Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Insecurity

Insecurity

The Growing Threat of Armed Banditry in North-West Nigeria

by

Nigerian authorities had earlier in April this year, deployed special forces in the country’s northwest to combat kidnappers and bandits. Source: Reuters Archive

For some time now, Nigeria has been a hotbed of conflicts. Apart from the perennial conflict between the farmers and herdsmen, there are other notable security challenges, which includes the activities of the Biafra separatists, militant Islamists in the North-East, kidnappings in many parts of the country, the Niger Delta imbroglio, and so on. However, the Boko Haram group remains arguably Nigeria’s biggest security threat. The group poses a significant threat to neighboring countries as well, especially Cameroon, Niger, and Chad resulting in grave economic, social, and humanitarian consequences. For example, the group recently gruesomely executed 40 rice farmers in Jere Local Government area of Borno State, Nigeria. The United Nations had claimed that the number of deaths were far more than reported.[1] But while the group is making lives unbearable for the people living in Northeast Nigeria, another organised group referred to as the armed bandits are increasingly making lives difficult for the people living in the Northwest area of Nigeria. Life is no longer sacred in these parts of the country and the overall impact will certainly last for generations. Government is clearly overwhelmed and the citizens helpless. It is therefore expedient to examine the dynamics of this recent surge in armed banditry, the challenges inhibiting the fight against banditry and how to prevent the total shutdown of the country by bandits and insurgents alike. But first, who are these bandits?

Banditry violence is not a new phenomenon in Nigeria. The history of banditry in Nigeria can be traced to pre-civil war period when government deteriorated in certain parts of the old Western region resulting in political violence, crime and organised insurgency.[2] Accordingly, during the civilian reign, local bandits were reportedly stealing domestic animals. [3] Recently, in the Northwest area of Nigeria particularly in Zamfara, Sokoto, Katsina, Niger, Kaduna and Kebbi States, the activities of Bandits have been particularly worrisome. The activities of these bandits’ ranges from kidnapping to murder, robbery, rape, cattle-rustling, and the likes. Their modus operandi involves maiming and killing their victims when they least expect. Usually, they mobilized themselves through the forests into the neighborhood riding on fast motorcycles especially in the nights and shoot at will. Sometimes in the afternoon, once they were sure there were no security presence of the police or military around, they unleash terror in the communities. This growing threat is claiming victims in hundreds. Several children have been orphaned and women became widows overnight while the issue of food security as well as humanitarian tragedy will further make life unbearable for many Nigerians.

The facts are scary. While about “1,100 people were murdered in 2018 in the six states of North west Nigeria in 2018, over 2,200 were killed in 2019 and 1,600 killed between January and June 2020”. [4] About 247,000 people had been displaced while their activities alone have led to the production of more than 41,000 refugees. [5] In Zamfara alone, over 8000 people have been murdered in the last decade, 200,000 displaced internally and others fleeing to neighbouring states. [6] The situation is so porous already that the religious leader and Sultan of Sokoto, Muhammadu Sa ad Abubakar opined that “Bandits now move in the North from house to house with AK47 and lamented that the region had become the worst place to live in Nigeria…”[7]In Sokoto, more than 250 people have been killed in about 20 attacks, [8] just to mention but few.

It is important to note that the newest Northwest conflict started because of fight over depleting lands and water resources between the farmers and the herdsmen with the farmers belonging mostly to the Hausa people and the herdsmen being predominantly Fulani.[9] As a consequence, there has been massive deforestation because of the impact of the Sahara Desert spreading south. [10]

Also, in an area where poverty is deeply rooted and illiteracy extremely high, rearing cattle is the preoccupation of many Fulani’. Thus, whenever this source of livelihood is threatened, whether by nature or human intervention, they are willing to do anything to survive. In addition, there is the problem of the proliferation of small arms and light weapons in the area, inequality and as John Campbell puts it, “weakened, stretched and demoralized security services.[11] There are also problems of failure of local justice and ethnic division [12] as well as uncoordinated and under policed borders. Indeed, in recent history, banditry also became the order of the day because of government’s inability to protect lives and property as well as failure to put the welfare of the people first.

Government has responded at both state and federal level. The initial reaction was the bombardments of the various abodes of the bandits by the military and police under different code names, but this did not yield much significant result.[13] The state governments have also tried to negotiate and give amnesty to repentant bandits. While this initially worked, the result did not last.[14]

There are salient reasons why government interventions are not yielding fruit till date. A major factor is the topography of the area. The terrain is such that security presence is virtually unavailable for most people in the area particularly, those living in remote areas. It takes hours sometimes for security personnel to respond to distress calls of victims.[15] This is further propelled by the massive forests surrounding the areas which is shielding the bandits from being easily captured especially as they make use of forests such as the Falgore, Kamara, Kunduma, Subudu, Kamuku and Kiyanbana forests.[16] This makes it difficult for the military to secure the lives and property of the people residing in the areas especially without modern technology systems. So, what is the way forward?

