By Amb. Valentine Opaluwa Ejeh, PhD
A Response to Mustapha Gembu’s Misrepresentation of the Middle Belt Identity
INTRODUCTION: THE FALLACY OF DECLARING ANOTHER PEOPLE’S IDENTITY FICTIONAL
Mustapha Gembu’s article, Exposing the Promoters of the Fictional Middle Belt Region, raises questions about the inclusion of indigenous Muslims in movements promoting Middle Belt identity. While religious inclusion is a legitimate concern, his argument rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the historical, cultural and political character of the Middle Belt.
The attempt to dismiss the Middle Belt as fictional because some of its constituent communities practise Islam, or because certain organisations may not adequately represent Muslim populations, is intellectually unsustainable. It confuses the shortcomings of individual organisations with the historical legitimacy of an entire regional identity.
The Middle Belt is not a religious organisation, nor is it the exclusive political property of Christians.
It is a historically evolved regional consciousness encompassing diverse indigenous nationalities whose identities, histories, traditional institutions and political aspirations cannot be erased by the opinions of others.
As Suleiman (2019) demonstrates, Middle Belt historiography is connected to historical struggles over representation, resistance and the recognition of indigenous minority communities within Northern Nigeria.
The central question, therefore, is not whether the Middle Belt constitutes one of Nigeria’s six constitutionally recognised geopolitical zones. It does not. The real question is whether the indigenous peoples who identify with the Middle Belt possess the historical, geographical, cultural and political legitimacy to sustain that identity. The answer is unequivocally yes.
1. THE MIDDLE BELT IS A HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL IDENTITY, NOT A RELIGIOUS PROJECT
The Middle Belt comprises diverse indigenous nationalities, including the Agatu. Tiv, Idoma, Igala, Nupe, Gbagyi, Berom, Afizere, Anaguta, Ngas, Tarok, Angas, Jukun, Mumuye, Alago, Eggon, Mada, Bassa, Ebira and numerous other communities, depending on the geographical and historical definition employed.
These nationalities possess distinct languages, histories, traditional institutions, cultural practices and religious compositions. Nevertheless, many share historical experiences associated with indigenous identity, minority representation, political participation and the struggle for recognition.
The existence of these differences does not invalidate their collective regional consciousness. On the contrary, diversity is one of the defining characteristics of the Middle Belt.
A region does not become fictional because its constituent communities practise different religions or maintain distinct ethnic identities. Neither must every community possess an identical historical experience before developing a shared political consciousness.
The Middle Belt should therefore be understood as a pluralistic historical and political formation rather than a Christian or Muslim bloc.
2. THE RIGHT TO SELF-IDENTIFICATION CANNOT BE VETOED BY THE MONOLITHIC NORTH
One fundamental weakness in Gembu’s argument is the assumption that the identity of indigenous peoples in Central Nigeria must be interpreted exclusively through the political framework of Northern Nigeria.
Northern Nigeria is not an ethnically homogeneous society. It comprises hundreds of indigenous nationalities, languages, cultures, traditional institutions and historical experiences. The political and cultural experiences of the Hausa-Fulani cannot legitimately be presented as the exclusive historical experience of every population geographically located in Northern Nigeria.
Colonial administrative arrangements and subsequent political developments brought diverse communities under common governmental structures. However, administrative incorporation did not extinguish their separate identities.
Historical scholarship on regionalism and ethnic politics in Nigeria demonstrates that regional political arrangements frequently generated tensions concerning the representation and interests of minority nationalities (Falola, 2024).
The right of the Igala to identify as Igala, the Tiv as Tiv, the Idoma as Idoma, the Berom as Berom and the Gbagyi as Gbagyi does not depend on the approval of another ethnic or political establishment.
By the same reasoning, their collective decision to identify with the Middle Belt cannot be invalidated by people who prefer to classify them exclusively as Northerners.
There is no contradiction between being Nigerian, belonging geographically to Northern Nigeria and identifying historically or politically with the Middle Belt.
These identities can coexist.
No ethnic nationality, religious constituency or regional political establishment has the exclusive authority to define the identity of other Nigerians.
3. THE MIDDLE BELT BELONGS TO CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS ALIKE
It is important to address the religious argument directly.
