“Ribadu Under Fire: Claims of Secret Payments to Bandits Trigger Public Uprising”
By Passman Akpos
Nigeria’s public discourse was thrown into turmoil on Saturday after lawyer and political commentator Azubuike Ihemeje alleged that several northern governors are “paying terrorists, sharing federal allocations with them, and even sending monthly food supplies” under what he described as the non-kinetic security approach linked to National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu.
Ihemeje’s remarks—shared widely across social media—accuse authorities of enabling the same criminal groups they publicly condemn. His claims have reignited long-standing concerns about alleged covert negotiations between government actors and armed groups operating across northern Nigeria.
Critics Question Government’s Approach
Ihemeje and other critics point to what they perceive as inconsistencies in the government’s handling of terrorism.They cite Ribadu’s previously reported stance of “no arrest, no prisoner; kill-at-sight” for bandits, questioning why an administration with such a policy would allegedly engage in backdoor payments.
A resurfaced quote attributed to former Head of State, General Sani Abacha, also circulated widely among commentators:
> “If terrorism thrives above 24 hours in any environment, the hands of the government are in it.”
Commentators argue that the current rise in insecurity—marked by repeated attacks, kidnappings, and bandit mobilization—may be linked to these controversial “non-kinetic” engagements.
El-Rufai’s Comments Add Fuel to the Fire
The conversation intensified after former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai alleged during a recent interview that:
> “One billion naira was paid to bandits by the current Kaduna government. They are paying bandits and apologizing to them. If the governor or anyone disagrees, let them deny it — we have evidence.”
The statement sent shockwaves across the country, with many Nigerians demanding investigations and accountability from both state and federal authorities.
Public Distrust and Anger Surge
Across online platforms, citizens expressed deep frustration, arguing that such alleged payments embolden terrorist groups, enabling them to acquire more sophisticated weapons and expand their operations.
Some commenters questioned why government resources would be directed toward negotiations instead of equipping local communities and strengthening security forces:
> “How can you negotiate with terrorists? Isn’t it better to use the money to buy weapons to protect communities?”
Others pointed to the displacement crisis—particularly in the North—arguing that innocent citizens are suffering in IDP camps while “terrorists are allegedly being nurtured and empowered.”
Questions Raised About Security Leadership
Ihemeje’s remarks also intensified scrutiny of key national security figures, especially with claims that two current Defence Ministers hail from the North.
Some commentators further accused NSA Ribadu of failing to publicly address the growing insecurity:
> “Since these insecurities started, that man hasn’t said anything. Nigerians should start questioning these guys.”
Questions were also raised about public figures such as Sheikh Ahmad Gumi—who has repeatedly advocated dialogue with bandits—yet has faced no official sanction, while others accused of incitement have been prosecuted.
Political Implications Emerge
The controversy has spilled into the political arena as well, with some voices warning against the potential presidential aspirations of NSA Ribadu:
> “No terrorist sympathizer should be allowed to rule this nation.”
Calls for Vigilance and Community Protection
Amid the uproar, several commentators urged Nigerians to remain vigilant and take proactive steps to secure their communities—particularly in regions currently under threat.
Some Nigerians from the South East renewed calls for total clearance of forested areas believed to harbor criminal elements.
Government Yet to Respond
As of the time of writing, neither the NSA’s office nor any of the northern governors implicated in the allegations have issued a formal response.Security experts warn that without clear communication and transparency, public distrust may continue to deepen—possibly complicating national security efforts.
