Dalena Reporters | November 16, 2025
Islamic cleric Sheikh Ahmad Abubakar Gumi has reiterated his controversial role as a mediator between the Nigerian government and armed Terrorists, defending past negotiations by saying he once convinced over 600 armed bandits to lay down their weapons and surrender to the authorities. According to Gumi, the surrender was brokered under conditions, but many of the promises made by the government were never fulfilled.
Speaking publicly, Gumi said critics calling for his arrest for liaising with terrorists are “spineless and irresponsible,” arguing that he negotiated openly with security authorities and sought to de-escalate violence rather than glorify criminality. He recalled a January 2021 meeting in the Sabon Garin Yadi forest, Giwa LGA, Kaduna State, where he met bandit commanders in the presence of a senior police representative. Over 600 of them reportedly agreed to surrender on the guarantee of basic amenities, protection from arbitrary arrests, and a path to peace — none of which, Gumi claims, came to pass.
Gumi’s defence of his actions comes amid mounting public backlash over his repeated calls for dialogue with armed groups. He has consistently framed the violence as rooted in deeper societal grievances, suggesting that many bandits are not ideologically motivated terrorists, but rather aggrieved individuals pushed into violence by injustice.
He also warned against purely military solutions, arguing that force alone will not resolve the bandit crisis. In a recent interview, Gumi cautioned that bombing campaigns or mass arrests could exacerbate the problem — urging instead for more structured peace processes modeled on past amnesty programs, such as those for Niger Delta militants.
But Gumi’s defenders are not the only voices in the debate. Human-rights lawyer Inibehe Effiong has strongly criticized him, saying Gumi’s public sympathy for bandits raises serious national security concerns and signals possible government complicity in the kidnapping and killing spree. Effiong argues that by championing dialogue without demanding accountability, Gumi is undermining the rule of law and enabling the continued violence.
Still, Gumi remains unrepentant. He says his interventions were driven by a sincere conviction that dialogue, not force, offers the only viable long-term solution. He insists that his efforts were made transparently, and that he is merely a bridge between the state and a population caught in cycles of violence.