Notorious bandit leader Bello Turji has publicly accused two former governors from northern Nigeria of directly contributing to the ongoing insecurity in the region. The shocking allegations, delivered in a video that quickly circulated on social media, have reignited public debates about political accountability, governance failures, and the persistence of violent crime across northern states.
Turji claimed that the former governors’ administrative decisions laid the foundation for the rise of banditry in Sokoto, Zamfara, and neighbouring states. He alleged that during their tenure, local vigilante groups, widely known as Yan Banga, were armed and empowered to maintain order. However, according to Turji, these groups disproportionately targeted Fulani communities, escalating communal tensions and fueling cycles of violence. While the stated objective of these vigilante groups was to improve local security, Turji insisted that their operations exacerbated insecurity rather than curbing it.
Addressing recent allegations that he received a ₦30 million payoff for participating in state-led peace negotiations, Turji categorically denied the claims. He emphasized that his involvement in peace talks was genuine and aimed at fostering stability in the region, rather than being motivated by personal financial gain. This denial adds another layer of complexity to ongoing discussions about negotiation processes between government officials and armed groups.
The timing of these allegations comes amid continuing security challenges in northern Nigeria, including armed banditry, kidnappings, and clashes between herders and farmers. Experts argue that the persistence of insecurity is not solely a law enforcement problem but is closely linked to governance shortcomings, socio-economic inequities, and historical grievances. Turji’s accusations highlight the critical role political leadership plays in either mitigating or inadvertently fueling violence, raising pressing questions about accountability and oversight within state governance structures.
At the time of reporting, neither of the former governors implicated in Turji’s statement had publicly responded. Sources close to the ex-governors dismissed the claims as politically motivated and undermined Turji’s credibility by pointing to his status as a convicted criminal. Meanwhile, security analysts cautioned that while the allegations are serious, they remain unverified. They emphasized the need for independent investigations and more transparent governance mechanisms to prevent political interference in security operations.
Turji’s statements also have significant implications for ongoing peace initiatives in northern Nigeria. His insistence that he did not receive financial incentives suggests that some insurgent groups may still be open to dialogue if negotiations are conducted in a transparent and credible manner. Analysts have highlighted that rebuilding community trust, depoliticizing local security structures, and ensuring inclusive engagement with affected populations are critical steps toward achieving sustainable peace. However, the public nature of Turji’s accusations may complicate future negotiations, particularly in communities that have experienced repeated attacks and where mistrust toward political leadership remains high.
The controversy raises several urgent questions for policymakers and security agencies. Will the former governors respond or be subject to formal investigations? How can local security structures be reformed to prevent political manipulation and ensure accountability? What measures can guarantee that peace negotiation frameworks remain credible and inclusive?
