The cultural and ethnic melding of Northern Nigeria’s Hausa and the Fulani people is so deep, so labyrinthine, so time-honored, and so unexampled that a fictitious ethnic category called the “Hausa-Fulani” was invented by Nigeria’s southern press to describe the emergent ethnic alchemy it has produced.
Northern intellectuals resented the label at first. For example, the late Dr. Yusufu Bala Usman, the famously iconoclastic professor of history at the Ahmadu Bello University who was ethnically Fulani and who was the scion of the Katsina and Kano royal families, condemned the hyphenation of Hausa and Fulani as both ill-willed and ignorant.
But several Northern Nigerian elites of Hausa and Fulani filiation have now enthusiastically embraced it. President Muhammadu Buhari, for instance, told the Weekly Trust in 1999 that he loved the hyphenated Hausa-Fulani identity that the southern press invented because it encapsulates the complexity of his own identity. His father is Fulani while his mother is half Kanuri and half Hausa.
More than that, though, Buhari is culturally and linguistically Hausa. Like most people in Nigeria’s northwest who trace patrilineal bloodline to the Fulani (including most of the emirs), he doesn’t speak a lick of Fulfulde (as the language of the Fulani is called in Nigeria) and is completely divorced from the culture of the “unmingled” Fulani who now live mostly in Nigeria’s northeast and in the bushes elsewhere in the country.
Over the years, the northern political elite not only used the common Islamic heritage of the Hausa and the Fulani people as an instrument to construct and cement the notion of an undivided and indivisible Hausa-Fulani identity, they also encouraged other parts of the country to see them as one, undifferentiated people.
In time, the rest of the country came to regard the Hausa and the Fulani as indistinguishable. A popular quip among the Yoruba says, “Gambari pa Fulani ko lejo ninu,” which roughly translates as “If a Hausa person kills a Fulani person, there is no case,” implying that the Hausa and the Fulani are homogenous people whose internal strife are no more than evanescent, resolvable sibling squabble.
But the emergence and unabating intensification of kidnapping for ransom and other forms of rural and urban banditry in the Northwest where most of the villains are Fulani and most of the victims are Hausa are rupturing the centuries-old ethnic harmony between the Hausa and the Fulani that Nigerians had taken for granted.
In response to the rural and urban banditry by mostly Fulani brigands against Hausa people, Hausa people have formed vigilante groups called yan sakai or yan banga for self-defense, but Fulani people say the yan banga self-defense groups often indiscriminately murder innocent Fulani people who are not even remotely connected with abductions and murders.
This has provoked an endless cycle of recriminations and retaliatory violence between Hausa and Fulani people and is threatening the age-old, Islam-inspired ethnic fusion between them.
This has been going on for years under the radar of the national and international media until BBC’s BBC Africa Eye brought it to the forefront of global attention in its Jul 24, 2022, documentary titled “The Bandit Warlords of Zamfara.” The documentary showed that although the Hausa and the Fulani share a common culture, religion, heritage, and language, they are, for the most part, divided and rarely mix in rural areas. They fight over land, water, and food.
Self-confessed Fulani bandits told the BBC that Hausa people enjoy preferential treatments in government jobs, that Fulani people face discrimination in the formal sector in northern Nigeria, and that kidnapping, banditry, and indiscriminate mass murders were the only way they could call attention to their neglect.
Following the documentary, which so unsettled the Nigerian government that local TV stations that rebroadcast it were fined, there has been an open discussion, particularly in Arewa social media circles, of hitherto culturally taboo subjects such as whether Usman Dan Fodio whose jihad inaugurated the current Fulani ruling families in much of Muslim northern Nigeria was a Hausa-hating Fulani ethnic supremacist.
Islam had been centuries old and already deeply entrenched in Hausa land before Usman Dan Fodio’s nineteenth-century jihad, which many historians have called a “Fulani war.” The well-regarded seventeenth-century Songhai Muslim scholar by the name of Ahmad Baba, for instance, had recognized Hausa land as a bastion of Islam.
In a 1613 essay titled, “Al-kashf wa-l-bayān li-aṣnāfmajlūb al-Sūdān” (translated into English as “The Exposition and Explanation Concerning the Varieties of Transported Black Africans”), he wrote that “the people of Kano, some of Zakzak [Zaria], the people of Katsina, the people of Gobir, and all of the Songhay” lived under ideal Islamic rule and could never be enslaved by other Muslims.
