 Sheikh Gumi warns President Bahari against declaring bandits in the north as terrorists. And, Minister of Justice Abu Bakr Malami blames iPop for Lagos and Sars Attacks and the looting of Obas Palace during that period. This is plus politics and I am Mary Anacol. Islamic scholar Ahmad Gumi has warned President Mohammed Bahari and the federal government against declaring bandits, killing and abducting people in the north as terrorists. The Sunni scholar had said this, declaring them as terrorists would come with a big prize. He called on the clergymen to talk to Yoruba rights activist Sondi Buhor and indigenous people of Biafra just as he does to bandits. Gumi, who is known to have access to bandits, had once asked that the federal government grant them blank amnesty. Recently, some Nigerians including Governor Aminum Masari of Katsina State and the Forum of the House of Assembly Speakers urged the federal government to declare the bandits as terrorists. The Senate had also made a similar call in September. Joining us to break this down is Afeer Wanagohi, he is a security expert and of course we have Bishop Johnson and Ladikwa Johnson. Ladikwa Johnson is a legal practitioner. Thank you very much gentlemen for joining us. Alright, if you can hear me, you need to unmute yourselves gentlemen so I can hear you. But I'm going to start with you Afeer. The issue of Sheikh Gumi, he continuously finds himself in the news. He's always part of the discourse in terms of banditry and of course the abductions that have been happening in the country. The biggest question on every Nigerian's lip is why Sheikh Gumi walking free and still making these recommendations to the government, don't forget he does have access to these people. But then it is very difficult for these bandits to be prescribed, it is very difficult for these bandits to be kidnapped or rather to be arrested or you know, we remember the last time we were talking about this issue the army was saying that they do not know where to locate them but they keep continuing the activities and so the big question is why Sheikh Gumi still speaking? Very clearly Mary, I think the same response Nigerians would have is the same I have it appears that there are sacred cows as far as the fight against terrorism on the one banditry is concerned. Sheikh Gumi has time and time again shown that he knows the inner workings of the so-called bandits whom from the beginning of the issue many of us have described as terrorists. They have done as much as Boko Haram has done. It is just that their modus operandi has not included thoughts for the donation of bombs. Other than that they have killed, they have desecrated communities, they have killed Nigerians and Sheikh Gumi finds himself into their dance, you know their inner workings and he appears to be the man who every now and again defends them and decides to stand against every other Nigerian that decides that what these guys are doing is a miracle to the national interest of Nigeria and for him to continuously do what he does to perpetrate what I call this mindless impunity and disregard for the lives that have been lost. I think the government should have investigated him, they should have called him to order. You know, probably a charge would have been placed on him for collaboration with these people and then he would shut his mouth if he's not going to help the system. We should not work against the system. What I have found Mary Ann is that clearly there is, it is lip service, there is some kind of sacred cows. If Sheikh Gumi was some other person in the country, would he be having this free ride and freeing rain and talking the way he's talking? You can see that even governments that were hit out against describing these guys as terrorists who were hit out to say they were businessmen and justified or nationalised all the actions are not putting it around because they found that there is senselessness and mindless clings. You know, for Sheikh Gumi to continue making the headlines that he does it appears that the government needs to now step up. It is past the time where you think that somebody is part of your own system, part of your own team and to that effect you don't want to go against him. But if he's from the other divide, you can go against him. Clearly the bandits are not supporters of any part of this country. They are killing people. They are killing Nigerians and lives are being lost day by day. So people like Gumi who are highly placed, who are highly opinionated, religious leader, a cleric of repute of some sorts should not be making the kind of comments he's making. I expect that he should have been invited by the police, by the DSS for interviews. Remember the last time there was a report that he was interrogated and interviewed by the DSS? He said nobody invited him and he didn't go anywhere. And there was no counter. There was no response from the agency. So I believe Sheikh Gumi needs to be called to order. Basically, he cannot continue with impunity to make such comments. Nigeria is bleeding. See what's happening in Sokoto? See what has happened or what continues to happen in Kaduna. What happened in the railway line that we had, the Buddha Kaduna Railway Line recently, credited to Iswab or whatever. It could very well be bandits. It's just a matter of nomenclature. Call a doggy about them to hang it or Christian them bandits if you don't want them to be seen for the evil that they are. Clearly it's terrorism. And what is terrorism by the way? This is out called terrorism. So Nigerian government does not have to even wait for Sheikh Gumi to make his comments to rationalize or otherwise or to deflect attention from the