Sheikh Gumi, The Untouchable?

By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D

For years, one name has occupied a deeply controversial space within Nigeria’s insecurity conversation. Ahmad Gumi.

To his supporters, he is a mediator attempting to build dialogue with armed bandits in order to reduce bloodshed. But to his critics, Sheikh Gumi represents something far more troubling: a symbol of the Nigerian state’s selective approach toward insecurity, accountability and public outrage.

And whether fair or unfair, it has produced a dangerous national question many Nigerians increasingly whisper openly: Is Sheikh Gumi untouchable?

That question resurfaced strongly last week following reactions to comments allegedly made by the cleric during a television appearance in which he reportedly urged Nigerians to “learn how to live with terrorists” while discussing banditry and insecurity.

The comments generated immediate outrage. Among the strongest reactions came from the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria, which accused the Federal Government of what it described as “dangerous silence and double standards” regarding controversial remarks allegedly linked to terrorism narratives.

Whether fair or unfair, perception itself has now become part of Nigeria’s insecurity crisis. Ordinarily, dialogue itself is not criminal.

Around the world, governments confronting insurgencies have at different times relied on intermediaries, negotiators and unofficial back channel contacts as part of broader efforts to manage violence, open communication pathways or pursue de escalation.

However, the problem in Nigeria, has always been consistency and transparency. Many Nigerians struggled to understand why a country aggressively prosecuting some citizens for alleged separatist rhetoric or terrorism related offences appeared simultaneously comfortable with a cleric publicly interacting with heavily armed groups responsible for mass abductions, killings and rural terror. That contradiction fuelled suspicion.

Public outrage intensified even further after Sheikh Gumi reacted to the reported killing of ISIS commander Abu Bilal al Minuki by declaring that “it’s a religious obligation to annihilate terrorists, but not with Beelzebub and hands stained with the blood of innocent men, women and children.”

Whether intended as a broader moral critique of warfare or not, the statement generated backlash because many Nigerians interpreted it as an extraordinary rebuke of security forces at a time the country was celebrating the elimination of a notorious terror figure.

The controversy surrounding Sheikh Gumi became even more complicated after the cleric publicly stated on different occasions that security agencies and government officials were aware of, and sometimes facilitated, his visits into forests to meet armed groups described as bandits and kidnappers.

Those revelations deepened public confusion considerably. To many Nigerians, such disclosures appeared extraordinary. At a time when communities were being devastated by abductions and killings, the idea that a private cleric could openly claim access to violent groups with the knowledge or accompaniment of state actors raised uncomfortable questions about Nigeria’s engagement strategy with armed non state actors.

Yet the government never fully clarified the precise framework of those engagements. And in national security matters, ambiguity is rarely neutral. It either builds confidence or destroys it.

The arrest and ongoing prosecution of Tukur Mamu further complicated public perception around Sheikh Gumi’s engagements. Fairly or unfairly, many Nigerians began drawing uncomfortable inferences around the cleric’s broader network of contacts and intermediaries.

In many African societies, there is an old proverb that says when a man cannot confront a powerful master directly, he targets the master’s favourite goat instead.

Whether or not that analogy is fair in this context is ultimately a matter of opinion. But the symbolism surrounding Mamu’s prosecution undoubtedly deepened public suspicion and intensified scrutiny around Sheikh Gumi’s controversial role within Nigeria’s insecurity discourse. This is where the deeper issue lies.

The Sheikh Gumi controversy is no longer merely about one cleric.
It is about Nigeria’s credibility problem in confronting insecurity.
Because citizens judge governments not only by what they say, but by consistency.

Once people begin perceiving that some individuals enjoy unusual flexibility around sensitive national security issues while others face swift state action, confidence in institutional neutrality begins to weaken.

Many Nigerians now view the Gumi phenomenon as symbolic of a broader national inconsistency in the management of insecurity, where some actors are swiftly profiled and aggressively pursued as threats to national security, while others appear to operate within unusually elastic public boundaries despite deeply controversial associations and engagements.

Whether accurate or not, that perception has become politically significant. HiEspecially in a nation already battling distrust, ethnic suspicion and accusations of selective justice.

A state fighting terrorism and banditry cannot afford credibility gaps around enforcement standards. Citizens must believe the rules apply consistently, transparently and fairly.

To be fair, there has never been any public judicial finding establishing Sheikh Gumi as a sponsor of terrorism or participant in violent crimes.

That distinction matters and must be respected within any lawful society. Criticism cannot replace evidence. Suspicion cannot replace due process.

Yet it is equally true that troubling, repeated and security sensitive public interventions by influential figures within an active insurgency environment may legitimately attract scrutiny under Nigeria’s counterterrorism framework.

Gumi’s statements may not automatically prove criminal liability, but they are sufficiently troubling, repeated and security sensitive to warrant formal investigation under Nigeria’s counterterrorism framework.
That, ultimately, is the distinction many Nigerians believe the state has failed to clarify.

The Gumi debate also exposes another uncomfortable reality about Nigeria’s insecurity crisis.
The state itself sometimes appears uncertain whether banditry should be treated primarily as terrorism, criminality, socio economic grievance or negotiable insurgency.

That confusion has shaped inconsistent responses over the years: military offensives, amnesty discussions, ransom controversies, negotiation efforts,
and conflicting political rhetoric.

Within that uncertainty, figures like Sheikh Gumi emerged into influential but controversial spaces. To some, he is a courageous intermediary entering dangerous territories where government failed. To others, he symbolises the dangerous normalisation of engagement with violent actors without sufficient accountability or moral clarity.

But ultimately, the larger issue is not even Sheikh Gumi himself. It is the Nigerian state. Because no democracy can sustainably fight insecurity while simultaneously allowing confusion around who represents authority, who speaks unofficially, who negotiates privately and where the boundaries of acceptable engagement truly lie.

That uncertainty creates dangerous grey zones. And insecurity thrives inside grey zones. If Nigeria genuinely believes dialogue remains necessary in confronting certain violent groups, then such processes must be transparent, structured and institutionally defined.

But if the state believes certain actors crossed ethical or legal boundaries, then silence and ambiguity only deepen public suspicion.

One thing, however, is certain.
Insecurity has already damaged Nigeria’s territorial confidence.
The country cannot also afford prolonged damage to institutional confidence.

Because when citizens begin believing that some individuals are effectively beyond scrutiny in matters touching national security, it weakens belief in the neutrality of the state itself.
And that may be one of the most dangerous insecurities of all.

Dr Lemmy Ughegbe, FIMC, CMC
lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645