About 200 years later, when Dan Fodio decided to “reform” the Islam he met in Hausa land, he repudiated the Islam that the Hausa people had practiced. In his 1806 treatise titled “Bayan Wujub Al-Hijra, Ala L-Ibad,” Dan Fodio rebutted Ahmad Baba’s thesis by asserting that what was true of Hausa land when Ahmad Baba wrote, “might not necessarily be true at all other times, since every scholar relates what he sees in his own days.” Dan Fodio’s son, Muhammad Bello, also wrote Infaq al-mansur in 1813, exactly 200 years after Ahmad Baba, and contested the notion that Hausa land was ruled by Islamic precepts.
Now, in everyday dialogic engagements on social media, in the marketplace, and in the streets, Hausa and Fulani people are openly talking about the jihad and its decidedly ethnic character. Hausa people are asking why all the emirs that emerged from the jihad, except for that of Bauchi, were Fulani. (Emirs in Borgu in Kwara and Niger states are not the product of the jihad and are not Fulani.)
These questions are especially important because the Fulani emirs who dislodged Hausa Muslim rulers have been doing exactly what the Hausa Muslim rulers were accused of by Fulani jihadists—keeping multiple wives and concubines, oppressing everyday folks called the talakawa, believing and partaking in fortunetelling, etc. Besides, in Islam, leadership isn’t hereditary, so Hausa people are asking why a supposedly Islamic jihad has entrenched Fulani ethnic monarchies to the exclusion of the native Hausa populations.
These debates aren’t new, of course. For example, in a June 30, 2000, article titled “The Fulani Factor in Nigerian Politics” published in the Weekly Trust, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi (who later became the emir of Kano on June 8, 2014, and was dethroned on March 9, 2020) caused a stir among not just other Nigerians but also among Hausa people when he said although the Fulani in northern Nigeria have lost their language and culture to the Hausa, they still cherish the irreproducible cultural and genetic distinctiveness that their ethnic identity imbues them with.
He isolated Nigerian leaders of putative Fulani line of descent—Ahmadu Bello, Shehu Shagari, Murtala Mohammed, and Muhammadu Buhari—whom he said even their “greatest enemies” respect because they supposedly embodied incomparable and uniquely Fulani values (even when they are/were not culturally Fulani).
He pointed out that the same could not be said of “other prominent non-Fulani contemporaries of these great men,” including military Head of State Ibrahim Babangida, who is Hausa, and Sani Abacha, who was Kanuri but born and raised in Kano. Sanusi then said the Fulani are “culturally programmed, generation after generation, to imbibe the best spirits of what makes good leadership, to a far greater extent than competing cultures.”
Garba Shehu, now a spokesperson for President Muhammadu Buhari, who is ethnically Hausa from Jigawa, was incensed. In a response titled “Sanusi’s Racist Rubbish” on July 7, 2000, Shehu wrote: “When I read Sanusi L. Sanusi’s article ‘The Fulani Factor in Nigerian Politics’…I came away with the feeling that the writer wanted to do one of two things: to either be ridiculous or to insult all of us who are not Fulani with some racist crap.”
Shehu invalidated Sanusi’s ethnic supremacist notion of a Fulani culture that makes Fulani people such good, just leaders by calling attention to the atrocities that were perpetuated against Hausa people by Fulani emirs—or what he called the “well-documented acts of brigandage” by the “Fulani oligarchy”— which instigated the emergence of the Northern Elements Progressives Union (NEPU).
“Where was he when the late Sa’adu Zungur, Aminu Kano, and company fought Fulani rulers who forced Hausa peasants to work the emirs’ farms, snatched wives, plundered what was kept in their trust, and appropriated/mismanaged farmlands and other resources belonging to their subjects?” Shehu wrote.
These sorts of emotive brickbats between everyday Hausa and Fulani people are escalating and becoming mainstream in the aftermath of the bloodstained conflict between Hausa farmers and Fulani herders. In fact, there are now calls, from both Hausa and Fulani interlocutors, for the reformation of the emirate system to strip emirship of its exclusivity to people of Fulani ancestry.
I think these are transitory, spur-of-the-moment tensile pushes and pulls that may soon abate, but it’s astonishing that it’s even happening.