criminal, headsmen, criminal bandits or terrorists. They should not wait. They should do the needful. If you don't have Christianing them, we give you the needed international support. We give you the needed impetus to fight these guys. Don't wait for Sheikh Gumi to tell you what you have to do. Thank you for staying with us. There's still plus politics. We apologize for the hiccups. But we have been talking about Sheikh Gumi and of course he, warning the federal government of not prescribing bandits and of course calling them terrorists. And we've been speaking with Ifei Wanago and Laddipa Johnson. Mr. Johnson, this question goes to you now. I want us to set a foundation for this conversation. Yes, we have started it, but when we talk about a terrorist, what are the qualities of a terrorist? What characteristics or what characterizes a terrorist? What are the things that we can point to that would make a person be referred to as a terrorist? Maybe we can build it from there and then we can understand whether or not Gumi does have a case or maybe the others who are advocating that these people be called terrorists. Maybe they have a case, but go ahead and educate us. I think I'm going to leave Mr. Johnson now and come back to you. How serious do you think that the government is in terms of fighting terrorism in the country? Because last week the president was talking tough about dealing with bandits and saying that they're about to meet their doom. It's going to be the end for them. But then on the one hand, we're still seeing that the government has not necessarily given us a case in terms of changing the mentality of these guys or even showing us action that they want to put an end to the bandits. When they declared that they were going to shut down the telecom networks in parts of the country, the belief was that that action would have some measure of secession of what the terrorist bandits have been doing. But it's been some months since this action of shutting down networks have happened and we've seen that even the governors of some states are now saying, please allow the networks to flow because they are not achieving the results they needed to achieve by virtue of your shutting down the networks. I believe that the government has paid lip service too much. You cannot, in this day and age, continue to warn people, continue to warn criminals. You can warn who would be criminals to desist, to not even plan what they want to plan. But people are killing Nigerians, are kidnapping Nigerians and taking all communities hostage. And you're still giving warnings, issuing warnings. What are you waiting for? You have not declared the emergency that you have threatened to declare in parts of the country that have not had any violence near what you are having in parts of the country and yet you are still issuing warnings. Let's go all out onto the needful. We appreciate the fact that we have a whole city of resources to tackle the situation that we have at hand. We appreciate the fact that we do not have the requisite manpower in terms of the numbers. But you have to show that there is an urgent situation at hand. To that extent, you need to more pop resources. How many people do we have in our armed forces? And the police and military agencies that support them. If you have a war going on and you need to draft a moment, draft a moment, then there is the operational plan. Is the operational plan giving you the needed results thus far? Or are we continuing to just do what let it be the same blast of fight that we are having? It cannot be like an everyday business. No, this must have a definite end, must have a goal. You must review what you have done in the last one month, two months and three months. And yet there are no results. You must change strategy, change approach. For me, I think a lot more needs to be done on the part of the government. This is not time for one and any longer. These guys are holding swaths of territory. And we must do something about ungoverned spaces. It appears that there is so much ungoverned spaces in parts of the north. Now, parts of the east is also falling in a circumvent towards east. So government must show presence in these areas. If you need to go defeat these guys, hold territory while you advance to do more, get more food, so just more boots on the ground like we said elsewhere. And do the needful. This is not a time for paying lip service and talking. You cannot be warning in this day and age. But we, I mean, somewhat, I don't know, I'm going to speak for myself. It seems like we've done a lot more of talking and we talk about the same thing over and over and over again when these issues crop up. But I mean, I'm really always wondering what the challenge is. And I'm going to ask you that question because you're a security person actively, you know, in the field. So I'm wondering, what is it? Is it strategy? Is it, you know, are they bereft of ideas on how to go about this? Is it the lack of political will? What exactly is the challenge? Because it's not enough to, you know, say, oh, one time we heard it was a shoot at sight order. And the next thing now, the president is talking tough. The last time he said, well, he's done everything he can. What else do we want them to do? Really, what is the challenge? What do you think as a person from bird's eye view is the challenge? I think it's a combination of factors for me. And I think at the top of all these factors is political will. It appears like these people are still being treated like our reclassial brothers in quotes now. You know, so you want to hit them or you don't want to hit them hard. You don't want to be seen to be ruthless with