The Nigerian government has complained about not having adequate modern equipment to give to her security personnel to work and had appealed to the international community to help in this regard. Fighting terrorism or banditry is not a tea party. Government must be proactive and partner with affected communities to bring a lasting solution to it. How do these bandits’ source for guns and tools to fight with? Where are they hiding? How do they access finance? Do they have records that can be accessed? Is it possible to trace their roots and linkage? How can information leakage among security personnel’s or civilians partnering with them be reduced? Answers to these questions will show that the threats of bandits can be reduced if not nullified.

Civil-military cooperation is a necessity and infrastructural development is a must even to rural dwellers as well as access to communication, police presence and protection. Not only these, the vigilantes that have been formed in the various communities in the north to combat the activities of these bandits must also be professionally trained and well organised by the government to work better and aid their communities. Movement of small arms and light ammunitions through the porous borders must be checked in cooperation with other countries in the region but ultimately, poverty must be drastically reduced, and providing good education to all citizens must become the priority of the government.

Endnotes

[1] The Punch, “Anger spreads as UN says 110 Borno farmers killed”, 30 November 2020.

[2] Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, (December 27, 2018, “Banditry in Nigeria: A brief history of a long war”, The Punch.

[3] Mustapha Umar Nadama, (2019) Armed banditry and Internal security in Zamfara State”, International Journal of Scientific and Engineering research, 10 (8) : 1220.

[4] “Banditry violence and displacement in the Northwest”, (2020), retrieved from https://www.acaps.org/sites/acaps/files/products/files/20200723_acaps_short_note_northwest_banditry_crisis_nwbc_nigeria.pdf 30/11/2020

[5] Ibid.

[6] International Crisis Group Report (2020), “Violence in Nigeria’s North West: Rolling Back the Mayhem”, 288:3.

[7] Onyebuchi Ezigbo (2020), “Bandits now move in the north from house to house with AK47”, ThisDayLive, retrieved from https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/11/26/bandits-now-move-in-the-north-from-house-to-house-with-ak47-says-sultan, 11/26/2020

[8] Rakiya A. Mohammed (2020), “Sokoto: Over 250 persons killed in 20 Deadly attacks’, Daily Trust, retrieved from https://dailytrust.com/how-bandits-killed-over-70-in-sokoto

[9] International Crisis Group Report (2020), “Violence in Nigeria’s North West: Rolling Back the Mayhem”, 288:3.

[10] Nduka Orjiinmo, (2020), “Katsina: The motorcycle bandits terrorizing northern Nigeria”, retrieved at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53009704 11/26/2020

[11] John Campbell, “Not all violent problems require violent solutions: Banditry in Nigeria’s North-West, retrieved at https://www.cfr.org/blog/not-all-violent-problems-require-violent-solutions-banditry-nigerias-north-west 11/26/2020

[12] Emmanuel Akinwotu, (2020) “Waves of bandit massacres rupture rural life in northwest Nigeria”, The Guardian retrieved from https://theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/waves-of-bandit-massacres-rupture-rural-life-in-north-west-nigeria 11/26/2020

[13] John Campbell (2020), “Not all Violent Problems Require Violent Solutions: Banditry in Nigeria’s North-West, retrieved from cfr.org/blog/not-all-violent-problems-require-violent-solutions-banditry-nigerias-north-west, 5/12/2020

[14] The Premium Times (2019), “Northwest governors grant amnesty to ‘bandits’, herders”, retrieved from https://www.premiumtimesng.com/regional/nwest/344330-north-west-governors-grant-amnesty-to-bandits-gerders.html

[15] International Crisis Group Report (2017), “Herders against Farmers: Nigeria’s Expanding Deadly Conflict”, 252

[16] WANEP (2020) “Addressing Armed Banditry in the North West Region of Nigeria: Exploring the potentials of a Multi-Dimensional Conflict Management Approach”, 5.