The phrase “Who will bell the cat?” originates from a medieval fable about mice who decided to put a bell on a cat to warn them of its approach.
However, they realize that the difficult part is finding a volunteer to actually bell the cat.
The story is a classic fable that teaches a valuable lesson about courage, responsibility, and the challenges of implementing a good idea.
In modern usage, the phrase is often used metaphorically to ask who will take bold action or assume responsibility for a difficult or risky task.
In the story, a group of mice gather to discuss ways to protect themselves from a sly cat that has been terrorizing them.
One clever mouse suggests attaching a bell to the cat’s neck, so the mice can hear it coming and scurry to safety.
The plan seems brilliant, but when the mice are asked who will actually bell the cat, no one volunteers.
Here lies the challenge, everyone was scared of being the victim. The mice realize that it’s easy to propose a plan, but much harder to put it into action, especially when it involves risk.
This fable highlights the importance of considering the practicalities and potential consequences of a plan, as well as the need for courage and willingness to take action.
This is the reality we have found ourselves in modern day Nigeria.
Everyone is complaining, complaining and lamenting about the harsh economic and political disequilibrium, yet no one is bold enough or has summoned the gut to take charge and offer a real solution to the present socio-economic quagmire.
Every day on various social media, the ranting is hitting the high heavens, ceilings are being shattered and walls are being broken by people, mostly the common man, about the state of affairs in the country.
Unfortunately, and like the proverbial mice, no one seems to have summoned the courage to face the Intimidators of the large chunk of the people.
Many of those caught in this web of animal oppression have been divided along fault lines, including politics, tribe, ethnicity and worst of all, religion.
Whether we belong to one religious group, political party or ethnicity is inconsequential because the harsh economy is hitting hard on everyone.
Everyone is complaining, complaining and lamenting about the harsh economic and political disequilibrium, yet no one is bold enough or has summoned the gut to take charge and offer a real solution to the present socio-economic quagmire.
People are on a daily basis dropping dead, either by committing suicide or accidental, because they cannot afford the basic needs of life such as food.
While the political leaders have been fingered as the architect of this present economic circumstance, the reality existing among the followers who in this context can be likened to the mice, is that most of them have not been able to summon the courage to take action.
At best what we hear is false courage on social media, people hiding under pseudonyms to call on unsuspecting and naive Nigerians to go out and cause mayhem, yet these same faceless groups of people oftentimes turn around to betray the people’s trust.
And When groups or individuals in positions of power prioritize their own interests over the trust placed on them, it can lead to feelings of betrayal and disillusionment.
This phenomenon can be seen in various contexts, including politics, business, and social movements.
When leaders or representatives fail to uphold their responsibilities or act with integrity, it can erode trust and undermine the relationships between those in power and the people they serve.
To mitigate these risks, it’s essential to establish robust systems of accountability, transparency, and checks and balances.
This can help ensure that those in power act in the best interests of the people they serve and not make them live like the proverbial MICE seeking for a VOLUNTEER to bell the CAT
•Emeka Monye Is A Journalist And Works With ARISE NEWS
Earlier today, a clip surfaced online showing French President Emmanuel Macron being pushed on the cheek by his wife, Brigitte Macron.
What should have sparked outrage, concern, and deep conversations around domestic violence was instead reduced to meme fodder and crude jokes.
The reaction has been as swift as it has been disturbing: mockery, laughter, judgment, and the ever familiar chorus of
“That’s what he gets for marrying his teacher.”And just like that, a moment that should have highlighted a very real issue, domestic violence against men, was drowned in ridicule. No hashtags. No public outcry.
No feminist organizations stepping forward. No nonprofit issuing a statement. Just silence. Deafening silence.Abuse is abuse, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the victim.
If the roles were reversed, if President Macron had slapped or pushed Brigitte Macron, there would be protests.
There would be hashtags. There would be fire and fury from advocacy groups.
The world would come to a standstill demanding accountability and protection for women, and rightly so.
But when it is a man, a world leader no less, experiencing what can only be described as a moment of public humiliation and physical aggression, the same voices fall silent.
Why? Because society has normalized the idea that men are too strong to be victims.
That their pain is comical. That their abuse is somehow deserved. And so, they suffer not just in silence but in isolation and shame.
