Negotiating With Bandits Is Not a Sign of Failure – Defence Minister Bello Matawalle

Nigeria continues to confront persistent security challenges across several regions, including widespread banditry, rural attacks, kidnapping, and community displacement. While the country has intensified military operations, air surveillance, and police deployments, internal debate continues over the role of negotiation in de-escalating armed conflict.

 

The Minister of Defence of Nigeria and former Governor of Zamfara State, Bello Mohammed Matawalle, has consistently defended the strategy of engaging bandit groups in dialogue, arguing that negotiation is not a sign of state weakness but a necessary tool in complex conflict environments.

He noted that governments around the world adopt multiple strategies when facing armed non-state actors, and Nigeria must be realistic about the terrain, scale, and humanitarian consequences of prolonged conflict.

 

Ejes Gist News reports that the Minister said criticism of negotiation often came from individuals who had not witnessed the scale of hardship rural communities experienced during peak bandit attacks.

Why Bello Matawalle Supported Engagement With Armed Groups

Matawalle assumed leadership in Zamfara at a time when banditry had surged, affecting remote villages, markets, highways, and agricultural settlements. Rural residents were being forced out of their communities, schools were closing, and supply chains were disrupted. Many villages relied on local policing and small military deployments, which were insufficient against mobile, heavily armed gangs operating from deep forest areas.

 

Pay Attention To: Presidency Reveals Why Tinubu Didn’t Sack Matawalle Despite Allegations of Banditry

A Search for Immediate Relief

The Defence Minister explained that the decision to hold discussions was anchored in the urgent need to:

• Reduce attacks on civilians
• Allow displaced families to return home
• Reopen farmlands and sustain food production
• Stabilize communities
• Gain intelligence about criminal networks

Negotiation, according to him, was intended to protect lives while the government restructured long-term security responses.

Understanding the Escalation

Banditry in northwestern Nigeria developed from isolated cattle theft into widespread violent enterprise. Armed groups expanded operations into:

• Kidnapping for ransom
• Village extortion
• Highway blockades
• Illegal mining control
• Destruction of food reserves and farmlands

The Defence Minister noted that applying force without tackling intelligence gaps, community influence factors, and geographical limitations would produce short-lived gains.

Negotiation as a Strategic Tool

Matawalle argued that conflict management in modern security frameworks is not singular. Nations such as Colombia, the United Kingdom, and South Africa have, at various points, used negotiation to reduce violence before long-term agreements were finalized. The Minister stated that governments often deploy a mix of strategies:

• Military operations
• Dialogue and settlement
• Community-led peace frameworks
• Economic stabilization
• Local involvement in surveillance

He maintained that this global precedent contradicted assumptions that negotiation signifies defeat.

Why Negotiation Was Not Viewed as Weakness

Critics often interpreted negotiation as surrender or appeasement. The Defence Minister rejected this, saying the policy focused on results rather than emotion. To him, negotiation should be assessed using measurable factors:

• Did hostilities decline?
• Did communities regain mobility?
• Were farming seasons restored?
• Were schools reopened?
• Did government forces gain improved intelligence?

If the answer to these questions was positive, then negotiation had served a defensive, humanitarian, and strategic purpose.

Public Debate and Divided Perspectives

The policy generated wide national attention. Opponents of negotiation argued that the strategy could:

• Encourage more armed groups to emerge
• Reward violent behavior
• Undermine public trust in state authority
• Reduce the deterrent effect of law enforcement

From their perspective, only firm military action could send a clear message that violent crime carries severe consequences.

Supporters countered that many rural areas lacked the conditions necessary to survive prolonged armed conflict. They argued that dialogue could provide temporary stabilization, humanitarian access, and operational space while government security agencies reorganized.

Preventing Loss of Life

Matawalle repeatedly emphasized that saving civilian lives was the priority. Many villages had lost harvests, livestock, property, and livelihoods. Families that had lived in their communities for decades were losing generational assets. The Minister stated that the primary responsibility of any government was to preserve lives before ideology, politics, or debate.

Historical Precedents in Nigeria

Nigeria has a history of using negotiation in complex internal conflicts.

Niger Delta Engagement

When oil installations were under sustained militant attacks, the federal government launched negotiation and later an amnesty program. The strategy significantly reduced pipeline sabotage and increased oil production.

Community-Level Settlement Frameworks

Before colonization, traditional rulers in northern Nigeria frequently intervened in community disputes, using dialogue and settlement systems to prevent extended violence. Matawalle drew from this cultural heritage.

Local Conflict Resolutions

In several northern states, local peace committees, traditional councils, and religious leaders had previously negotiated limited ceasefires that created temporary calm.

These examples showed that negotiation was not abnormal within Nigeria’s conflict management structure.

