A string of recent developments; Senator Adams Oshiomhole’s viral Senate clip, revelations from the Katsina peace talks where bandit leaders blamed government neglect, and renewed international pressure led by U.S. threats, has thrown Nigeria’s security establishment into uncomfortable light. Together, they expose a governance crisis that helps explain why killings in the North and Middle Belt refuse to end.
A NenweTV Facebook Reel of Oshiomhole’s January 2025 Senate remarks resurfaced in November, showing the senator alleging that Chinese nationals and retired military officers were bankrolling insecurity through illegal mining and arms movements. Oshiomhole’s charge, that “retired generals use choppers, procure arms just like militants did in the Niger Delta”, reignited public debate on the connection between extractive interests and armed violence, a discussion previously reported by Premium Times and The Guardian Nigeria.
While Abuja has stayed largely silent, the narrative gained unexpected reinforcement in Katsina State, where armed men attending local peace meetings publicly accused authorities of fueling the crisis through neglect and betrayal. Daily Trust and The Guardian Nigeria reported that participants at the parley said government abandonment and corruption had left communities to arm themselves, arguing that “officials profit from chaos.” Their remarks mirror Oshiomhole’s warning that Nigeria’s insecurity may not be entirely random but the outcome of powerful networks that benefit from instability.
The picture darkened further with renewed U.S. attention. In late October 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump again listed Nigeria among “countries of particular concern” over mass killings of Christians, threatening “military options” if authorities failed to act, a move first covered by Reuters and The Washington Post. Analysts noted that any direct U.S. intervention would be legally and logistically constrained, but the move underscored Washington’s frustration over Abuja’s inaction.
Those three strands; elite complicity, insurgent frustration, and foreign pressure, converge on one truth: Nigeria’s violence persists not for lack of evidence, but for lack of accountability. The Katsina sessions revealed insurgents framing the conflict as a political and economic betrayal, not just a criminal enterprise.
Oshiomhole’s statements suggest that segments of the elite may be complicit in protecting illicit mining interests. And international posturing, though headline-grabbing, risks distracting from the structural failures that enable the killings to continue.
Analysts such as those quoted in International Crisis Group reports describe the situation as “state capture of violence” a condition where security institutions and political actors hold economic stakes in the disorder they are meant to quell. It explains why probes stall, why massacres go unpunished, and why extractive operations in conflict zones continue unhindered. The similarities with the early-2000s Niger Delta crisis are chilling: then, too, armed groups protected resource corridors while insiders profited from lawlessness.
The controversy also revives interest in an overlooked document: Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan’s 2020 report “Genocide in Nigeria – The Implications for the International Community.” Submitted to international organisations and later cited by Vanguard and Leadership Newspaper, the report catalogued patterns of targeted killings, alleging official collusion and systemic neglect. It was ignored by government — neither acknowledged nor rebutted — and remains a haunting testament to institutional silence. Ironically, Amupitan now serves as Chairman of Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), presiding over one of the country’s most sensitive institutions while the violence his report described still festers.
Meanwhile, Premium Times investigations show that illegal mining in Zamfara, Niger, and Nasarawa continues largely unchecked, with unregistered Chinese firms operating through local fronts. Community leaders told The Cable Nigeriathat helicopter flights sometimes deliver supplies to remote mining zones — claims still awaiting official verification. The absence of transparent oversight keeps fuelling suspicion that Nigeria’s mineral wealth has become a catalyst for bloodshed rather than prosperity.
What ties these threads together is silence: official unwillingness to probe the allegations, parliamentary committees that fade away, journalists who face threats, and citizens numbed by repetition. For those benefiting from the current chaos, silence is strategy — a form of protection more durable than any legal shield.
Whether or not every claim can be independently verified, the convergence of Oshiomhole’s allegations, the Katsina peace-talk testimonies, and foreign impatience points to a single imperative: transparency. Nigeria cannot end its security nightmare without exposing who profits from its prolongation. That means forensic audits of mining licences, public disclosure of ownership stakes, and credible investigations into air movements and arms flows. It also means empowering the press and protecting whistle-blowers who risk their lives to break this code of silence.
The United States and other partners, constrained by sovereignty and logistics, may threaten action, but real change must come from within. The alternative — another decade of “managed violence” — will entrench the very forces hollowing out the Nigerian state. Facing the truth is perilous, but refusing to do so is fatal.
