Matawalle singled out?

At the federal level, the same logic applies. Through Operation Safe Corridor, the Federal Government received Boko Haram members who surrendered, offered rehabilitation and reintegration, and continued military action against those who refused to lay down arms. This balance
rehabilitation for those who repent and force against those who persist is the core of the non-kinetic approach.

Security experts globally affirm that military force contributes only 20 to 30 percent of sustainable solutions to insurgency. The remaining 70 to 80 percent lies in dialogue, justice, economic reform, and addressing poverty and unemployment. Even the United Nations states clearly: “You cannot kill your way out of an insurgency.”

During Matawalle’s tenure, several roads reopened, cattle markets revived, and daily life began to normalize. If insecurity later resurfaced, the question is not whether dialogue was wrong, but whether broader coordination failed.

Today, critics attempt to recast past security strategies as crimes. Yet history is not blind, and truth does not disappear. Matawalle’s actions were rooted in expert advice, national precedent, and global best practice.

The position of Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, who publicly affirmed that Matawalle’s approach was appropriate and that military force accounts for only about 25 percent of counterinsurgency success, further reinforces this reality. Such views cannot be purchased or manufactured; they reflect established security thinking.

In the end, dialogue is not a betrayal of justice it is often its foundation. And no amount of political noise can overturn decisions grounded in evidence, experience, and the priority of human life.