In recent weeks, public debate has intensified over the ongoing peace agreements between communities and bandit groups across parts of Katsina State, especially in the southern zone. Many residents have asked a simple but troubling question: If the bandits have truly embraced peace, why do attacks still occur in some areas?
This question, though valid, needs to be carefully unpacked. The truth is that the peace efforts are genuine and already yielding positive results in areas where they have been embraced. However, the persistence of violence in some parts of the state does not necessarily mean the peace process has failed — it simply reflects the complexity of the conflict itself.
Contrary to what many people assume, the bandits operating in Katsina and neighbouring states are not a single unified force. They are fragmented into numerous groups with different leaders, different interests, and even internal rivalries. Some of these groups operate in separate forest zones; others form shifting alliances that change from time to time.
That means a peace pact reached with one group does not automatically bind others. In fact, some of the attacks reported after peace meetings — such as the recent one near Ganuwa Dayi where two people were killed — are often carried out by other factions that were not part of the peace process, or that deliberately oppose it.
This has been observed repeatedly. When one cluster of bandits enters into a truce with a particular local government, others who are still hostile may cross into nearby communities that are yet to reach such agreements, carrying out attacks and kidnappings.
The situation becomes even more volatile when rival groups use the cover of “peace” to move freely and launch surprise attacks elsewhere. Thus, the violence that continues in some locations should not be mistaken for betrayal of the peace accord by those who signed it — but rather as evidence of the fragmented nature of the bandit networks.
Even the bandits who participate in the peace process face danger from their own kind. There are factions that openly threaten those who accept dialogue, branding them as “traitors.” This explains why most of the bandits involved in peace negotiations cannot easily surrender their weapons. Laying down their arms would make them targets — not only for security forces, but also for rival factions opposed to reconciliation.
This creates a dangerous stalemate. Communities that sign peace agreements are often left exposed if other hostile groups refuse to comply. And the repentant bandits, trapped between survival and surrender, remain in hiding, unable to fully reintegrate.
For the rural communities of Katsina, the peace process is not a luxury — it is a last resort. Many villages have been destroyed, livelihoods lost, and families displaced. The farmers who once harvested hundreds of bags of grain now depend on charity. Elderly men in their seventies and eighties have been driven from their ancestral homes. Women have been widowed, violated, and impoverished.
It is therefore unfair to accuse these communities of weakness or complicity. They are simply choosing the only available path to survival. As one resident put it, “When you’ve lost everything and the attacks never end, peace — even if fragile — becomes the only option left.”
Indeed, in most areas where peace pacts have been reached — such as Bakori, Funtua, Malumfashi, Kafur and Ƙanƙara — the frequency of attacks has visibly declined. Farmers have gradually started returning to their fields, schools have reopened, and rural markets are reviving. These are small but vital signs that the peace process is working.
The Katsina State Government under Governor Dikko Umaru Radda has been supporting these peace efforts with both dialogue and development-oriented interventions. Through its State Peace and Security Strategy, the administration has backed community-based peace talks, while also addressing the underlying causes of insecurity — poverty, displacement, and unemployment.
Social intervention programs have been rolled out to reinforce the peace process. These include the construction of housing units for displaced persons, allocation of farmland and soft loans to farmers, distribution of food and palliatives, and vocational rehabilitation for repentant bandits.
However, the government faces a difficult balance — ensuring justice and security without discouraging dialogue. The recent concerns raised by citizens are legitimate, but they must be viewed within this larger context. As one security expert noted, “You cannot expect instant peace from a fragmented war.”
To consolidate the gains of the peace process, the government and security agencies must continue to engage all factions of the bandits — not just those who have already accepted dialogue. Confidence-building efforts must be expanded, and intelligence gathering strengthened to isolate criminal elements still committed to violence.
At the same time, the government must show firmness. Peace should never become an excuse for impunity. Those who reject dialogue and continue to attack innocent people must face decisive military action.
The ultimate goal should be a comprehensive strategy that combines dialogue, justice, and development — not one at the expense of the others.
The ongoing peace process in Katsina is imperfect, but it is a step in the right direction. It offers breathing space to exhausted communities, reduces bloodshed, and opens doors for rebuilding trust.
The attacks that still occur are painful reminders of how complex the problem truly is — not evidence that peace has failed, but that it remains a fragile work in progress.
For now, both the government and the people must hold on to that fragile hope. Because even a shaky peace is better than endless war — and for the villagers of southern Katsina, it may be their only chance to live again.
Tags
Articles