your reclassial brothers. Probably they have a room to turn around. And again, we hear that one ex-boko around fighter, one ex-bandit has gone back and has killed several more people. And the government keeps on talking. I'm also appreciative of the fact that we have issue of manpower. We have equipment issues. We have training. In terms of our modus operandi, is it the best we can do at this time? As far as the war on terror, the war on body trade goes all over the world. We have to partner. We've seen governments. We've seen senators call for partnership with international bodies, international countries, agencies who are going to come to the ground and work with us to tackle these menace. For instance, you have agencies across the world. You have international agencies like Interpol and you have other countries that have been here before. You have mercenaries. But you must show good will. You must show that you are doing the needful first as a country and that you have the political will. And then you cannot extend your hand to request for support. People can then say, okay, this country is ready to do what they need. I will give them immediate support. But for me, I think the political will must be clear. There must be no two-way about it that this government is ready to definitively deal banditry, terrorism, a blow. It appears to me from my own perspective that the government is being very careful. They do not want to be seen to be ruthless. Remember that when President Jonathan was in power before he left, and then you had General E. Jirika and Chief of Army Staff, you had a massive onslaught in Baga and elsewhere. And then we had elements from another part of the country crying that it was too much. But the fight on Boko Haram was the fight on the North. We need something similar to happen now for you to show the international community and to show the Nigerians that you are ready. You cannot be treating this with kid gloves. Okay. So I appreciate that there are all other shortcomings that we have as a country. Manpower, resources, training. But you have not shown the country that you are definitive, that you are ready to tackle this. And on top of it all, it's political will. I think it is lacking. Mr. Johnson, thank you for coming back. And I think we also have joining us, Bishop Johnson. But I'm going to go to Mr. Ladikwa Johnson. I tried to ask this question earlier, but you couldn't hear me, so I'm going to ask it now. Because we need some foundation for this conversation in terms of what characterizes a terrorist? What are the things that a person does that you can point to as acts of terrorism? Maybe we can build from there up. Educate us. Well, thanks for the question. And I'm sorry about my network here. I think that, well, given the definition of terrorism, the textbook definition of terrorism is rather difficult now. Well, basically, when you have what they are doing, what is going on now in the Northwest, North Central, in parts of the country, all that is being called banditry is actually terrorism. There's no doubt about that. But I think that if you permit me to go further, I think that we must be careful here. Gumi has been advocating for the so-called bandits over time. And as such, we are not willing to listen to him. But there are certain things he said that I read through today that makes sense to me. One, I must support Efe that this government has shown a total lack of political will in dealing with the issues on hand. And they have made things worse by their lack of action. If anyone is saying to us now that you need to declare them terrorists, you don't need to declare them terrorists to do what you have to do. You don't need to. Well, that's been my question over time. If we change the nomenclature, will that ginger... Let me use the street word. Exactly. Will it leave government that will to do what they need to do? Any... Yes, if they are saying change the nomenclature, what have you? Well, good. But who are the terrorists? Virtually all terrorist organizations have one goal. They belong to one body. These are bandits from different... Maybe Gumi can put them together and say because he's been meeting with different ones and say that they are one. But from the position of the government, it would be difficult to say, oh, these are related to Al-Shabaab. These are related to Ishwa. You understand what I'm saying? They're bandits. It's difficult. But my take is that you don't even need to declare them terrorists. This has been going on for long and if this government were responsible, they would have done top quality situation. It's not just the army you need to put in. This is a different sort of war and insurgency. You need intelligence. You need different things, different components to fight what this... to fight this thing. And they are not doing that. But the government can do nothing recently. I'm so sorry to butt in, but let me just come in there. Recently, Governor El Rufi had said that there are some international issues that cover this argument that we're having in terms of prescribing them as terrorists and he thinks that it's best to call them terrorists so that you can treat them as that and maybe he thinks that that would be the best way to deal with the issue. But again, if you're saying that they don't need an elementary change for the right things to be done, then maybe we still will have to deal with the international community as to how we go about dealing with the issue, don't we? Well, if you have to deal with the international community, it will come down the line. It will come way down the line when you sorted it out and they say you went overboard or the human rights