Insecurity: Sokoto group rejects MURIC’s 14-day ultimatum

The Aminchi Centre for Social Advocacy and Community Development has rejected the 14-day ultimatum issued by the Muslim Rights Concern to the Minister of Defence, Gen. Christopher Gwabin Musa (rtd), over the persistent insecurity in Sokoto State.

MURIC, through its Executive Director, Prof. Ishaq Akintola, had called on the Defence Minister to take urgent steps to halt the killings, abductions and other violent attacks in the state within 14 days or resign.

However, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aminchi Centre, Brahim Abdullahi Shuni, described the ultimatum as misplaced, arguing that insecurity could not be addressed by holding one individual solely responsible for failures within Nigeria’s complex security architecture.

Shuni stated this while addressing journalists at the Press Centre in Sokoto on Wednesday.

In a rejoinder titled, “MURIC’s 14-Day Ultimatum: A Call for Responsibility, Not Scapegoating,” he acknowledged the seriousness of the security situation but said the response should be based on constitutional responsibilities, institutional accountability and measurable performance.

According to him, “the Ministry of Defence encompasses civilian administrative structures, Defence Headquarters, the Nigerian Army, Nigerian Navy, Nigerian Air Force and other defence institutions, each with distinct responsibilities.

“National security is a system. It requires the coordinated efforts of the Presidency, Armed Forces, Police, intelligence agencies, state governments, local governments, traditional institutions, communities and citizens,” Shuni said.

He argued that although the Defence Minister has important responsibilities relating to defence policy, strategic direction, oversight, procurement, administration and coordination, he is not the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

Citing Section 218 of the 1999 Constitution, Shuni noted that the President, as the Commander-in-Chief, determines the operational use of the Armed Forces and appoints the Chief of Defence Staff and Service Chiefs.

Therefore, he described as unfair any attempt to hold the Defence Minister personally responsible for every attack carried out by terrorists, bandits and kidnappers across the country.

The group also challenged MURIC to complement its criticism with practical contributions towards addressing insecurity rather than relying primarily on press statements and ultimatums.

“Criticisms must be accompanied by constructive responsibility,” he posited, while questioning what intelligence MURIC had provided to security agencies, how many criminal networks it had helped expose and what communities it had mobilised for early-warning mechanisms.

Shuni also questioned why MURIC had singled out the Defence Minister instead of addressing the broader security structure involving the presidency, service chiefs, the police, intelligence agencies, state governments, local authorities and community leaders.

“If MURIC genuinely believes that insecurity is a national emergency, then the answer cannot logically be to isolate one member of a much larger security architecture and threaten him with resignation,” he said.

He insisted that while the Aminchi Centre was not opposed to accountability, maintaining that the Defence Minister, Armed Forces and other security agencies must be held responsible for duties assigned to them.

He stressed that such accountability should be based on “law, facts, institutional responsibility and measurable performance,” rather than an arbitrary deadline.

The group further described MURIC’s demand that Sokoto become “impregnable and unassailable” within 14 days as unrealistic.

Shuni argued that no security professional could guarantee that terrorists, bandits or other criminals would not attack a particular location within a fixed period.

Instead, he said the government and the security agencies should be assessed on their capacity to improve intelligence gathering, prevent attacks, dismantle criminal networks, rescue victims, protect vulnerable communities and prosecute offenders.

He urged MURIC to engage constructively with security institutions and contribute to community intelligence gathering, early-warning systems, cooperation between religious leaders and security agencies, victim support and efforts to prevent the recruitment of young people into violent groups.

Shuni also defended Gen. Musa, describing him as “a son of the soil of the seat of the Caliphate” who spent part of his early life in Sokoto and contributed to community development.

He said defeating insecurity required stronger intelligence gathering, improved inter-agency coordination, adequate resources, professional military operations, community cooperation and responsible governance.

“General Christopher Gwabin Musa should therefore be judged on the responsibilities assigned to his office, the resources available to him, the constitutional chain of command and measurable results—not on an artificial 14-day ultimatum issued by a civil society organisation,” he said.

The Aminchi Centre further maintained that while MURIC had the right to criticise government policies and security responses, it had no constitutional authority to determine the tenure of a federal minister.

Shuni reminded that the appointment and removal of ministers remained the prerogative of the president within the constitutional framework of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

While calling for a broader national conversation focused on collective responsibility rather than blame, the Aminchi chairman and CEO further pointed out that,

“The real challenge before all Nigerians is therefore not ‘Who should we blame?’ It is ‘What can each of us do to help Nigeria defeat terrorism, banditry, kidnapping and violent crime?’

“Security is everybody’s business,” he concluded.