President Macron has long been the subject of public scrutiny because of his marriage.
This age gap, had the roles been reversed, would be celebrated as empowerment or love defying the odds. But for him, it is used as a weapon to justify abuse.
And now, when a moment of violence occurs, it is brushed off with a laugh, as if his choices have made him unworthy of dignity or protection.
This is the very heart of the crisis.
Men continue to die in silence because the world refuses to see them as victims. They are mocked when they cry out. They are told to “man up” when they break down.
They are dismissed when they seek help. This stigma is not only cruel; it is deadly. Because behind the jokes are real men, fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, who endure violence every day with no one to fight for them, no one to believe them, and no safe space to heal.
Domestic violence affects men in ways that are deeply traumatic but rarely acknowledged.
Male victims often experience depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation.
They are less likely to report abuse due to fear of not being believed or being seen as weak.
Many have nowhere to go. There are far fewer shelters for men, far fewer support systems, and almost no targeted campaigns offering help.
Men are suffering, and they are doing so alone.We need more men’s initiatives, more safe houses, more trained professionals who understand the psychological and emotional toll of abuse on men.
We need funding for shelters that serve male survivors, just as we fund shelters for women. These are not competing needs.
They are shared needs. Human needs.Mainstream media must rise above the culture of mockery and begin to treat violence against men as the serious issue it is.
This is not a laughing matter. When men are assaulted, their experiences should not become viral punchlines.
They should become urgent stories, stories that call us to confront our biases and open our eyes to the full scope of domestic abuse.
Governments also have a role to play. Policy must reflect the reality that domestic violence affects all genders.
This is not a laughing matter. When men are assaulted, their experiences should not become viral punchlines
Funding for prevention, shelters, legal aid, and trauma support should be inclusive.
It is unjust to pour millions into protecting women while completely overlooking the pain of men.
Protection should never be selective. Support should never be conditional.
If a government truly cares about the safety and mental health of its citizens, then male victims of abuse must be seen, heard, and supported with the same energy and investment.
President Macron’s case was domestic violence on full display, and it is not acceptable.
The world watched it happen. And the world laughed.
But one day, maybe not today, we must ask ourselves what kind of society we are building, one where men’s suffering is the punchline, or one where every victim matters.
It is time we stop treating abuse as a gendered issue and start treating it as a human one.
Because until we do, men will keep dying in silence, while the world keeps laughing.
•Halima Layeni Men’s Mental Health Advocate Executive Director Life After Abuse Foundation
Nigeria Must Prioritize Local Defense Contractors for National Security and Economic Growth
While Nigeria strives for self-reliance and national security, its defense procurement landscape remains heavily tilted in favour of foreign contractors.
Despite the growing capacity among Indigenous defense firms, Nigeria continues to favor foreign contractors.
This pattern threatens long-term national security, economic independence, and local innovation.
While Nigeria strives for self-reliance and national security, its defense procurement landscape remains heavily tilted in favour of foreign contractors.
Despite significant strides in capacity development, manufacturing, design, and operational capability, Nigerian-owned defense companies face systemic bias and limited access to government contracts.
This preference for foreign contractors and solutions incurs costs: economically, strategically, and technologically.
If Nigeria is committed to developing a robust, sovereign, and exportable defense industry, it must start by prioritizing local contractors.
FOREIGN FIRMS STILL GET THE FIRST CALL
Today, many Nigerian companies have developed capacity.
They offer reliable, innovative, and scalable solutions, including the production of sensitive equipment/systems, tactical vehicles, protective gear, and training facilities.
Yet, when the time comes for procurement, tenders and negotiations disproportionately favour foreign companies and suppliers.
These foreign firms are not only awarded high-value contracts but are often given easier access to key decision-makers.
Local companies, by contrast, face endless social and political hurdles: excessive scrutiny, limited engagement from end-users, and a lack of pilot opportunities to prove their systems in the field.
THE COST OF MARGINALISING OUR LOCAL INDUSTRY
The consequences of this procurement imbalance are far-reaching:
Capital Flight:
Nigeria loses billions annually by supporting foreign companies instead of helping Nigerian-owned businesses.
This practice enriches foreigners economically and denies local firms the opportunity to collaborate with international partners, which could enhance technology transfer, experience, and knowledge-sharing.
