September 2025
Recent reports of peace deals between state officials and armed bandits in Katsina and other parts of northwestern Nigeria have shocked many observers. In some cases, these criminals walked freely into government meetings, boasting with their weapons, and left without disarmament or accountability. Scholars such as Malam Ibrahim Shekarau have already warned that these pacts amount to state sponsorship of kidnappers and killers rather than genuine peacebuilding. They are right.
This policy is deeply flawed for three main reasons.
First, it legitimises criminals. Meeting armed gangs on equal footing while innocent villagers remain unprotected confers prestige on the very people who have destroyed communities. Research from Zamfara and Katsina shows that every round of “amnesty” without disarmament has been followed by renewed attacks and kidnappings, not peace.[1]
Second, it destroys rule of law. Citizens are told that violence pays while law-abiding communities are left to fend for themselves. This undermines trust in security agencies and encourages other groups to take up arms in search of recognition and reward.[2]
Third, it abandons victims. Families who lost relatives, homes, and livelihoods watch their oppressors receive handshakes and protection. Amnesty without justice denies them closure and perpetuates cycles of grievance.
False Comparison to Genuine Treaties
Some defenders of these deals compare them to historic peace treaties. In truth, they more closely resemble the Treaty of Versailles (1919), which humiliated one side, empowered aggressors, and sowed seeds of future conflict. Real peace treaties look very different.
The Treaty of al-Ḥudaybiyya (628 CE), signed by Prophet Muhammad with Quraysh, was built on clear, verifiable terms that opened the door to long-term reconciliation and expansion of justice.
The Treaty of Carlowitz (1699) ended decades of war in Europe through clear territorial agreements and multilateral enforcement, not impunity for raiders.
The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) ended the Thirty Years’ War with three lasting principles:
1. State sovereignty — recognising states as equals under international law.
2. Religious tolerance — reducing cycles of sectarian war.
3. Balance of power and enforceability — preventing relapse into chaos.
These lessons stand in sharp contrast to Nigeria’s bandit pacts, which ignore sovereignty (by ceding villages to criminals), undermine tolerance (by rewarding ethnic violence), and lack any enforceable framework.
More recently, the Good Friday Agreement (1998) in Northern Ireland required disarmament, power-sharing, and international monitoring — conditions that turned violent conflict into a political settlement.
Recent Africa and Asia Peace Accords: Real Lessons
When we look at modern agreements, the contrast becomes even clearer.
Ethiopia–Tigray (Pretoria Agreement, 2022): included disarmament, humanitarian access, and AU/IGAD monitoring — not a handshake with guns still in the room.
DRC–Rwanda (2025): emphasised troop withdrawal, respecting sovereignty, and neutralising armed groups with international oversight.
Senegal–MFDC Casamance deal (2025): focused on disarmament and reintegration, not appeasing militias.
Central African Republic (2024–25): some rebel groups formally dissolved under AU mediation, surrendering arms.
Mozambique’s Maputo Accord (2019): paired disarmament with political decentralisation and UN monitoring.
Sudan’s Juba Agreement (2020): included transitional justice and power-sharing provisions.
South Sudan’s Revitalised Peace Agreement (2018): emphasised power-sharing and integration of armed forces, monitored regionally.
Philippines–Bangsamoro Agreement (2014–2019): created an autonomous region through law and referendum, with phased decommissioning of fighters.
Myanmar Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (2015): ambitious but shows that without enforcement and political inclusion, peace collapses.
Afghanistan–Taliban Agreement (2020): a cautionary tale — external deal without victim-centred justice led to collapse and Taliban takeover.
Each of these treaties shows that real peace requires structure: disarmament, third-party monitoring, victim reparations, and political solutions. Katsina’s deals lack all of these.
The Katsina-style pacts are not peace treaties. They are short-term bargains with criminals that weaken the state and embolden violence. Nigeria’s leaders should draw lessons from history — from Hudaybiyya, Westphalia, Carlowitz, and Good Friday to more recent accords in Ethiopia, Senegal, Mozambique, and the Philippines.
True peace is built on justice, accountability, and verifiable commitments — not amnesty without disarmament. Anything less is surrender dressed as diplomacy.
Tags
Opinion