abuses when you arrested them, et cetera, et cetera. So I'm not saying don't call them terrorists. Do it if you will. But even in not so doing, does not mean that you shouldn't do your job security-wise. But to be fair, if they are called terrorists, as Bumi said, there are some things that will happen and he has a point there. I just want us to note that. We don't want to listen to him, but he has a point there. If you make it out that they're terrorists, especially with an Islamist coloration, then it would attract more of these people from al-Shabaab and whatever to come in. I'm not saying they're not coming in now. That is definitely one of the things that would happen. They'll get more support. They're more organized and there's nothing as bad as having some religious thing behind any action you're taking. So government must balance things, but people wouldn't complain if they were taking proper action, improved intelligence, military striking properly, and what have you. But things are not going on because they've spread themselves thin. They're running after anti-Sahab people. They're doing all sorts in Anambra and the East. You're thin on the ground where it is important. So it's back to government and as they said, the lack of political will. Okay. Let me go to Bishop Johnson. Thank you very much for joining us. Let me quickly refer to something that Sheikh Gumi said. He noted that the tag of terrorism on bandits would attract unemployed youths. He didn't stop there. He also went ahead to say that acts that bandits are committing in the Northwest have gradually over time become tantamount to terrorism because wherever innocent people are fatal victims, it's pure terrorism. He also went ahead to say, yet innocence these days is relative. We agreed if their children and women are also killed, they're guilty by association or collateral damage. Also youths, he also went on to say that also the bandits may think the same way. It's right for vigilantes, he's saying it's right for vigilantes to lynch full of knee-hearts men or anyone that looks like them by profiling them wrong for the hurt men to ransack villages in retribution. They are pushed to believe it is an existential war and in war ethics are thrown to the winds. So he's putting together two groups of people and making a case for them. I don't know if we still have Bishop Johnson, have we lost him? We lost Bishop Johnson. His connection is off. Okay, so back to you now, Mr. Ladikbo. It's interesting that the juxtaposing or lumping together of the activities of these bandits and Boko Haram and including those who are involved in cattle rustling and reprisal attacks. So it's very easy for the average person who's looking from the outside in, for example, someone in the south-south or the southwest to look at it and say, well, they're all full of knees. Oh, they're all herders. But it goes beyond lumping these people together. It goes beyond the issues of religion. It is the fact that innocent people are dying in different parts of the country and nothing has been done about it. So if we're still on the same issue of saying, let's not call them a name or let's call them a name, when we do call them these names, what happens then? Exactly. If you name them, if you christen them terrorists or you do not, the bottom line is that you still have to fight them in an efficient manner. You still, security forces still have to be some 10 steps ahead of them. That is not happening now. They seem to be playing catch up the Nigerian army. And that is because it is not a conventional, I'm not the security expert. It's not conventional warfare, you understand? Most times when they come into villages or come into cities to strike, they probably have people giving them information amongst the people there. How many people do we have? How many citizens of Nigeria in these rural villages or in some other towns give the police of the army information? A lot of Nigerians have lost confidence in the military, we think our military for their service but we've lost confidence in the security services and that is why I believe a lot of them are not cooperating or giving the intelligence that our security forces require. So these are the things. I'm more curious at the point where he's making that it's going to, once you christen them terrorists, it becomes more pleasant or more endearing for youths who are unemployed. Why would an unemployed young Nigerian be more interested in being a terrorist? No, because I don't think it will be more interesting to them. But that's what the state is saying. Except for the fact that if... I think we're having connection issues there, if I'm going to toss this to you now. When the shake says that, look, the moment we become, we tag the bandits terrorists, we would attract more young unemployed Nigerians. I'm trying to get past that but I'm still stuck there. Why would that become a problem all of a sudden? I mean, we have a terrorist group already that's been prescribed in this country called Berko Haram. Why would all of a sudden if we say that all these bandits are also terrorists, that it would now become a more creative atmosphere or a welcoming atmosphere for our young unemployed citizens? Maria, I'm struggling to see the logic. I don't want to question the validity of his thought process and reasoning in arriving at his conclusion. We're in this country where we also have the governments that took a while before Berko Haram was christened terrorists. Different factions of Berko Haram and then you have the Iswab and then you have all manner of nocturnal groups of them. We have not seen the attendant rise, the NDMS, the pull on the youth of the