We agree with Gembu on one fundamental principle: indigenous Muslims must not be excluded from their ancestral communities because of their religious beliefs.
An Idoma Muslim is not less Idoma. An Igala Muslim is not less Igala. A Tiv Muslim is not less Tiv. A Berom Muslim is not less Berom. A Nupe Muslim is not less Nupe. The same principle applies to Christians from communities with significant Muslim populations.
However, the existence of indigenous Muslim communities does not invalidate Middle Belt identity. Rather, it reinforces the necessity of making that identity genuinely inclusive.
The Middle Belt is home to Christians, Muslims and adherents of indigenous African religions. These populations share ancestral connections, extended family relationships, cultural experiences, traditional institutions and geographical spaces.
In many communities, Christianity and Islam coexist within the same extended families and ancestral communities. Religious differences have not necessarily destroyed the bonds of kinship, customary relationships and shared cultural heritage.
It is therefore misleading to portray the Middle Belt as a Christian project or to suggest that the existence of Muslim minorities makes its regional identity illegitimate.
The appropriate response to any genuine exclusion is to demand inclusive leadership, equitable representation and religious tolerance, not to deny the historical identity of an entire region.
Research on religion and local power-sharing in Nigeria demonstrates the importance of inclusive political arrangements in preventing religious differences from becoming instruments of violent mobilisation (Vinson, 2017).
The Middle Belt belongs to its indigenous peoples, not to one religious constituency. Its Christians and Muslims are kith and kin, and their common ancestry must remain stronger than divisive religious narratives.
4. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT REGIONAL SELF-IDENTIFICATION
The Nigerian Constitution provides important protections relevant to this debate.
Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) guarantees freedom of expression, while Section 40 guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Section 42 prohibits discrimination against citizens on grounds including ethnic community, place of origin and religion.
These provisions protect the freedom of Nigerians to express their identities, establish associations and organise around legitimate cultural, political and developmental interests, subject to applicable laws.
The Middle Belt is not a separate constitutional geopolitical zone under Nigeria’s present political arrangement. However, the absence of a separately recognised Middle Belt geopolitical zone does not invalidate its historical, cultural or political identity.
Administrative classifications cannot extinguish the right of indigenous communities to articulate their collective aspirations.
Accordingly, people who identify with the Middle Belt have no constitutional obligation to abandon that identity because another political constituency finds it inconvenient. Equally, Muslims from the constituent communities must enjoy equal opportunities to participate in its institutions.
The objective should be coexistence, not competition between identities.
5. THE RISING SECURITY THREAT MAKES COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS IMPERATIVE
Beyond the controversy over identity, the most urgent concern confronting the Middle Belt today is security.
Nigeria faces an increasingly complex security environment involving insurgency, organised banditry, kidnapping networks, communal violence and other forms of armed criminality.
The North-East has experienced prolonged insurgency involving Boko Haram and ISWAP. The North-West continues to confront organised banditry, mass abductions and criminal networks. The North-Central, which constitutes a substantial part of what many indigenous communities identify as the Middle Belt, faces persistent challenges involving attacks on rural settlements, farmer-herder violence, communal conflicts and displacement.
These developments threaten lives, livelihoods, food production, traditional institutions and the territorial stability of affected communities.
The security situation makes it imperative for indigenous communities to move beyond endless arguments over whether their collective identity is legitimate.
Their leaders of thought must begin serious consultations about protecting their populations, ancestral territories, cultural heritage and economic interests.
This must not be interpreted as a call for religious confrontation, ethnic hostility or the creation of unregulated armed formations. Rather, it is a call for responsible, constitutional and inclusive community security arrangements.
Traditional rulers, religious leaders, political representatives, academics, women, youths and civil society organisations should work together to strengthen early-warning systems, intelligence-sharing, peaceful intercommunity engagement and lawful community protection mechanisms.
The government must also be held accountable for its constitutional responsibility to protect lives and property.
Crucially, perpetrators of violence must be identified by their actions and affiliations, not collectively blamed on the basis of religion or ethnicity.
Muslims and Christians who reject violence are partners in the struggle for peace and security.
The right of indigenous peoples to discuss their collective security is not a threat to Nigeria. It is an essential component of responsible citizenship and community survival.