Job Loss:
Neglecting local defense companies negatively impacts the Nigerian economy and leads to job losses.
Manufacturing opportunities that could employ thousands of Nigerian youth are instead given to foreign factories, resulting in the creation and maintenance of valuable jobs overseas that could have been retained in Nigeria.
Technology Dependence:
Relying on foreign suppliers undermines Nigeria’s ability to develop, control, or modify critical defence platforms.
When Nigerian companies receive support, they are encouraged to strengthen partnerships with foreign technology partners, who can provide training and opportunities for technology transfer.
This strategy is essential for helping Nigerian companies develop the necessary technology more quickly.
Export Inhibition:
Without domestic validation, Nigerian-made defense products face challenges in entering foreign markets.
Nigeria aims to promote exports across all sectors.
For exportation to be successful, our products and solutions must meet international standards.
The export of Nigerian defense products will struggle unless these items are first given a chance to succeed in Nigeria.
We need to develop our local industry, validate our products, and then actively launch them into regional and continental markets.
BRAZIL AND INDIA: CASE STUDIES IN STRATEGIC PATRONAGE
Countries such as Brazil and India have demonstrated how intentional local patronage can foster globally competitive defense industries.
In Brazil, companies like Embraer and IMBEL grew under government-backed contracts and patronage.
The Brazilian Armed Forces committed to buying local, even when products were still under development and maturing.
Today, Brazil exports military aircraft and arms globally and has become a respected defense manufacturer.
Nigerian companies require more than just praise; they need patronage. Securing contracts, creating opportunities, and engaging in long-term planning are essential for our local defense firms to thrive.
India’s ‘Make in India’ initiative transformed its defense sector by mandating local sourcing.
Companies like Bharat Forge, TATA Advanced Systems, and Larsen & Toubro received long-term government backing, which allowed them to scale and improve.
India now produces high-quality drones, tanks, and artillery systems with export potential.
The lesson is clear: Nations that support local firms boost their economies, strengthen national defense, and enhance global influence.
A CALL FOR REORIENTATION IN NIGERIA
Nigerian companies require more than just praise; they need patronage. Securing contracts, creating opportunities, and engaging in long-term planning are essential for our local defense firms to thrive.
We call on the Nigerian Armed Forces, the Ministry of Defence, the Police, and all relevant government agencies to:
Adopt a Local-First Procurement Policy: Allocate a specific percentage of all defense procurement contracts to Nigerian companies.
Award Contracts for Capability and Growth:
Support local businesses by placing genuine orders instead of merely making promises or running pilot tests.
Various procurement models can be utilized to encourage the growth of local companies while minimizing risks for buyers.
We urge the Armed Forces and relevant purchasers to explore these models in the interest of our collective growth.
Foster Strategic Partnerships with Local Leadership:
The federal government, the armed forces, the police, and all other buyers should require foreign companies to partner with Nigerian companies to secure contracts.
Similar to the laws in places like Dubai, foreign companies should not be eligible to secure defense contracts in Nigeria directly.
They must partner with Nigerian defense companies to facilitate knowledge transfer and equity sharing with Nigerian firms.
Create End-User Incentives:
Encourage military and police leaders to implement solutions made in Nigeria and provide rewards for successful adoption.
Establish a Nigerian Defence Development Fund:
The government should create a Nigerian Defence Development Fund to provide long-term capital to local firms for research and development, infrastructure, and certifications.
THE TIME IS NOW
Nigeria’s future security needs to be developed within the country. This requires us to trust our own companies and local initiatives to provide the solutions we need.
Like Brazil and India, we must be willing to support homegrown solutions and products through their early challenges, understanding that true mastery comes with experienced local companies cannot thrive on encouragement alone—they require contracts, partnerships, and a long-term belief from their own country.
We possess the talent, ambition, and drive. What we need now is opportunity.
If Nigeria aims to become a true continental power in defense and technology, the change must begin with a simple decision:
Buy Nigerian, trust Nigerian, and defend Nigerian.
• This article was written by Bem Ibrahim Garba, a defense industry professional and advocate for indigenous industrial growth in Nigeria.
News2 days ago
Business2 days ago
News1 day ago
Sports3 days ago
Opinions2 days ago
Politics2 days ago
News1 day ago
News1 day ago