13 January, 2026
By Mohammed Bello Doka
The firearm at the centre of the terrorism charge against Abubakar Malami is not an assault rifle. It is not automatic. It is not military-issue. It is not belt-fed, magazine-fed, or capable of sustained fire.
It is a single-barrel, break-action, single-shot 12-gauge shotgun—commonly known across northern Nigeria as a “one-barrel.”
The charge sheet reportedly specifies “one Sturm Magnum 17-0101 firearm” with Redstar AAA 5.20 cartridges—standard 12-gauge shells widely used for hunting and personal protection. One shot. Break open. Reload. Fire again.
No automatic capability.
No tactical configuration.
No published photograph of the allegedly seized firearm.
No public forensic demonstration linking it to any violent act.
Yet from this civilian-grade shotgun flows the gravest of labels: terrorism.
The Geography of the Allegation
The alleged discovery occurred in Birnin Kebbi, capital of Kebbi State—a region within Nigeria’s North-West security corridor long troubled by armed banditry, kidnapping networks, rural massacres, and cross-border arms trafficking.
In this same security geography, bandit groups routinely brandish military-grade rifles—AK-pattern assault weapons, pump-action repeaters, and other automatic firearms—often in broad daylight, often captured on video, often posted brazenly on social media.
In the same terrain where organised criminal groups operate with visible firepower, a single-shot shotgun becomes the basis for terrorism.
The contrast is not theoretical. It is documented.
The Record Nigerians Have Seen
In 2024, Premium Times published photographic evidence of wanted Katsina bandit leaders attending peace talks in Katsina State. The images clearly showed armed men holding assault rifles. No publicised disarmament occurred at the meeting. No immediate arrests followed the photographs. The optics were unmistakable: rifles at a negotiation table.
That same year, Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser on Information and Strategy to Bola Tinubu, publicly confirmed that security agencies had contacted bandits in order to secure the release of abducted worshippers in Kwara State. The approach, he explained, was non-kinetic—a security term indicating negotiation rather than force.
On Arise News, Onanuga further explained that force was avoided because civilians lived near bandit hideouts. The state, he suggested, exercised restraint to prevent collateral damage.
Also in 2024, Punch Newspapers reported that members of the National Assembly warned that negotiating with bandits risked legitimising criminality, signalling weakness, and incentivising further kidnappings. Lawmakers cautioned that repeated dialogue without disarmament could entrench a parallel authority structure in insecure regions.
These are not rumours. These are headlines.
They are archived.
They are dated.
They are public.
Armed bandits carrying AK-pattern rifles attend peace engagements.
A civilian-grade one-barrel results in terrorism charges.
Who Is Malami?
Abubakar Malami is not a fringe dissident. He is a founding member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), a two-term Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, and a long-time insider within Nigeria’s ruling establishment.
As Attorney-General, he supervised federal prosecutions, advised the executive on national security matters, and shaped legal interpretations on terrorism, anti-corruption, and constitutional disputes. He was once the chief legal officer of the same federal government now invoking terrorism statutes against him.
He later criticised worsening insecurity in the North-West, particularly bandit violence. He defected from the APC to the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and declared his intention to contest the Kebbi governorship.
After that sequence—criticism, defection, declaration—the prosecution followed.
The Pattern Around the Charge
Since his defection, Malami has reportedly faced repeated hostility from political opponents. His official security details were withdrawn in a region where kidnapping and targeted violence remain active threats. In a state plagued by armed non-state actors, an opposition figure was stripped of state protection.
Nigeria’s Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act defines terrorism in terms of organised acts intended to seriously intimidate a population, destabilise structures, or coerce government. The law was enacted to confront insurgent networks, extremist organisations, and coordinated violence against civilians—not to criminalise lawful political rivalry.
No public evidence has been presented that Malami’s alleged shotgun was deployed in any coordinated violent campaign. No public record indicates the weapon was used in kidnapping, armed robbery, insurgency, or terror financing. The allegation, as publicly described, centres on possession.
A Benchmark Nigerians Remember
Consider another benchmark in Nigeria’s recent insecurity history: a serving Deputy Speaker of a State House of Assembly was abducted by bandits and reportedly paid ransom to secure his release. No terrorism charges were filed against the victim for engaging financially with kidnappers under duress. No prosecutorial doctrine emerged criminalising the ransom transaction.
The system moved on.
Yet a one-barrel shotgun now anchors a terrorism charge.
The Questions Nigeria Deserves Answered
If assault rifles at peace talks are acceptable, why is a one-barrel in a residence terrorism?
If non-kinetic engagement is a legitimate security strategy when dealing with armed groups, why does prosecutorial aggression replace dialogue when dealing with a political defector?
If civilian proximity restrains kinetic force against bandit strongholds, why does it not restrain expansive terrorism charges against opposition figures?
Does a weapon’s classification depend on its firepower—or on its owner’s party affiliation?
Does terrorism now turn on calibre—or convenience?
Two Standards, One Government
Under President Bola Tinubu’s administration, the optics are stark:
Armed bandits photographed with assault rifles enter dialogue processes.
Security agencies publicly acknowledge contact with criminal groups to negotiate releases.
Lawmakers warn about the legitimisation of violent actors.
A former Attorney-General who defects to the opposition faces terrorism charges over a single-shot civilian firearm.
Rifles get engagement.
Shotguns get indictment.
Bandits are approached as stakeholders in conflict resolution.
A political rival is approached as a national security threat.
Words matter. Terrorism is not a rhetorical device. It is a legal classification reserved for grave, organised violence against society. When a state negotiates with heavily armed criminals yet deploys terror statutes against political opponents, it risks hollowing out the law’s moral authority.
The dates are public.
The statements were televised.
The photographs were printed.
Tinubu negotiates with armed bandits.
Malami is branded a terrorist over a shotgun.
That contrast now sits before the Nigerian public—not as speculation, but as record.
Mohammed Bello Doka
Tags
Opinion