6. THE MIDDLE BELT NEEDS A COMMON AGENDA, NOT RELIGIOUS POLARISATION
The future of the Middle Belt must not be defined by confrontation between Christians and Muslims.
Such an approach would be historically inaccurate, politically destructive and socially irresponsible.
Its Christian and Muslim populations are not unrelated groups competing for ownership of the same territory. They frequently belong to the same indigenous nationalities, extended families and ancestral communities.
Consequently, mobilising the region exclusively around Christian identity would be a strategic mistake. Equally, using the existence of indigenous Muslims to invalidate Middle Belt identity is unacceptable.
The region needs a common agenda built around:
Collective security: Inclusive consultations and lawful mechanisms for protecting communities, rural settlements and livelihoods.
Interfaith solidarity: Cooperation between Christian and Muslim leaders to prevent the manipulation of religion for political violence.
Historical preservation: Systematic documentation of indigenous histories, languages, traditional institutions and cultural heritage.
Political representation: Equitable participation of constituent nationalities in state and national political structures.
Economic cooperation: Collaboration in agriculture, education, infrastructure, trade and environmental protection.
Conflict prevention: Early-warning mechanisms, intercommunity dialogue and local peace committees.
Constitutional engagement: Constructive engagement with the Federal Government and National Assembly on federalism, equitable representation and the protection of indigenous communities.
These are legitimate concerns that deserve serious intellectual and political attention.
CONCLUSION: THE MIDDLE BELT DOES NOT NEED PERMISSION TO KNOW ITSELF
Mustapha Gembu raises a legitimate question about the inclusion of indigenous Muslims, but his conclusion that the Middle Belt is fictional is fundamentally misplaced.
If organisations claiming to represent the Middle Belt exclude indigenous Muslims, they should be challenged to democratise their structures and embrace equal representation. However, the shortcomings of particular organisations cannot invalidate the historical identity of an entire region.
The Middle Belt is neither the exclusive property of Christians nor of Muslims. It belongs to its diverse indigenous nationalities, whose historical, cultural and political relationships provide the foundation for a shared regional consciousness.
Its Christians and Muslims are kith and kin. Their ancestral connections, cultural experiences and common interests must never be sacrificed on the altar of religious manipulation.
More importantly, the escalating security challenges across the North-East, North-West and North-Central regions make it imperative for Middle Belt leaders of thought to initiate serious consultations on collective security, political representation, historical preservation and sustainable development.
The time has come for traditional rulers, religious leaders, academics, political representatives and civil society organisations to develop a coherent, inclusive and peaceful framework for protecting their communities and advancing their legitimate interests within the Nigerian federation.
A people do not lose their identity because another group refuses to recognise it. A historical community does not become fictional because its collective aspirations challenge established political narratives.
The Middle Belt has the right to remember its history, articulate its identity, organise its institutions, demand equitable representation and participate in determining its collective future.
That right belongs equally to its Christians, Muslims and adherents of indigenous African religions.
THE MIDDLE BELT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS CONSPIRACY. IT IS A HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF DIVERSE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES. ITS UNITY MUST BE BUILT ON SHARED ANCESTRY, EQUAL CITIZENSHIP, MUTUAL RESPECT AND COLLECTIVE SECURITY.
No opinion of a supposedly monolithic North can take away that right.
REFERENCES
Blench, R. (2011). The present in the past: How narratives of the slave-raiding era inform current politics in Northern and Central Nigeria. In P. Lane & K. C. MacDonald (Eds.), Slavery in Africa: Archaeology and memory (pp. 361–392). British Academy.
Falola, T. (2024). Regionalism and ethnic politics in the 1950s. In Understanding colonial Nigeria: British rule and its impact (pp. 548–570). Cambridge University Press.
Federal Republic of Nigeria. (1999). Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
Suleiman, S. (2019). The ‘Middle Belt’ historiography of resistance in Nigeria. Afrika Zamani, (27).
Vinson, L. T. (2017). Religion, violence, and local power-sharing in Nigeria. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316832110
Amb. Valentine Opaluwa Ejeh, PhD is a historical Researcher | Scholar of Religion, Ethnicity, Peace and Conflict.
Executive Director, ANU Community Peacebuilding and Environmental Sustainability Initiative (ACPESI), Abuja.