 

Strife Series on Climate Change and Conflict (Part III) - Slow Violence: Climate Refugees and the Legal Lacuna of Protection

by

by Eloise Judd

Climate change and natural disasters are rapidly putting people around the world on the run, often rendering them stateless climate refugees (Image credit: Campaigncc)

Cities and states are gradually being submerged by rising sea levels, food and water security are threatened by temperature and rainfall variability, and diseases are spreading with increasing frequency and severity – to name but a few effects of climate change. Refugees coming from such regions find themselves in a legal lacuna of protection in international law. This ‘slow violence’ that is ‘not just attritional but exponential’ is exacerbated with each passing day of political inaction. The inertia of legal developments mirrors the very threat faced by these refugees, with climate change and its correlative forced migration as the epitome of ‘delayed destruction’.

Climate-induced migration will also be, for the most part, gradual, with the exception of sporadic, mostly internal, migration shifts in response to significant climatic events such as cyclones or king tides. However, by focusing on transnational migration, specifically from low-lying, ‘disappearing’ island states, pertinent and unanswered questions around statelessness, international law, and human rights obligations are highlighted.

The slow violence of climate change is consistently an issue of representation, accruing in the shadows of the ‘immediate’, ‘explosive’ and ‘spectacular’ violence that dominates rapid news cycles and political agendas. This article seeks to bring the legal lacuna in which climate refugees are positioned to the fore. By challenging the ‘slow violence’ of political inaction, it advocates for an amendment to treaty law on the basis of international human rights obligations.

Despite its poignant resonance, the term ‘climate refugee’ does not exist in international law. For this reason, many authors avoid this label as it is considered an ‘international misnomer’ which ‘does not accurately reflect in legal terms the status of those who move’. Instead, alternative appellations such as ‘environmentally displaced person’ or ‘climate change migrant’ are adopted. Yet, in doing so, authors present an implied acceptance of a differential standard of legal protection according to the source of harm from which one is fleeing.

Climate refugees fall within a ‘protection gap’ – a legal lacuna – unprotected by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention) (UNHCR, 1951) and the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless People (1954 Convention). The former is ‘the centrepiece of international refugee protection’ however the criterion of Article 1A(2) is limited to those with a ‘fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group or political opinion’.

Extensive literature has debated whether ‘climate change counts as persecution.’ This focus, however, is misguided. The centralisation of ‘persecution’ overshadows the elaboration in Article 1A(2) of one ‘being unable… to avail himself of the protection of [his] country’. By encouraging the notion of ‘protection’ to take precedence in debate, a case can be made in favour of extending the 1951 Convention to obligate international protection for human rights when state assurance is inhibited.

Under international law, human rights are the positive obligation of a citizen’s nation-state. Climate change may undermine the state’s capacity to protect and ensure numerous human rights: including the right to life, the right to health, the right to a nationality, and the right to political freedoms. In Tuvalu and Kiribati, for example, this cessation will ensue on a slow and violent continuum: the state will become increasingly uninhabitable, with resources such as freshwater supply threatened until the point that it is lost below sea level. Consequently, climate refugees are de facto stateless; a status that should not be limited to the de jure loss of nationality but to the loss of ‘protection resulting from nationality’.

This is a novel form of statelessness, unprotected by the 1954 Convention which, when drafted, was formulated around state absorption, merger, and dissolution (with successor states). The loss of low-lying island states, however, is not met by a territorial replacement. Contributing further to the lacuna of protection, the right to nationality outlined in article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not present in customary international law. This lacuna of protection is highly significant for de facto stateless climate refugees who are unable to rely upon the legal obligation of the international community to grant a new nationality.

Solutions posited to the legal lacuna centre around the principles of non-refoulement and ‘complementary protection’. The former is exemplified in the Teitiota ruling in January 2020, heralded as a ‘landmark’ and ‘historic’ case. Although valuable in its unprecedented recognition of climate refugees, the legal protection afforded in insufficient. The case made by Teitiota, a Kiribatian man seeking asylum in New Zealand, formed the basis of the UNHCR ruling against the deportation of persons who’s right to life may be threatened by climate change upon return.

However, the protection offered by non-refoulement is conditional and temporally latent, premised upon an individual reaching the host state before any form of security is granted. It is also a highly individualised form of protection, wholly inadequate to meet the demands of entire populations as states disappear below sea level. Similar ad hoc protection is reflected in ‘complementary protection’ regimes – nation-state responses to persons outside of the 1951 Convention seeking asylum. These are premised upon national discretion rather than a universalized obligation. Without a binding treaty, disparate nation-state displays of altruism are ineffectual.

Nevertheless, ‘complementary protection’ regimes do exemplify political will to meet the post-1951 Convention demands of refugeehood on the basis of human rights. This notwithstanding, political will must be transformed into action to explicitly incorporate climate refugees in the mandated protection afforded by the 1951 Convention. Some authors, such as McAdam and Saul and Williams critique that the Convention cannot, or should not, be amended; arguing that the incorporation of specialised sub-groups would devalue current refugee protection by fragmenting the legal regime.

