Separating Strategy from Sentiment: A Technical Response to the Allegations Against the Minister of State for Defence

Separating Strategy from Sentiment: A Technical Response to the Allegations Against the Minister of State for Defence

By Dr. Awwal Abdullahi Aliyu

In every society grappling with complex security challenges, there is always the temptation to reduce serious policy decisions to simplistic accusations. This is particularly true in environments where politics thrives on narratives rather than facts. The recent allegations linking the Minister of State for Defence Dr. Bello Matawalle to banditry and terrorism fall squarely into this category and deserve a sober, technical and unemotional response.

At the outset, it must be clearly stated that there is a fundamental difference between engagement as a security strategy and collusion as a criminal act. Unfortunately, some commentators have either deliberately or ignorantly blurred this distinction, creating a misleading narrative that does not withstand empirical scrutiny.

Nigeria’s security challenge, especially in the North West, is not conventional warfare. It is asymmetrical, community-embedded and fuelled by poverty, arms proliferation and transnational criminal networks. For this reason, modern counterterrorism doctrine, both globally and locally, recognizes that non-kinetic measures must complement kinetic operations. Dialogue, intelligence penetration, psychological operations, de-radicalization and negotiated disengagement are tools used by states worldwide, including advanced democracies.

The decision by government authorities at the time to open channels of communication with individuals linked to violent networks was not an endorsement of criminality, but a deliberate attempt to dismantle such networks from within. Intelligence-led engagement often requires interfacing with unsavoury actors to extract information, disrupt supply chains and secure the release of abducted citizens. This is standard practice in security operations and cannot logically be equated with sponsorship of crime.

It is also important to emphasize that engagement does not imply immunity. Where individuals involved in peace efforts later violated the law or abused the opportunity extended to them, the state acted decisively. Arrests were made, prosecutions followed, and convictions were secured. This sequence alone dismantles the claim that there was any form of protection or complicity. A government that prosecutes and imprisons offenders cannot, by any stretch of logic, be accused of shielding them.

Another critical fact often ignored by critics is that the insecurity in question predated the tenure of the Minister when he served as a subnational leader. He inherited a deeply rooted crisis, one that had already devastated communities, displaced thousands and crippled economic activity. His administration chose a strategy aimed at reducing civilian casualties first, reopening critical transport routes, restoring markets and allowing farmers and traders to return to their livelihoods. These outcomes were achieved, not by magic, but by a calibrated mix of dialogue and force.

Evidence of this approach’s effectiveness was visible in the reopening of previously inaccessible roads, the revival of major markets, and the release of large numbers of abducted citizens without bloodshed. These outcomes were acknowledged at the time by citizens, traditional leaders, and security experts. It is therefore disingenuous for the same approach, now replicated at the federal level with similar results, to suddenly be rebranded as evidence of sympathy for terrorism.

What is most concerning about the current allegations is their selective application. Similar non-kinetic strategies were adopted by multiple state actors across the region, yet the outrage appears targeted. This selective outrage strongly suggests political motivations rather than genuine concern for national security. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Minister’s growing national relevance and proximity to the centre of power have made him a convenient target for political adversaries seeking relevance through controversy.

Security policy must be evaluated by outcomes, not emotions. If lives were preserved, hostages freed and communities stabilized, then the strategy deserves objective assessment, not politicized condemnation. To conflate tactical engagement with criminal complicity is not only intellectually dishonest but also dangerous, as it undermines legitimate security tools and discourages innovation in counterterrorism.

Nigeria’s fight against insecurity requires unity, trust in institutions, and respect for professional judgment. Reckless accusations weaken morale, distract security leadership and hand propaganda victories to violent groups who thrive on division and confusion.

In conclusion, the allegations against the Minister of State for Defence are baseless, speculative and politically fuelled. They collapse when examined against facts, outcomes and established security doctrine. The Minister’s record shows a consistent alignment with the core objective of any responsible government which is the preservation of lives and the restoration of peace.

History will ultimately be kinder to strategies that saved citizens than to voices that sought political gain from national pain. Nigeria must resist the weaponization of insecurity for partisan ends and instead support approaches that blend firmness with intelligence, strength with restraint and force with foresight.