By Ibrahim Bunu
ibrahimbunu2520@gmail.com
A nation is not destroyed only by bombs, bullets, or bandits. Sometimes, it is weakened first by words—words that inflame passions, deepen divisions, justify violence, and encourage revenge. Throughout history, societies have learned, often too late, that inflammatory rhetoric can become the spark that ignites widespread conflict.
Nigeria today stands at one of the most delicate moments in its democratic journey. The country continues to confront terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal conflicts, separatist agitations, and organised criminal networks that have claimed thousands of lives and displaced countless families. Considerable human and financial resources are being devoted to restoring peace and strengthening national security.
Against this backdrop, every responsible Nigerian has a duty to exercise restraint, promote peace, and reject any form of speech that could provoke violence or undermine public confidence in the country’s stability.
It is therefore deeply concerning that a video currently circulating on social media allegedly shows a man reacting to the killing of Alhaji Ardo Risku Muhammad, described as a Fulani leader and president of Miyetti Allah, making remarks widely interpreted as threatening retaliation against the people of Benue State.
According to the recording, the speaker reportedly claimed that the deceased was more valuable to the Fulani community than President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, members of the Federal Executive Council, the National Security Adviser, and other senior government officials. More troubling still, he allegedly suggested that it would have been preferable for those officials to have been killed instead.
He further warned that the people of Benue would “regret” the death of the Fulani leader, asserting that some Fulani residents in the state were “beasts” who would ensure that the incident did not go unanswered.
If the recording is authentic and accurately reflects what was said, the implications extend far beyond an emotional reaction to a tragic event. Such statements, viewed objectively, raise legitimate concerns because they can be interpreted as encouraging retaliation, heightening fear, and increasing tensions in communities already burdened by insecurity.
History repeatedly reminds us that violence rarely erupts without warning. Hostile narratives, threats, dehumanising language, and repeated incitement often precede it. Once these narratives become normalised, extremists and criminal elements may interpret them as encouragement to carry out acts that innocent citizens ultimately pay for with their lives.
Nigeria cannot afford that dangerous trajectory.
The country’s security situation remains fragile. Communities across several states continue to mourn loved ones lost to terrorism, banditry, kidnappings, and communal violence. Farmers struggle to cultivate their land safely. Businesses suffer from uncertainty. Families live with anxiety over what tomorrow may bring.
In such an environment, public figures and influential voices carry an even greater responsibility. Their words have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate audience. Careless statements can fuel suspicion between ethnic and religious communities, weaken social cohesion, and complicate the difficult work of security agencies striving to restore order.
Equally disturbing is any apparent glorification of violence against the country’s highest constitutional office holders. Political disagreements are inevitable in every democracy. Citizens have every constitutional right to criticise policies, question leadership decisions, organise peacefully, and demand accountability.
However, democracy draws a clear distinction between robust political criticism and language that appears to celebrate or encourage violence against elected officials or public institutions. Crossing that line threatens not merely individuals but the constitutional order itself.
This is precisely why institutions such as the Department of State Services (DSS), the Nigeria Police Force, and other relevant security agencies have an important responsibility to investigate credible threats wherever they arise.
If the video is verified, if the speaker is identified, and if sufficient admissible evidence establishes that Nigerian law has been violated, the matter should proceed through lawful investigation and judicial processes. Accountability should always be guided by evidence, due process, and the rule of law—not public sentiment or selective enforcement.
Justice must remain blind to ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or social status.
When laws are enforced fairly and consistently, citizens gain confidence that no one is above the law. That confidence strengthens national unity and discourages those who may contemplate similar conduct in the future.
Beyond this particular incident lies a larger national challenge.
Nigeria must resist any culture in which threats against entire communities become normalised or where inflammatory rhetoric is dismissed as mere emotion. Words possess extraordinary power. They can unite a nation in difficult times, but they can also divide neighbours, destroy trust, and provoke cycles of revenge that may take generations to heal.
Freedom of expression is one of democracy’s greatest achievements. Yet every constitutional democracy recognises that this freedom carries responsibilities. It does not extend to inciting violence, threatening public safety, or encouraging unlawful acts.
Every Nigerian has the right to seek justice, express frustration, and criticise government actions peacefully. Those rights should be exercised in ways that strengthen democratic institutions rather than weaken them.
It is equally important to recognise that addressing insecurity requires more than the efforts of security agencies alone. It demands cooperation from citizens, community leaders, traditional institutions, religious organisations, civil society, the media, and political actors. National security cannot succeed if every incident becomes an opportunity for division or if criminal acts are interpreted solely through ethnic or partisan lenses.
The administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has repeatedly stated that improving national security remains one of its central priorities. Military operations, intelligence coordination, law enforcement efforts, and other security initiatives continue across different parts of the country in response to terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, and other violent crimes.
While citizens are entitled to assess these efforts critically and demand measurable results, it is equally important that genuine attempts to improve security receive constructive engagement rather than rhetoric that deepens mistrust or undermines public cooperation. Security challenges of the scale Nigeria faces require continuity, public confidence, and collective responsibility.
Political competition is a normal feature of democracy. However, insecurity should never become a partisan contest. Regardless of political affiliation, all stakeholders share an interest in a peaceful, secure, and united Nigeria. Public debate is healthiest when it focuses on practical solutions, accountability, and national interest rather than narratives that risk inflaming tensions or discouraging collective action against violent criminals.
Ultimately, the greatest beneficiaries of a divided Nigeria are not ordinary citizens. They are terrorists, bandits, kidnappers, and other criminal elements who exploit distrust, fear, and communal divisions to advance their own objectives.
This is why every responsible Nigerian must reject incitement regardless of who utters it or whom it targets.
Threats against communities must be condemned.
Threats against public officials must be condemned.
Incitement to violence must be condemned.
And the law must apply equally to everyone.
Nigeria’s future will not be secured by inflammatory speeches or retaliatory threats. It will be secured through justice, responsible leadership, impartial law enforcement, national unity, and the collective determination of citizens to defend peace above prejudice.
The survival, stability, and progress of the Federal Republic depend not only on defeating those who carry weapons but also on refusing to legitimise the dangerous rhetoric that too often precedes violence.
That responsibility belongs to every Nigerian.
Leave a comment