Nigeria’s insecurity did not begin with guns, bombings or the emergence of Boko Haram, according to the Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II.
In a striking assessment of the country’s security crisis, Sanusi argued that the foundations for violent movements were laid much earlier — in the words used by politicians, the media and influential Nigerians to divide citizens along ethnic, religious and regional lines.
The former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) made the remarks on Wednesday in Abuja during the launch of a book documenting the tenure of retired Lieutenant General Tukur Yusufu Buratai as Chief of Army Staff.
Rather than viewing insecurity solely through the familiar lens of terrorism, banditry and criminal attacks, Sanusi challenged Nigerians to examine the social and political conditions that, in his view, allowed such movements to emerge and gain traction.
‘The crisis did not begin with Boko Haram’
Sanusi’s argument was blunt: Nigeria’s security crisis, as it is known today, is the product of a much longer process.
He pointed to the gradual transformation of national identity into competing regional, religious and ethnic identities.
According to the emir, Nigerians increasingly began seeing themselves not primarily as citizens of one country but as Northerners or Southerners, Muslims or Christians, and members of different ethnic groups.
He argued that this pattern of identification, reinforced by political rhetoric and newspaper reports, created an atmosphere in which violent movements could eventually flourish.
“The fundamental point I wish to emphasise is that the security crisis in this nation did not commence with violence as we currently witness it, nor did it commence with banditry. It did not commence with Boko Haram and terrorism.”
Sanusi continued:
“It originated with the violence inherent in language that appeared in newspapers and emanated from political discourse, wherein we commenced categorising ourselves not as Nigerians, but as Northerners and Southerners, Muslims and Christians, Yoruba and Igbo and Hausa, thereby establishing an environment that facilitated the emergence of these movements.”
His position effectively shifts part of the conversation away from the battlefield and towards the language and political behaviour that shape society.
‘We are only laying the foundation for a new round of violence’
The emir warned that Nigeria could be creating the conditions for another cycle of violence if the same divisions continue to dominate public discourse.
For Sanusi, the problem is not simply that Nigerians disagree politically or belong to different ethnic and religious communities. Rather, he questioned what happens when those identities become the primary tools through which political interests are organised and pursued.
“We are only laying the foundation for a new round of violence,” he warned.
He called for a return to a stronger sense of Nigerian identity, arguing that the country’s attention should be directed towards improving the lives of its citizens.
“We have to go back to seeing ourselves as Nigerians, as people committed to this country, and focus on what is important, which is the development of our people,” he said.
Sanusi takes aim at politicians
The emir also questioned the role of politicians in religious affairs.
According to him, elected officials should be judged by their ability to provide education, healthcare, economic opportunities and other public services rather than their ability to mobilise citizens through religious identity.
“It is not the responsibility of politicians to give us religion,” Sanusi said.
“They are there to give us education, to give us healthcare, to give us an economy and allow the religion to be in the hands of those who are religious leaders.”
He also cautioned religious leaders against becoming deeply entangled in partisan politics.
“It is also not the duty of religious leaders to get into politics,” he said, observing that the boundaries between religious and political roles had become increasingly blurred.
‘Everybody is a politician’
Sanusi argued that the politicisation of religion and identity makes it harder for citizens to hold elected officials accountable.
He questioned what happens when imams, bishops, senators and other influential figures become absorbed into the same political ecosystem.
“Right now, there is no distinction between imams and bishops and senators and how everybody is a politician,” he said.
His warning was that when religious and social institutions become closely tied to political interests, they may lose some of their independence and their ability to challenge those in power.
“Once we all get absorbed into the projects of politicians, we cannot hold political society in check,” he added.
Nigeria’s four-year political cycle
Sanusi also raised a broader question about the country’s approach to governance: whether institutions responsible for national security and economic stability can properly function when political leadership is often focused on electoral cycles.
He argued that institutions such as the military, police and Central Bank require a much longer-term outlook than elected politicians.
“The army cannot think in four-year cycles. The police cannot think in four-year cycles. The central bank cannot think in four-year cycles,” he said.
According to him, such institutions should be thinking in terms of decades — 20, 30 or even 50 years — while elected officials are often constrained by four-year political calculations.
A security debate beyond guns and soldiers
Sanusi’s comments add another dimension to the long-running debate over Nigeria’s insecurity.
The remarks came at an event focused on the military leadership of Buratai, whose tenure as Army Chief from 2015 to 2021 included major counter-insurgency operations against Boko Haram and other security threats. The book launched at the event examines military leadership, institutional reforms and security challenges during that period.
But Sanusi’s intervention suggested that military force alone cannot explain either the emergence or persistence of insecurity.
His argument places political language, identity, governance and institutional independence at the centre of the conversation — raising a difficult question for Nigeria: if violent groups can be fought with weapons, but the divisions that help sustain them are reproduced through politics and public discourse, how does the country break the cycle?
You May Like: Sani Abacha Replaces Bello Dalha as Kano PDP Candidate
For Sanusi, the answer begins with Nigerians seeing themselves as Nigerians first, while politicians, religious leaders and national institutions return to clearly defined responsibilities.
Whether that diagnosis fully explains the rise of Boko Haram, banditry and other forms of insecurity remains a matter for broader historical and political debate. But the emir’s warning is clear: Nigeria’s security crisis, in his view, cannot be understood only by counting attacks, arresting suspects or deploying troops.
The deeper battle, he suggests, may also be over how Nigerians see one another — and how those divisions are used in the pursuit of power.