North, East and Northwest to now become adherents of Berko Haram and the Iswab because they are not terrorists. So it doesn't make sense to me. But that said, I want to add that when over 300 shite adherents were killed in Kaduna, were they described as terrorists before they were killed? When a previous government leveled OG on the presidential center, were they terrorists? Were they christened terrorists when some policemen were killed? When it happened in Zakibyan, were they christened terrorists first? The point is this, the government knows what to do, muzzle the necessary political way and give the required support to our soldiers. Those people who control, who are in top echelon of our forces, in top hierarchy, must do the needful. They must be able to send the guys to where it matters most and give them the required support, motivate them. Optional planning is key, it's major. We don't want the situation where like we found some viral videos. When you find somebody in the theater of war and the policeman or a soldier is complaining that they are about making these guys hit in their camp and they are told to stay action. The next thing they hear that people have left where they were, it means signals to the Nigerian community and everybody else who pays attention to what happens in our lab, in our space. So for me, it is beyond christening them terrorism. It may have its gains in terms of international support to do what you need to do and in terms of exonerating yourself from certain so-called crimes against your own citizens, right? But in terms of what you have to do on ground, does the Nigerian government believe that we are doing the best we can do at this time? Are we supporting our troops and our security forces on the ground? Do we have the needed legislation? What about the finances? Do they have all the equipment they require? How many rounds of ammunition is available to each Nigerian soldier, policeman, desks of British, who is on ground in North East and North West? How many? Do they have the needed life vests and hard hearts that they need to fight? So these are things that you must provide and then precision-guided. We hear about Super Tucano, Super Tucano jets and what a view. What has happened to the diplomats? Are you deploying them appropriately? What has happened to our intelligence networks? Are our assets properly positioned across the North West and North East? So much so that you are able to track. Sometimes these guys operate for hours on end, two hours, three hours they are operating. So what are your intelligence assets doing? Do you need to overhaul your intelligence community? And your agents? So something is amiss, basically. Well, unfortunately, time is not on our side, but I want to say thank you. If you want to go, is a security expert and Ladik Potlanson is a legal practitioner. Unfortunately, we've been having some hiccups with his connection, but thank you so much for being part of the conversation. Thank you for having me, Maria. All right. Well, we'll take a short break now and when we return, the AGF has been making headlines because, well, the federal government seems to think that iPop hijacked the NSARS protest and is responsible for some of the things that happened here in Lagos State. We'll get to break that down after the break. Now, we'll take a quick break and find out what Nigerians have to say on President Buhari's declaration of bandits as terrorists if he did decide to. And when we return, I will give you my take. Of course, should label the bandits as terrorists because what are their purpose? The key. What are the purpose of the terrorists? The key. So if the bandits and terrorists carry the same operation, so they are the same. Of recent, we heard what happened to the massive infrastructure projects in Kaduna, Abu-Jahri way. For them to carry out such a heinous attack, I don't see any reason why they should not be declared bandits. That is a pure, economical and infrastructural sabotage, which is a threat to not just the unity of Nigeria but to its sovereignty itself. Who is a criminal? The criminal is the person that refused to acknowledge that there is law in the land. Bandits cannot be your brother. Of course, they are terrorists. They are terrorizing the peace of the nation. As long as they do not allow peace to reign, the federal government should declare them terrorists. I think they are terrorists. And I think there is somehow, I think the government are backing them. If not, if they can be calling some people that are trying to fight for rights, terrorists, why these people carrying arms in ammunition, AK-47, that cannot come into the country easily, they will be parading with it. They are terrorists. I do really wonder what is wrong with... I don't know. I don't know if I mistakenly say what is wrong with Mr. President. I think he doesn't need anybody to tell him that those bandits, they are terrorists. He doesn't need anybody to tell him that they should label them terrorists. They are already terrorists for how many years now. But like seriously, I'm still surprised that by this time, I mean, at this present time, the bandits are not still terrorists. It's so surprising. I mean, what is the President waiting for? These guys are extorting civilians. These guys are kidnapping. These guys have done manners of nonsense. And yet they are not terrorists. I mean, that should tell you that there's something wrong with the country. There's something the President is not telling us. I want to thank you all for being part of the conversation. A big question mark. Everyone is asking, what is the challenge? I'm Marianna Cohn. Thank you for watching. Have a good evening.