Economic Pressures Behind the Negotiation Strategy

Zamfara is a major agricultural region. Banditry disrupted:

• Crop cultivation
• Livestock movement
• Rural produce sales
• Mining transportation
• Market operations

With farms abandoned, food prices increased and household incomes fell. The Defence Minister explained that negotiation helped communities return to planting fields, allowing economic activity to restart even before the full military restructuring process matured.

Reducing Strain on Security Forces

Large forest zones made it difficult for security personnel to cover every location. Negotiation created temporary de-escalation zones, enabling federal forces to redeploy, strengthen surveillance, and collect operational intelligence for future strikes.

Expert Viewpoints Supporting Multi-Track Conflict Responses

International security analysts often note that internal conflicts rarely end through force alone. Research from peace studies institutions recommends blended responses that include:

• Dialogue
• Force projection
• Socio-economic recovery
• Local governance strengthening
• Transitional arrangements

Examples include:

• Northern Ireland’s structured peace agreements
• Colombia’s demobilization and reintegration framework
• Several United Nations-brokered ceasefire arrangements in Africa

Supporters argue that Nigeria’s security conditions share similarities with these cases in the sense that local communities face immediate survival threats.

Challenges With Negotiation

Matawalle himself acknowledged that negotiation had limitations and risks.

Fragmented Armed Factions

Not all groups accepted peace terms. Some operated independently, making universal commitment difficult.

Enforcement Limitations

Ensuring compliance was challenging in wide rural territories without consistent government presence. Violations could occur without swift accountability.

Risk of Manipulation

Some bandits used negotiation periods to regroup, procure weapons, or expand networks. This raised concerns about verification methods.

Community Trust Issues

Some victims demanded justice or legal consequences. They believed that reconciliation without accountability could undermine long-term peace.

Balancing Negotiation and Force

Analysts recommended that negotiation should not replace military strength. Instead, it should:

• Operate in parallel with targeted force
• Include measurable obligations
• Use neutral observers, such as traditional leaders
• Establish clear timelines
• Integrate community reporting structures
• Maintain arrest and prosecution for severe crimes

This prevents negotiations from becoming a shield for continued criminal activity.

Humanitarian Considerations

Humanitarian organizations often note that negotiation can temporarily enable:

• Delivery of medical supplies
• Food relief distribution
• Access for vaccination campaigns
• Population census and identification
• Child protection programs

In areas where conflict blocked relief access, even short calm periods supported essential survival.

National Security Implications

Nigeria continues to refine its internal security doctrine. Key national questions remain:

• Should negotiation be formal policy or situational response?
• How can ceasefires be enforced reliably across remote locations?
• Can negotiation reduce violence while security forces expand operational reach?
• What accountability structure ensures that peace agreements do not incentivize future violence?

These debates shape how Nigeria designs future counter-bandit operations.

Recommendations From Supporters

Those who agree with the Defence Minister’s stance propose:

1. Developing standardized negotiation guidelines.
2. Involving security agencies, traditional rulers, and civil mediators.
3. Establishing a monitoring system for ceasefire compliance.
4. Ensuring that negotiation does not interfere with prosecution of major crimes.
5. Linking peace agreements to measurable socio-economic benefits.
6. Transitioning temporary calm into lasting development programs.

Recommendations From Critics

Opponents of negotiation prefer intensified operational frameworks, including:

• Expanded military deployment
• Forward-operating bases in forest zones
• Increased air reconnaissance and drone monitoring
• Upgraded local policing capacity
• Stronger investigative and intelligence databases
• Improved justice system efficiency

They argue that strong deterrence prevents emerging criminal groups from seeking the same benefits.

Role of Community Leaders

Traditional rulers, religious institutions, and village leaders played important roles in local peace arrangements. They served as:

• Mediators
• Conflict monitors
• Cultural authorities
• Intelligence sources
• Communication channels

Matawalle integrated them into community-level dialogue sessions, emphasizing that local leadership held significant influence over rural populations.

Is Negotiation a Permanent Solution?

Security professionals generally note that negotiation alone cannot resolve long-term conflict. Durable peace requires:

• Employment opportunities
• Improved education
• Stronger rural policing
• Land and water reforms
• Effective border and forest surveillance
• Modern communication infrastructure
• Improved justice systems
• Community rehabilitation initiatives

Negotiation simply manages short-term violence while long-term reforms develop.

Conclusion

Bello Mohammed Matawalle, Nigeria’s Minister of Defence and former Governor of Zamfara State, continues to stand by his decision to negotiate with bandit groups. He insists that negotiation is not a sign of weakness but a strategic survival mechanism for communities placed under severe threat. While critics fear that dialogue could embolden other armed elements, supporters view it as a practical choice made under difficult conditions where uninterrupted military confrontation could lead to increased civilian casualties. The national debate remains active as Nigeria seeks a balance between deterrence, stabilization, law enforcement, and conflict transformation.