This contention is flawed, however, as the 1951 Convention itself is additional to the refugee criterion established in the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928, the Conventions of 18 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939, and the Constitution of the Refugee Organisation. The Convention encompasses former refugee definitions, thus broadening rather than devaluing protection.

Expansion to meet novel contexts, such as climate change and its correlative forced migration, was anticipated when drafting the Convention in 1950: the French delegate critiqued the narrow criterion, affirming that ‘new and undreamed-of categories of refugees might be created’ and ‘in view of the turbulent state of the world, no such list could ever be complete’. Thus, it was acknowledged in Recommendation E of the Conference’s Final Act that the Convention could be extended in response to changing demands. Ad hoc extensions of the contractual scope have been exemplified at the national level by ‘complementary protection’ regimes. However, until climate refugees are explicitly protected by the 1951 Convention, they will continue to exist precariously in a lacuna of international legal protection.

Eloise Judd is currently completing an MA in Conflict, Security & Development within the War Studies Department at King’s College London. Formerly specialising in Political Geography at Durham University, she is currently researching protracted refugee situations and the interaction between camp architecture and human rights. Eloise hopes to pursue a career in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. You can connect with her on LinkedIn, or follow her on Twitter: @eloise_judd

Strife Series on Climate Change and Conflict – Introduction

by

by Gemma MacIntyre

Studies show a direct correlation between climate and violent conflict (Image credit: Image: Reuters/Amit Dave)

In recent decades, climate change has been recognised as an important international concern. Scientists and leaders worldwide agree that the pressure of increased temperatures on crop yields, natural capital, and water availability - and subsequent demand for already dwindling resources - is undoubtedly of detriment to global populations. In a recent IPCC report, it was concluded that a predicted 1.5-degree celsius of global warming could significantly impede efforts to achieve sustainable development goals: pushing more people into poverty, exacerbating inter-group equalities, and wreaking global economic disruption. Such acute warnings from scientists, combined with mounting pressure from environmental activists worldwide, has prompted multilateral efforts to curb carbon emissions.

As states have become more aware of the impact of climate change, so too have they come to analyse it from different perspectives. In doing so, an important consensus has emerged: that climate change is not merely an environmental concern; it is a human security challenge too, with the potential to aggravate societal grievances. Further, the impact of increased temperatures on already scarce resources, migration movements, and food security may affect both intra- and inter-state relations: with the capacity to fuel further conflict.

Still, the direct impacts of climate on international conflict and security remain somewhat hazy; and policies to address it, scarce. This is partially due to the empirical difficulties of measuring climate’s impact on violence. Associating casualties with conflict is, at the best of times, challenging: let alone when those causal factors - including changing temperatures, rising sea levels, and depletion of resources - are intangible. Further, while drought and extreme temperatures have undoubtedly exacerbated poverty and forced displacement in regions such as Syria, Sudan, and Bangladesh; in a knotted web of additional political, social, and economic grievances, isolating climate as a cause of conflict is difficult to ascertain.

With that being said, while the empirical evidence remains uncertain, it is critical to treat climate change as not merely an environmental or economic concern, but as an international security issue, as well. To analyse this idea in greater depth, this series aims to form a discussion about the relationship between climate change and conflict. By outlining the impact of climate change on issues including terrorism, migration, and civil strife; this series aims to demonstrate the multifaceted nature of climate change as an international security challenge. It is hoped that, by doing so, it will emphasise the relevance of climate change to contemporary conflict studies, and national security policy more widely.

 

Publication schedule

Part I: Why Has Somalia Proved a Fertile Environment for the Rise of Al Shabaab? The Impacts of Climate Change on the Rise of Islamist Terror by Annabelle Green

Part II: Climate Change and Social Conflict by Professor Anatol Lieven

Part III: Slow Violence: Climate Refugees and the Legal Lacuna of Protection by Ellie Judd

Part IV: Water Conflicts: Climate Change as a Threat Multiplier in Sub-Saharan Africa by Musab Alnour

Gemma graduated from the University of St Andrews in International Relations and Management and is now studying an MA in Conflict, Security and Development at King’s College London. During her undergraduate degree, she studied a range of post-conflict cases, with a particular focus on intractable conflicts such as Israel-Palestine and Bosnia. Through her academic studies and voluntary experience with VSO in Nigeria, Gemma has developed a strong interest in the relationship between corruption and development. Her experience with VSO Nigeria furthered this interest, as she was made aware of the acute impacts of governance on public services, such as health and education. She hopes to pursue further research on the impact of conflict on health security.